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: Jerry on 23 Jun 2005 19:38 Arthur Dent wrote: > 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. Bogus argument. We were discussing close TERNARY systems, which tend to be highly unstable. Jerry
From: bz on 23 Jun 2005 19:40 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:f4dmb1h80b0u799mj3s3htoisbbfro8tob(a)4ax.com: > 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... Point being that the so called 'stable' RT Aur ain't. ..... >>>>>>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? Reexamining does not result in change unless it is required to explain new data. But reexamination DOES take place. >>>>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. >> ..... >>>>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 are called 'scientists'. >>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: bz on 23 Jun 2005 19:47 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:fhdmb1lluh03i1q5b1tih0n07p97cl1v70(a)4ax.com: > 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: >>>> > ..... >>>> >>>> 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. download Delta Cep from the url given above. Tell me where you see 'constant to within seconds for that length of time.' > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. Soon you can stop. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. You won't have to carry that guilt any more. -- 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 19:52 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119567979.270217.176120(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > 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. Start a DIFFERENT browser session from the program bar. > Google sucks. I agree. I use xnews. There are many good newsgroup readers. Google ain't one of them. :) Have a beer for me. -- 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 20:27
"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119567979.270217.176120(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > 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 >> > mention MMX in his 1905 papers. >> > Consider my above statement as hearsay. ..... >> > 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. > 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. That is not what would call a proper citation. He cites Maxwel, Newton, Lorentz, Hertz, Doppler, and M. Besso. We may infer that he has read some of the papers of each of those authors and is aware of some of the papers that THEY cite. It would be difficult to prove in a court of law [from the quote you presented] that he is refering to the MMX experiment. He might be commenting on another experiment or on something Maxwell or someone else wrote in their paper. > As for showing you sub/superluminal photons, red-shift and blue-shift. > > Doppler's equation is f' = f.(c+ v.cos(phi))/c, nu'=nu*(1-cos(phi)*v/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [SR] Where phi is the angle of approach of the moving object. > which Einstein accepts > before he divides it by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), For direct approach, phi=0 so, the equation I wrote above can be rewritten: nu'=nu*sqrt((1-v/c)/1+v/c)) > 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. I will accept it as subluminal IF you can show, by timing its passage between two points, that it is moving slower than c. > You've been shown. Denial is the argument of a relativist. Show me photons that MOVE slower than light [in vacuum] and you will have my applause. [einstine says] All problems in the optics of moving bodies can be solved by the method here employed. What is essential is, that the electric and magnetic force of the light which is influenced by a moving body, be transformed into a system of co-ordinates at rest relatively to the body. By this means all problems in the optics of moving bodies will be reduced to a series of problems in the optics of stationary bodies. [unquote] -- 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 |