Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: bz on 20 Jun 2005 09:09 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:593cb11u96uthrvmkgppdsh4kka6i4baa8(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:42:30 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:vec9b1pru8shga2inuu5mrve6hlii79k4b(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:08:05 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:chc6b15452se3bmfp7ksok4ge39vv8mi67(a)4ax.com: ..... >>>>Multiple images does not equate to extinction. >>> >>> No..but early extinction will prevent mupltiple images from even >>> appearing. >> >>That is an unsupported postulate. >>Gravity lens multiple images have been observed. > > Popssibly. > How do you know it wasn't just an optical lensing efect? There doesn't appear to be anything present to cause such an effect. >>>>That is how you are interpreting the curves, not what they show. >>> >>> Bob, I have exactly matched RT Aur's velocity and brightness curves >>> using precise BaT principles. >>> Trouble is, the predicted distance is way out...or the radial velocity >>> is completely wrong, which is less likely. >> >>Or one or more of your assumptions. >> >>> So my conclusion is that the light speeds become unified as they >>> travel through space. That concept just happens to be a feature of my >>> H-aether theory too.. >> >>Postulate. > > I am working on my program again right now. It will hopefully be > improved even further. Good. >>>>It can come very close. >>> >>> Think about that Bob. >>> The program allows you to see the relative positions of 30000 (or >>> 60000) light pulses emitted around an orbit, as they travel. The >>> pulses move at c+v where v is the star's insantaneous radial velocity >>> at the time of emission. >> >>I have thought about it. The program crunches numbers. You tell it how >>to cruch and you decide what those numbers mean. >> >>IF the numbers are crunched the way you intend, then the numbers may or >>may not mean what you think they do. >> >>Even if they mean what you think, they may have no correspondence to >>reality. > > The equations are not manufactured by me. They describe the BaT > principles. That does not mean they are right. >>I have fitted equations to data many times. A good fit is necessary but >>not sufficient. >> >>If you put enough parameters in, you can fit any set of data. That does >>not mean that the parameters you get from the fit have any meaning. > > Nonsense. The equations in the program are quite specific and unique. LACK of fit IS evidence that the equation is wrong. In another article I showed you an equation and parameters that give a good fit. Give me the data points for a kitchen sink and I can find several equations that will fit it. A fit is not evidence that the equation is right. ..... >>>>>The BaT effect as shown by your program INCREASES as you get further >>>>from the emitting stars. >>> >>> The prediction does...but the observations suggest extinction kicks >>> in. >> >>You implied that your program predicted the extinction. >> >>Now you indicate that the curves stop looking as you would like after 20 >>LYs. >> >>When you take that to mean that extinction kicks in, you are adding a >>new postulate. > > It isn't new. It is very old. I merely provide some support for the > idea. It needs more support. >>> If a star is known to be 1000LYs away and the program exactly matches >>> its curve at 20 LYs, then I am concluding that extinction has almost >>> completely unified the c+v an c-v speeds by 20LYs. The same curve >>> would be seen by all observers beyond 20 LYs. >> >>Do the curves for all stars look correct at 20 LYs? > > I haven't had time to check...but I think the curves I DID examine for > other stars were exaggerated at their known distances. I think you are right. Log scale may remove some of the exaggeration. >>> This is not a new idea. A fellow named Fox, in the 60s,( I think) >>> literally made DeSitter's 'disproof' of the BaT extinct, with >>> 'extinction'. >> >>He found a rationalization to explain the lack of BaT observation. >> >>There is a simpler explaination for the lack of BaT observations. > > DeSitter was wrong. Lots of people think they are right and turn out to be wrong. It is no sin. Show how DeSitter was wrong and you gain credibility. Assert he was wrong and you lose credibility. >>> They could not possibly ALL be coincidence...along with the other >>> evidence. >> >>If ALL the parameters for a few dozen stars matched with the currently >>published data, then you could start saying 'they could not possibly all >>be coincidence'. > > I will eventually get around to looking at more known cases. > Right now I am trying to streamline the program and give it more power. Good. >>> You can see how easy it is to find a 'reason' in astrophysics. >> >>The explanation must be reasonable and match all known data. >> >>> It is a bit like economics. Anyone can come up with an unlikely >>> theory, knowing full well that it cannot be tested easily, if at all. >> >>Exactly the point I have been trying to make about BaT and your excuses >>for why BaT and >>C and <<c photons have never been observed. > > But the means have never been available to detect them. That's good > enough for me. What do you say it will take to detect them? Asserting that the means have not been available is not sufficient. You must explain what is needed and expain how what has been used is not sufficient. ..... >>What ever the figure is, I would be willing to bet that we can achieve >>the necessary pressure in the laboratory to simulate a distance of much >>less than 10 LY. > > Never. > Your space has to be devoid of 'fields' as well as molecules. Actually since stars have huge electic fields and huge magnetic fields and consists of huge amounts of mass, ANY effects due to electric fields, magnetic fields, 'mass effects' etc., will either work just as well in the laboratory as in a star or will be unobservable in both, along with BaT. Since in a particle accelerator, the particles AND the electric and magnetic fields are moving together, you can NOT logically say that those fields will interfer with c'=c+v photon emission in the lab but not in a star. >>That implies we should be able to observe sub/super luminal photons in >>the laboratory and by using your data[assuming it has any meaning] we >>know just what we need to do. > > Don't bet on it. I would bet that you would say it won't work. You can't WIN with BaT until you are willing to accept that an experiment which is actually do-able can invalidate BaT. It is only after we agree that it CAN invalidate BaT that it can possibly SUPPORT BaT. ANYTHING which can NOT invalidate BaT can not support it. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 20 Jun 2005 18:25 On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:47:40 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:dv2cb1h306g3shfult21bpga6a656k11l5(a)4ax.com: > >>>> >>>> Yes, all ellipses with the same eccentricity have the same shape by >>>> definition but as M1 is increased wrt M2, the relatives size of the >>>> two orbits changes accordingly. >>> >>>The barycenter moves closer to the center of the more massive star. >>>We also need to consider the radius of the stars which will be dependent >>>on mass and density. > >> For the purposes of gravitational force, homogeneous spherical masses >> act as though all their matter is located at their geometric centres. >> Not so for other shapes and density distributions. > >Right. But distributed masses MOVE under the influence of the motion of the >barycenter. Such motion disturbs the surface of the stars, making them non >spherical. Deviations from sphericality produce visible effects in the >spectral emission lines. I suppose that close stars in highly eccentric orbits would experience quite severe distortions ...and yes, maybe the radial speeds of these tidal movements would be detectable. But I doubt if that is generally the case. The speeds would be too small. > >You wont hame homogeneous spherical masses. You will have huge tidal forces >causing drag and rapid changes in orbital parameters. This argues against >long term stable periods for Henri Cepheids. But long term stable periods are observed. How do you account for that? The BaT predicts that the period might change slowly and at a constant rate. All theories relying on gaseous turbulent diffusion or chaotic processes should predict an unsteady period, centering on a fairly constant mean. >> >> How can you explain why the radial velocity of a cepheid is exactly that >> of a star moving in elliptical orbit, e=~0.25? >> >> Why should your choo-choo star puff elliptically? > >It doesn't. It oscillates with a radial velocity similar to that which >would be observed in a star orbiting an impossible mass. > >Sanity checks on the numbers are necessary. The radial velocity curve of RT Aur is exactly that of a star in elliptical orbit, with e=0.25 and perihelion furthest from the observer. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 20 Jun 2005 18:49 On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:09:11 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:593cb11u96uthrvmkgppdsh4kka6i4baa8(a)4ax.com: > >> >> Popssibly. >> How do you know it wasn't just an optical lensing efect? > >There doesn't appear to be anything present to cause such an effect. > > >>>>>That is how you are interpreting the curves, not what they show. >>>> >>>> Bob, I have exactly matched RT Aur's velocity and brightness curves >>>> using precise BaT principles. >>>> Trouble is, the predicted distance is way out...or the radial velocity >>>> is completely wrong, which is less likely. >>> >>>Or one or more of your assumptions. >>> >>>> So my conclusion is that the light speeds become unified as they >>>> travel through space. That concept just happens to be a feature of my >>>> H-aether theory too.. >>> >>>Postulate. >> >> I am working on my program again right now. It will hopefully be >> improved even further. > >Good. > >>>>>It can come very close. >>>> >>>> Think about that Bob. >>>> The program allows you to see the relative positions of 30000 (or >>>> 60000) light pulses emitted around an orbit, as they travel. The >>>> pulses move at c+v where v is the star's insantaneous radial velocity >>>> at the time of emission. >>> >>>I have thought about it. The program crunches numbers. You tell it how >>>to cruch and you decide what those numbers mean. >>> >>>IF the numbers are crunched the way you intend, then the numbers may or >>>may not mean what you think they do. >>> >>>Even if they mean what you think, they may have no correspondence to >>>reality. >> >> The equations are not manufactured by me. They describe the BaT >> principles. > >That does not mean they are right. They are. ...and it also means they cannot produce any curve I would like to manufacture.. > >>>I have fitted equations to data many times. A good fit is necessary but >>>not sufficient. >>> >>>If you put enough parameters in, you can fit any set of data. That does >>>not mean that the parameters you get from the fit have any meaning. >> >> Nonsense. The equations in the program are quite specific and unique. > >LACK of fit IS evidence that the equation is wrong. They DO fit. > >In another article I showed you an equation and parameters that give a good >fit. Give me the data points for a kitchen sink and I can find several >equations that will fit it. A fit is not evidence that the equation is >right. In this case it is pretty good evidence. >>> >>>When you take that to mean that extinction kicks in, you are adding a >>>new postulate. >> >> It isn't new. It is very old. I merely provide some support for the >> idea. > >It needs more support. > >>>> If a star is known to be 1000LYs away and the program exactly matches >>>> its curve at 20 LYs, then I am concluding that extinction has almost >>>> completely unified the c+v an c-v speeds by 20LYs. The same curve >>>> would be seen by all observers beyond 20 LYs. >>> >>>Do the curves for all stars look correct at 20 LYs? >> >> I haven't had time to check...but I think the curves I DID examine for >> other stars were exaggerated at their known distances. > >I think you are right. Log scale may remove some of the exaggeration. > >>>> This is not a new idea. A fellow named Fox, in the 60s,( I think) >>>> literally made DeSitter's 'disproof' of the BaT extinct, with >>>> 'extinction'. >>> >>>He found a rationalization to explain the lack of BaT observation. >>> >>>There is a simpler explaination for the lack of BaT observations. >> >> DeSitter was wrong. > >Lots of people think they are right and turn out to be wrong. It is no sin. >Show how DeSitter was wrong and you gain credibility. Assert he was wrong >and you lose credibility. Fox already has. I have also explained why he could have been wrong. >>>Exactly the point I have been trying to make about BaT and your excuses >>>for why BaT and >>C and <<c photons have never been observed. >> >> But the means have never been available to detect them. That's good >> enough for me. > >What do you say it will take to detect them? Asserting that the means have >not been available is not sufficient. You must explain what is needed and >expain how what has been used is not sufficient. For a start, there is probably no point in looking for them on Earth. >>>What ever the figure is, I would be willing to bet that we can achieve >>>the necessary pressure in the laboratory to simulate a distance of much >>>less than 10 LY. >> >> Never. >> Your space has to be devoid of 'fields' as well as molecules. > >Actually since stars have huge electic fields and huge magnetic fields and >consists of huge amounts of mass, ANY effects due to electric fields, >magnetic fields, 'mass effects' etc., will either work just as well in the >laboratory as in a star or will be unobservable in both, along with BaT. That's what appears to happen. Individual molecular source velocities are dampened out very quickly. > >Since in a particle accelerator, the particles AND the electric and >magnetic fields are moving together, you can NOT logically say that those >fields will interfer with c'=c+v photon emission in the lab but not in a >star. > >>>That implies we should be able to observe sub/super luminal photons in >>>the laboratory and by using your data[assuming it has any meaning] we >>>know just what we need to do. >> >> Don't bet on it. > >I would bet that you would say it won't work. > >You can't WIN with BaT until you are willing to accept that an experiment >which is actually do-able can invalidate BaT. > >It is only after we agree that it CAN invalidate BaT that it can possibly >SUPPORT BaT. > >ANYTHING which can NOT invalidate BaT can not support it. I don't have to validate it. It is obvious that all starlight in the universe does not leave its source at c wrt little planet Earth. Why the hell should it? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Jerry on 20 Jun 2005 19:10 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:09:11 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >Lots of people think they are right and turn out to be wrong. It is no sin. > >Show how DeSitter was wrong and you gain credibility. Assert he was wrong > >and you lose credibility. > > Fox already has. > I have also explained why he could have been wrong. I have previously pointed out to you, that the same Fox whom you cite conducted an experiment designed specifically to avoid extinction effects. Result: c+v is wrong. Brecher conducted an analysis of binary pulsar data taking into account possible extinction effects. Result: c+v is wrong. Henri, EVERY PEER-REVIEWED EXPERIMENT AND EVERY PEER-REVIEWED ASTRONOMICAL ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT C+V IS WRONG. Are dozens of experimental physicists and astronomers misguided? Or only you? Occam's Razor says... (fill in the blank) Jerry
From: David Evens on 21 Jun 2005 05:11
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:39:32 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 04:45:47 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> >wrote: >>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 06:43:25 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:32:06 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >>>wrote: >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:hco3b19rlge9s4ss0nhatfn5lpj75rbfjc(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>>>>>The problem is that for any practicle size for the orgiting star(s), the >>>>>>orbital velocity will be MUCH higher than either 21 or 17 km/s to orbit >>>>>>in 5.36 days (much less the 3.7 days that RT Aur shows). >>>>> >>>>> have you considered that the orbit plane might be nearly perpendicular >>>>> to the LOS.....no! >>>> >>>>That doesn't help the stars orbit faster. >>>>Try putting the correct orbital velocity in AND the KNOWN orbital roll >>>>values. >>> >>>Take an orbit with a circumference of 300 million kms. >>> >>>To orbit once per day, the star would have to travel at 3E8/3E5/86400 >>>which is about 0.012c >>> >>>To orbit every five days, 0.0023c >>> >>>Fast but very possible. >>> >>>You woudn't want to get in the way of one! >> >>Indeed, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a system with a mass of >>between 1300 and 1400 solar masses (according to Kepler's 3rd Law). >>That's for the slow orbit. For the fast one, the required mass goes >>up to over 34000 solar masses. >> >Evens, have you ever seriously considered having a lobotomy? >....... from ear to ear, prefereably. Why are you still trying to spread the deusion that I might want to be more like you? >HW. >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong. |