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 13:34 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119542237.498828.266500(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > 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? > You know, it doesn't really matter to me WHY Einstein didn't cite MMX in his 1905 paper. He may have been familiar with MMX. He may have been familiar with other papers that already cited MMX and thus had no need to cite MMX. Those that say he was unfamiliar with MMX could be right, they could be wrong. It doesn't matter. SR, GR and [thanks sue] EEP stand, or fall, on their own. Show me some sub/super luminal photons. -- 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: Jerry on 23 Jun 2005 14:05 Arthur Dent wrote: > 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. Invoking a third body doesn't work. Since the peak-to-peak scatter that I observe quite literally occurs from one cycle to the next, the implication would be that your hypothetical perturbing body would be orbiting the two major bodies with a period comparable the 3.7 day orbit of the major bodies. That isn't stable, and the minor body would be ejected from the system very quickly. Jerry
From: bz on 23 Jun 2005 15:22 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119475880.306734.235450(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > bz wrote: > > If I say that there is no evidence that there is an absolute aether, > that is > an assertion. I have offered no evidence to back up my statement. > Arthur, did you know that you can 'properly quote' using google groups? When you open an article click on 'show options' then 'show original' THEN 'reply to author'. This should show you 'properly quoted' text. You will no longer have to go through and show who said what by putting their names. The level of indentation will show who said what. More important, after your articles get quoted by others, it is almost impossible to tell who said what, proper quoting will fix that. > A.D. >> >> I'm not discussing your "ifs", I'm discussing real statements made by >> Einstein. >> >> Einstein asserted: ..... snipped the quotes from a TRANSLATION of Einsteins paper. I have no idea what he said in the original German. I don't think the exact number of 'Postulates' is important. >> A.D. >>> A wave source emits one crest every second, and the crest travels away >>> from the source a distance of one meter in one second. > >> bz: >> This is clearly not light we are talking about. >> >> As light does not travel at 1 meter per second, I felt I needed to make >> clear the fact that you were not talking about light waves. > > A.D. > It is if I change the unit of 1 meter to 1 light-second, I'm now > discussing light. Actually I'm discussing a wave in general, and I see > no reason to nit-pick over a triviality, a unit of distance. Well, I wanted to know what we are talking about. I don't know if all wave phenomina have a 'constant velocity' in a particular medium. I do know of some that do. I don't know for sure of any that don't. > >> bz: >>> If you say that it WAS light you were talking about, then you must >>> support >>> the velocity of 1 meter per second. > > A.D. > I'm changing the unit "one meter" and calling it "one light-second". > You are nitpicking my choice of units. I was trying to figure out what in the cotton picking world you are talking about. It couldn't have been light. >> A.D. >>> I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of argument, and I'm >>> certainly not going to debate semantics, in law or otherwise. > > > bz: >> Arguing semantics is a waste of time. Making sure we are using the same >> words in the same way is a good way to SAVE time. > > > A.D. > > Correct, so why did you assert "Einstein bases his SR on two > POSTULATES. A postulate is a clearly stated assumption. It is not an > assertion." (your capitals) if you are not arguing semantics? I am not arguing semantics. Einstein SAYS he bases his SR on two postulates. If you want to argue that he has more postulates than he claims, you are free to so argue. I don't think the exact count of postulates is the important point, do you? We are reading a translation of a paper that was written in German. I have no idea what small differences in meaning were lost in the translation. >>> If you do >>> not accept that light has wave properties, we are not going to agree on >>> anything. >> >> bz: >> >> Where have I said anything that makes you think that I do not believe >> light has wave properties? > > AD: > Right here: > "This is clearly not light we are talking about." - bz. I said that because light doesn't move 1 meter per second. You misapprehended me. > BTW, your slinky doesn't have a constant wavelength :-) I never claimed a constant wavelength. A constant VELOCITY is what we observe with sound and light and certain waves traveling along a slinky. >> bz: >>> c'=c+v is wrong because it REQUIRES k to be '1'(one). > > >>>> 2 = 1 + 1*k is wrong because it requires k to be '1' (one). A >>>> wonderful piece of logic. Have a nice day. > > bz: >>> In the above case, k being 1 produces no contradiction with >>> experimental >>> data. > A.D. > c' = c+v has no contradiction with empirical data. Experimental data is > subject to interpretation. Of course. > bz: >> In the case of light, experimental data shows that in any c'=c+vk, k is >> less than 400 parts per million or more. >> >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ýphysics/Relativity/SR/experimeýnts.html ..... >> >> In order to support your assertion that c'=c+vk where k=1, you must >> produce >> valid arguments that explain how the above experimental data may be >> consistent with your theory. > > A.D. > > I don't have time to answer ever single experiment you refer to, so > let's take just one. > Alvaeger et. al. bombarded a beryllium block to produce pions which > then > decayed to gamma photons. What they omitted to mention was that they > didn't > measure the speed of the pions, although they did state their lifetime. > it turns out that even at the speed of light, the lifetime of the pions > was so short that they didn't get out of the beryllium. > Now, you might consider a block of beryllium to be a vacuum, but I do > not. I don't consider it to be a vacuum. However, if something moves at close to c [whether or not it is in a vacuum] and emits photons and the extinction length for those photons is greater than the distances in the apparatus then c'=c+v photons should be observable and observed. Fillipe & Fox ran a similar experiment but the pions decayed in a tank of hydrogen which gave them a much greater extinction distance. They establish that k is almost certainly less than .5 which invalidates c'=c+v. > So their ~0.99975c is an estimate at best, certainly not a measurement, > and would be irrelevant even if it was. > There is one more point I need to mention. I have never claimed to have > a theory. All theory I'm using belongs to others, great men like > Galileo, Newton, Huyghens, Kepler and Doppler. > I have modelled c+v, and it is consistent with the light curve of > Algol. I believe that statement. Henri's program produces similar curves. I find this interesting but not overwhelmingly convincing. As I tell Henri, I do not place 'faith' in any scientific theory, I look for holes in all of them. Holey theories get replaced by better ones. -- 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 23 Jun 2005 18:19 On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:47:56 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:b0qjb1h0a882psosorqihbita2stk6v2i1(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/ not very illuminating... > >>>>> >>>>>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. Do you know of any astrophysicists that have altered their assumption that all starlight travels to little planet Earth at c? > >>>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. please tell us about those who don't. > >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/ 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 23 Jun 2005 18:21
On 23 Jun 2005 03:39:05 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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? > >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.) > >The catalog value for the period is 3.728115 days, so my >fitting routine didn't do too badly. > >Where does the +/- 0.010 days scatter come from, Henri? >It's too much to explain away as bad data. > >Here is a counter-challenge for you, Henri. >Explain the variations in RU Cam in terms of the BaT. >-------- >AAVSO Photoelectric Observations of RU Cam >John R. Percy and Yvonne Tang >RU Cam is a population II Cepheid which "stopped pulsating" >in 1965-66. Actually, it did not stop pulsating completely; >the amplitude decreased from over a magnitude to about 0.20, >and remained stable at that level from 1967 to 1982, >according to the work of Bela Szeidl and his colleagues. >The period has fluctuated erratically between 17.4 and 26.6 >days, but this may be the result of random, cycle-to-cycle >fluctuations. As noted below, the HIPPARCOS satellite found >a mean period and amplitude of 22.24 days and 0.20 magmitude, >during its 3.5-year mission. >http://www.aavso.org/observing/programs/pep/pepnewsletter/may1998/main.shtml > >Jerry It is probably a ternary system that has moved steadily away from the critical distance. 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. |