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 21 Jun 2005 16:41 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119384381.260020.17490(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > bz wrote: > > An assertion is a claim unsupported by evidence. > > > That is quite correct. > > Now look at this assertion. > > "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to > travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to > A." > > > Look at it carefully. The whole of Einstein's relativity is built on > it. > > What else did you say? > > Fit is NOT evidence that the equation is right... > > No, it isn't is it? Arthur, I am afraid I am not sure what your point is. Are you arguing against what I said or supporting it? Are you claiming c'=c+v is correct? If so, what about all the experiments that have demonstrated that for c'=c+vk k must be a very small number? If not, what point are you trying to make? -- 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 21 Jun 2005 18:22 On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:36:42 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:l1geb1h9tr31h65v3k7vb8lhuvaj4078vp(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. > >They ARE detected in the cases where double stars with small orbits are >involved. > >http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/dsl.html > >> But I doubt if that is generally >> the case. The speeds would be too small. > >You can't have small speed and rapid cepheid cycles. If you assume cepheids >are multiple star systems, speed and rapid go together. > >>>You wont have 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. > >Some will be more steady, some will be less steady. Some Cepheids are very >unsteady. they migh not be 'cepheids'. >> All theories relying on gaseous turbulent diffusion or chaotic processes >> should predict an unsteady period, centering on a fairly constant mean. > >All theories relying on orbits predict that the emission/absorption lines >will be consistent throughout the cycle and will doppler shift together. > >Even in 1914 it had been established that cepheids did NOT satisfy this. >Changes were obsereve in the star atmosphere during the cycle. assuming Einsteiniana. > >>>> 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. > >volume = mass/density >radius = 1/(2 pi) ( 6 Volume pi^2)^(1/3) > >When you know the masses required, you can calculate the radii required, >provided you know the density. Density can be estimated from the stellar >type. ....there are three assumptions in that statement. It is all speculation. .....all assuming Einsteiniana. 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 21 Jun 2005 18:24 On 20 Jun 2005 16:10:07 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. Different Fox. > >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. OWLS has never been measured, so there are NO experiemnts that show c+v is wrong, > >Are dozens of experimental physicists and astronomers misguided? Yes. >Or only you? >Occam's Razor says... >(fill in the blank) > >Jerry 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 21 Jun 2005 18:37 On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:37:17 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:ilgeb1hugok7ve98r4ivno35hkigqde215(a)4ax.com: > >> 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: >>> >> >.... >>>>>> 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. > >When you say things like that you stop being a scientist and become a >priest. > >> ..and it also means they cannot produce any curve I would like to >> manufacture.. > >That would depend on your likes, wouldn't it? > >>>>>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. > >Right. But that just says the equation COULD be right. Not that it is. > >A wrong equation that gives right answers can still be useful. >It would be useful until a case was found where it gave wrong answers. >Then, it would need to be revised. > >>>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. > >NO. Fit is NOT evidence that the equation is right. > >.... > >>>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. > >An assertion is a claim unsupported by evidence. > >>>>>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. > >then they will not be findable anywhere. > >>>>>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. > >The effects will work both in the laboratory AND in the star >or >the effects will be unobservable both in the laboratory and the star. > >>>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. > >I didn't say validate. >I said invalidate. > >theories can not be proven. (say this to yourself 10,000 times) >theories can not be validated (SAY THIS TO YOURSELF 10,000 TIMES) >theories can only be supported by data. > >As long as you stick to your religion, >you don't need to have tests that can invalidate BaT. > >If you ever want to leave your church and become a scientist, you will need >to look for tests that could INVALIDATE your theories. > >Such tests provide data to support the theory until they succeed in >invalidating the theory. > >A theory is valid until it has been invalidated. > >BaT has been invalidated many times. > >> 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? > >Every photon leaves its source at c wrt everything in the universe. >That is a property of photons. Bob, light leaves its source at c. If you or anyone else proposes a theory that claims otherwise, then the onus is on them to privide a physical reason for this not being so. Einstein declared straight out that light does not leave its source at c but at c wrt little planet Earth, even though little planet Earth didn't even exist for most of the time. This is an obvious ploy aimed at propping up the archaic religious notion that humans hold a special place in the universe and Earth is its centre. The Einsteinian religion has been rigorously defended by the same kind of people for 100 years. There is not an ounce of supporting evidence for any of 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: Henri Wilson on 21 Jun 2005 18:39
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:41:41 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >news:1119384381.260020.17490(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > >> bz wrote: >> >> An assertion is a claim unsupported by evidence. >> >> >> That is quite correct. >> >> Now look at this assertion. >> >> "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to >> travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to >> A." >> >> >> Look at it carefully. The whole of Einstein's relativity is built on >> it. >> >> What else did you say? >> >> Fit is NOT evidence that the equation is right... >> >> No, it isn't is it? > >Arthur, > >I am afraid I am not sure what your point is. > >Are you arguing against what I said or supporting it? > >Are you claiming c'=c+v is correct? > >If so, what about all the experiments that have demonstrated that for >c'=c+vk k must be a very small number? > >If not, what point are you trying to make? Arthur's point is that Einstein's clock E-synch concoction is the only thing that makes SR different from LET. 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. |