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: Henri Wilson on 23 Jun 2005 18:22 On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:21:14 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"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'. > Delta Cep has been constant within seconds for that length of time. >-- >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 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 18:23 On 23 Jun 2005 11:05:02 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. We could speculate forever. > >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 23 Jun 2005 18:32 On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:39:48 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in >news:42ba7168$0$18636$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > >> >> "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > >... >>> > GR has been tested with te Pound-Rebka experiment. It matches the BaT >>> > perfectly. Light increases speed when falling down a gravity well, >>> > just like anything else. >>> >>> Pound-Rebka matches SR/GR. > >> Nope... > >How does it invalidate SR/GR? > >Henri is misinterpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment. The top 'clock' runs >faster than the bottom clock due to less 'G' field seen by the top clock. > >This can be tested by using other 'clocks' in similar experiments. All >clocks should show the SAME shift, whereas falling photon doppler shifts >should be proportional to the frequency. [I really need to look at formulae >or the numbers to make sure these will not give the same numbers, but I >doubt they will]. The GR blueshift formula is exactly the same as the Newtonian one describing photon acceleration down a gravity well. It is quite easy to work that out. >> GPS launch presets do not agree with the LPI interpretation of PR and >> Vessot. >> >> http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPI >> AS000068000002000115000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&jsessionid >> =3051831093837402530 > >Downloaded. Now to read, but it looks like they may provide the answer for >us. > >> IOW... Gravity reduces the frequency of an oscillating mass. >> Gravity does not blueshift "falling fotons"... an absurb causality >> violation anyway. > >Henri's impedence is high. >It will take a lot of energy to overcome the BaTer's faith barrier. Considering the huge amount of evidence supporting the BaT, that is correct. > >> Sue... > > >-- >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 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: Arthur Dent on 23 Jun 2005 19:06 bz wrote: > "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 For someone that claims to be playing devil's advocate, and then saying it doesn't matter to you that your red herring has been proved wrong, you'd make a delightful back-seat driver of the type we've all come to cherish. Einstein DID cite MMX in his 1905 paper, as I have quoted. As for showing you sub/superluminal photons, red-shift and blue-shift. Doppler's equation is f' = f.(c+ v.cos(phi))/c, which Einstein accepts before he divides it by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and since I do not accept his analysis of time, I see no reason to question Doppler. Therefore a red shifted photon is one that is subluminal. You've been shown. Denial is the argument of a relativist. Thanks for the tip on how to reply. I read it, opened it, I chased after a different web page, then when I returned to Google the reply I was typing had vanished and now I can't find it again. I'll have another look, but I was so disgusted with the way in which it was simply discarded that I went out for a beer. Google sucks. Arthur.
From: Arthur Dent on 23 Jun 2005 19:27
Jerry wrote: > 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 Ah... I see. Let's look at a similar system to the one debated. Supposedly the Algol system is an eclipsing binary, with a 70 hour period, and the duration of the eclipse is 10 hours. We would not expect any orbit that was too eccentric, since one star would get extremely close to the other and tidal forces would rip them to shreds. So we'll use a circular orbit, as is claimed anyway. 10 hours in 70 hours is 1/7, and 360 degrees / 7 is about 52 degrees. What is the maximum distance the smaller star can be from the larger, in terms of the radius of the larger? I get 4.56 stellar radii, when both stars are of equal size, less if one is smaller than the other. That isn't stable, the minor body would merge with the major very quickly. Try again. Arthur Dent. |