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 24 Jun 2005 08:06 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:evdmb15ifs075k268nl01hop7365rvp7vu(a)4ax.com: > 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. But GR predicts that clocks run FASTER when they experience less gravity. This effect accumulates over time (unlike the photons which only shift as they fall). This means the effects can be distinguised from each other by proper experimental design. >>> GPS launch presets do not agree with the LPI interpretation of PR and >>> Vessot. >>> >>> http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJ >>> PI 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. Considering that most [if not all] of that evidence ALSO supports GR/SR/EEP, you should reconsider. -- 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 24 Jun 2005 11:41 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in news:1119611093.614692.323770(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > bz wrote: >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in >> news:1119581963.931090.287500(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >> > Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:47:56 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100- >> 5.chem.lsu.edu> >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >download some data and look at your 'stable'. >> >> >http://www.aavso.org/data/download/ >> >> >> >> not very illuminating... >> > >> > You have to remember that the data includes contributions from >> > many observers who have differing "observer bias." If you >> > unselectively overlay variant observer estimates, your light >> > curves become undecipherable. The trick is to first sort by >> > observer, eliminate observations by sporadic contributors (who >> > only introduce noise, in my opinion), and do curve fits on the >> > contributions from individual observers where they have become >> > "enthusiastic" and have made a dense set of observations over >> > several cycles. Once you have your individual observer fits, >> > then you can start combining curves. >> > >> >> Can you recommend a good program for fitting the data? > > Since my brother ("Minor Crank") is a former AAVSO member > and I was the baby sister (26 year age difference!) that > he regularly took out on star parties, yes, I do know of > and have used several curve fit programs. However, each > involves assumptions. For example, for fitting eclipsing > binary data, there is Phoebe, that runs on my brother's > Linux box, that starts with the photometric data and takes > into account limb darkening, tidal distortions in stellar > shapes for close binaries, etc. I've also used the original > Wilson-Devinney code, but you have to be a real geek. > > To fit data for non-binary systems and to fit poorly sampled > light curves like typical AAVSO data, you have to fit a > template to the data. I downloaded some intended for starspot fitting on binaries but that is not quite what is needed for the aavso data I downloaded. > I've used some code by Andrew Layden > for this, and plotted with Super-Mongo. Again, you need a > Linux box. I have 10 computers on my desk. Linux is not my favorite system, but I am running it on a couple of boxes and can run it under VMware on my laptop. I tried a couple of curve fitting programs I have used before, with pretty lousy results on the raw data. Purging some of it might help. I probably need to convolute an exponential and a sine wave, or perhaps a couple of sine waves and fit those to the data, but I hate to reinvent the wheel without something to start from.[actually it can be fun at times]. > Layden's code works even better if you have closely sampled > photometric data, and was what I used when I responded > to Arthur about RT Aur a few posts back. > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/eafbdb94c0eacfa1 > > Hope this helps. > Will look see. Thanks for any and all. -- 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 24 Jun 2005 16:02 Jerry wrote: > bz wrote: > > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in > > news:1119581963.931090.287500(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > > > Henri Wilson wrote: > > >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:47:56 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100- > > 5.chem.lsu.edu> > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >download some data and look at your 'stable'. > > >> >http://www.aavso.org/data/download/ > > >> > > >> not very illuminating... > > > > > > You have to remember that the data includes contributions from > > > many observers who have differing "observer bias." If you > > > unselectively overlay variant observer estimates, your light > > > curves become undecipherable. The trick is to first sort by > > > observer, eliminate observations by sporadic contributors (who > > > only introduce noise, in my opinion), and do curve fits on the > > > contributions from individual observers where they have become > > > "enthusiastic" and have made a dense set of observations over > > > several cycles. Once you have your individual observer fits, > > > then you can start combining curves. > > > > > > > Can you recommend a good program for fitting the data? > > Since my brother ("Minor Crank") is a former AAVSO member > and I was the baby sister (26 year age difference!) that > he regularly took out on star parties, yes, I do know of > and have used several curve fit programs. However, each > involves assumptions. For example, for fitting eclipsing > binary data, there is Phoebe, that runs on my brother's > Linux box, that starts with the photometric data and takes > into account limb darkening, tidal distortions in stellar > shapes for close binaries, etc. I've also used the original > Wilson-Devinney code, but you have to be a real geek. > > To fit data for non-binary systems and to fit poorly sampled > light curves like typical AAVSO data, you have to fit a > template to the data. I've used some code by Andrew Layden > for this, and plotted with Super-Mongo. Again, you need a > Linux box. > > Layden's code works even better if you have closely sampled > photometric data, and was what I used when I responded > to Arthur about RT Aur a few posts back. > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/eafbdb94c0eacfa1 > > Hope this helps. > > Jerry Jerry, I'm going to try (probably with futility) to explain Henri's viewpoint, and mine. We do understand yours. The model we employ is that the speed of light is added to the speed of the source. Using a simple example, I will now try to show you variability as it appears in the c+v model. Let there be a source of light moving in an elliptical orbit, the barycentre of which is exactly 100 light years away. On a Sunday, 100 years ago, let the source emit light from position A, D C A -----------------> B and let this light arrive on Earth on Sunday of this coming week. It has taken exactly 100 years to travel across the intervening distance. On Monday (100 years ago), the star has moved to B and is moving away from the Earth at velocity v. It emits light that is approaching us at c-v, and being slightly slower, it takes 100 years and one day to get here, and arrives on Tuesday of next week instead of Monday, a day late. On Tuesday, 100 years ago, it has moved to C, and there being no component of velocity v to be added to the light, it again takes exactly 100 years and arrives here on Tuesday of next week, on time. On Wednesday 100 years ago the star has moved to D, the light takes 99 years and 364 days to travel the void, and it arrives on Tuesday of next week, a day early. Thus we see the light from the star at B, C and D, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday 100 years ago on Tuesday of next week, and the light from A on Sunday. The cycle then repeats, and the star appears to be varying. We have no telescopes to resolve the positions A,B,C and D, we can only measure the red shift we observe. You assume the speed of light is exactly c according to Einsteinian relativity and the star is intrinsically varying, attributing the shift to the surface of the star expanding and contracting. So does the guy who wrote your software, and just about every other astronomer in this world. Henri and I assume the speed of light is varying according to Galilean relativity, attributing the shift to the motion of the star, treating it as a constant emitter. The cepheid is intrinsically varying, we can see it is, and it is untuitive to believe our eyes. BUT... it is equally as intuitive to add velocities, and when we do we expect to find variation in intensity as I've shown above, the light from B,C, and D arrives on Tuesday, and we cannot trust our eyes. So how can we resolve this difference of opinion without getting hot under the collar with each party insisting they are the one that is right? Visiting the star would do it, but that isn't practical. We have to resolve it with the data that is available. Let me hear your suggestion, and then I'll tell you mine. AD.
From: Randy Poe on 24 Jun 2005 17:00 Arthur Dent wrote: > Let there be a source of light moving in an elliptical orbit, the > barycentre of which is exactly 100 light years away. > On a Sunday, 100 years ago, let the source emit light from position A, > D > C A -----------------> > B > > and let this light arrive on Earth on Sunday of this coming week. I'm sure others knowledgable about Cepheid variables will be able to critique the details of this model (for one thing, it will make very specific predictions about the non-sinusoidal variation in intensity which I suspect don't match up with the data). But let me look at some more elementary points. > It has taken exactly 100 years to travel across the intervening > distance. > On Monday (100 years ago), the star has moved to B and is moving away > from the Earth at velocity v. > It emits light that is approaching us at c-v, and being slightly > slower, it takes 100 years and one day to get here, and arrives on > Tuesday of next week instead of Monday, a day late. > On Tuesday, 100 years ago, it has moved to C, and there being no > component of velocity v to be added to the light, it again takes > exactly 100 years and arrives here on Tuesday of next week, on time. So you are saying that the semimajor axis of this orbit is two light days, that light at velocity c takes two days longer from C than from A to reach Earth. Also that the star has traversed from A to C in two days. As it did not travel on a straight line, that means that v is larger than c. If for simplicity we assume a circular orbit, then the star travelled a distance of pi light days in two days, which means that v = (pi/2)*c, about 1.57c. Yet for the "bunching up" model to work, v has to be a very small fraction of c. In your Galilean model, what happens to light emitted from an object at B which is receding from earth at 1.57c? Certainly it wouldn't be traveling at close to c toward earth, as your model assumes. A similar issue happens at D, where the velocity of the light is now c + v = 2.57c. It doesn't take 100 years minus 1 day to reach Earth. It takes about 39 years. This is the problem that can happen when a "model" doesn't have actual calculations in it. - Randy
From: Arthur Dent on 24 Jun 2005 17:46
Randy Poe wrote: > Arthur Dent wrote: > > Let there be a source of light moving in an elliptical orbit, the > > barycentre of which is exactly 100 light years away. > > On a Sunday, 100 years ago, let the source emit light from position A, > > D > > C A -----------------> > > B > > > > and let this light arrive on Earth on Sunday of this coming week. > > I'm sure others knowledgable about Cepheid variables will > be able to critique the details of this model (for > one thing, it will make very specific predictions > about the non-sinusoidal variation in intensity which > I suspect don't match up with the data). > But let me look at some more elementary points. > > > It has taken exactly 100 years to travel across the intervening > > distance. > > On Monday (100 years ago), the star has moved to B and is moving away > > from the Earth at velocity v. > > It emits light that is approaching us at c-v, and being slightly > > slower, it takes 100 years and one day to get here, and arrives on > > Tuesday of next week instead of Monday, a day late. > > On Tuesday, 100 years ago, it has moved to C, and there being no > > component of velocity v to be added to the light, it again takes > > exactly 100 years and arrives here on Tuesday of next week, on time. > > So you are saying that the semimajor axis of this orbit > is two light days, that light at velocity c takes two > days longer from C than from A to reach Earth. Also > that the star has traversed from A to C in two days. It takes the Earth a year to orbit the sun,six months from A to C, but I would never claim the semimajor axis of the Earth's orbit was anything other than about 8 light minutes. Yes, it take two days for the star to get from A to C, but it doesn't take light that long and the semi major axis isn't two light days. I suspect you are confused. > > As it did not travel on a straight line, that means > that v is larger than c. A gun going around the Washington Beltway in a car, always aimed East, must be going faster the bullet it fires because it isn't moving in a straight line. I don't think so. Have a nice day. Arthur Dent. |