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 23 Jun 2005 10:53 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42bac4c2$0$18641$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: ..... > I HAD to criticize something. The jokes were an easier target. :o) Those were GOOD jokes! Almost as good a joke as the BaT. -- 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: bz on 23 Jun 2005 11:21 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in news:1119523145.287480.310190(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 21 Jun 2005 18:42:27 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> > >> >A century ago, the dominant theory among astronomers was that >> >Cepheid variables were double stars. But even as early as 1901, >> >a body of evidence began accumulating that was inconsistent >> >with this hypothesis. >> > >> >Harlow Shapley reviewed the evidence against the double star >> >hypothesis in a classic 1914 paper, "On the Nature and Cause >> >of Cepheid Variation." (Thanks to bz for finding this paper.) >> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1914CMWCI..92.. >> >..1S&db_key=AST >> > >> >Among the various arguments Shapley made against the double star >> >hypothesis is this: "Further observations of SW Andromadae, >> >made since the last report, have confirmed the previous results, >> >showing that the time of the rise to maximum light varies >> >from the mean predicted time by ten or fifteen minutes within >> >the short interval of two or three days, but evidently without >> >exhibiting regular periodicity....If the observed oscillations >> >were definitely periodic, it would perhaps be possible to >> >attribute them in some kind of a binary system to orbital >> >changes, such as the rotation of the line of apsides. But the >> >sudden and unpredictable changes in the light-variation, very >> >likely accompanied by analogous oscillations in the velocity- >> >curve, introduce another difficulty into the binary system >> >theory." >> > >> >Whereas the periodic occultations of eclipsing binaries such >> >as Algol are regular to within seconds, Cepheid light curves >> >show large timing irregularities that cannot be explained by >> >any theory attributing the variability to orbital movements. >> >> The period of RT Aur has remained contant to within seconds >> for over twenty years. >> How do you explain that? Download RT AUR data from http://www.aavso.org/data/download/ and tell me where you see 'constant to within seconds for over twenty years'. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- 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: bz on 23 Jun 2005 11:47 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:b0qjb1h0a882psosorqihbita2stk6v2i1(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:27:53 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:ml4hb115c9f242d49h6f3are0e2r4l2g16(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>> 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. download some data and look at your 'stable'. http://www.aavso.org/data/download/ >>>> >>>>Some will be more steady, some will be less steady. Some Cepheids are >>>>very unsteady. >>> >>> they migh not be 'cepheids'. >> >>Sounds like they are not HCs. >> >>Of course, anything that does not fit your model is not an HC. >>That makes HC's definition circular. >> >>>>> 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 observe in the star atmosphere during the cycle. >>> >>> assuming Einsteiniana. >> >>Henri, The papers on the subject clearly show that the scientists don't >>"assume" much. > > Do you deny that all astrophysicists assume all starlight travels to > little planet Earth at c? They reexamine their assumptions every time they write a paper. > Is that not the epitome of Einsteinian fundamentalism? Reexamining assumptions is fundamental to science. >>The authors generally explore various possible interpretations of the >>data in the paper and explain why one makes the most sense. > > Sometimes light speed doesn't matter a great deal. Other times it does. agreed. >>Many papers are proposals for modifications or refinements to the >>models. >> >>You seem to have the idea that everything that is published just treats >>Einstein's SR as a postulate and goes from there, without question. That >>isn't the way things work. > > Do you deny that all astrophysicists assume all starlight travels to > little planet Earth at c? Yes. They reexamine their assumption every time they write a paper. > Is that not the epitome of Einsteinian fundamentalism? > > Do you not agree that if it were NOT true, the whole picture would > change dramatically? > > >>> ...there are three assumptions in that statement. >>> >>> It is all speculation. >>> ....all assuming Einsteiniana. >> >>Pick any set of published figures you like >> >>or publish your own, but support your figures. >> >>You must support them as well as the figures you reject were supported. > > > My brightness curves are a bit misleading because at present, they are > not in phase with anything in particular. I am working on the problem. You can download brightness data from http://www.aavso.org/data/download/ -- 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: Arthur Dent on 23 Jun 2005 11:57 bz wrote: I have read that Einstein was NOT familiar with MMX at the time he wrote his paper. I am not sure if this is true or not. He doesn't meantion MMX in his 1905 papers. "together with the wait for it wait for it unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www (but Einstein never heard of MMX, performed 10 years earlier) What was he doing, too busy checking patents to read a scientific journal? Arthur Dent.
From: Arthur Dent on 23 Jun 2005 12:03
Try again. Fitting some published photometric curves, I find the mean period of RT Aur to be 3.729 days, with a random peak-to-peak scatter of 0.010 days. (This is over twice the uncertainty in my fitting routine, which was about 0.004 days given the limited data that I had available.) Its pretty obviously a ternary system, similar to the sun-earth-moon system The three body problem is a tad difficult to model, though. Arthur Dent. |