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: Arthur Dent on 25 Jun 2005 10:00 Jerry wrote: > Arthur Dent wrote: > > Jerry wrote: > > > > Contradicted by every peer-reviewed experiment and > > > observational analysis intended to determine whether > > > this may be so for over a century. > > > > If you are going to use "peer reviewed for over a century" as argument, > > Ptolemy's view of the geocentric universe was peer reviewed for over > > 1400 years, you are outdone. > > No, it was worshiped. Different thing. Einstein is worshipped. Same thing. > > > The empirical data hasn't changed, only > > our view of it. Ptolemy's peers had a philosophical prejudice against > > facts that are contrary to their intuitions. Unfortunately your > > argument is prejudicial, irrelevant, and carries no weight. > > <snip> > > > Unfortunately, your model can fit only the GROSS features of eclipsing > > variable light curves. > > You obviously aren't familiar with current programs for > modeling eclipsing binaries, which include limb darkening, > tidal distortions, etc. > > Stop being ignorantly facetious. I will if you stop being an arrogant pompous know-it-all. You obviously aren't familiar with ANY program for modelling c+v, you are so certain it cannot be correct you don't even look. <snip> > Arthur, RU Cam was discovered to be a variable in 1907. And that proves c is constant in all frames of reference, does it? > For almost 60 years, it showed classic Cepheid behavior. And that proves c is constant in all frames of reference, does it? > Then, starting in 1966, its pulsations started to slow > down, until by 1970, they had nearly ceased. > http://weblore.com/richard/ru_cam_ex_cepheid_star.htm And that proves c is constant in all frames of reference, does it? > > There could be many explanations, and often we never find > > the correct one. > > Yeah. Good, we've agreed on something. > How about, "stars evolve"? Sure. What does that have to do with c being constant in all frames of reference? > How about, "Theory indicates that Cepheids pulsate for only > a few hundred thousand years"? How about "Theories evolve", and none last for a few hundred thousand years? > With thousands of Cepheids > identified in a century of observation, we got lucky to > catch one in transition. What does that have to do with c being constant in all frames of reference? > <snip> > > > We (well, you) obtain the following data from the AAVSO: > > The light curve of Algol with Julian dates clearly provided, accurately > > observed by multiple astronomers for the date chosen. > > The velocity curve with the same Julian date clearly provided. > > >From that, it should be possible to determine whether c constant or > > c+v is the correct model. > > Get the data, and I'll tell you how. > > Sorry, that's attempting to sidetrack me. Won't work. Ok, I'm used to arrogance and wilfull ignorance, I've seen it often. Have a nice day. <snip> Arthur.
From: Jerry on 25 Jun 2005 11:45 Arthur Dent wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > Arthur Dent wrote: > > > Jerry wrote: > > > > > > Contradicted by every peer-reviewed experiment and > > > > observational analysis intended to determine whether > > > > this may be so for over a century. > > > > > > If you are going to use "peer reviewed for over a century" as argument, > > > Ptolemy's view of the geocentric universe was peer reviewed for over > > > 1400 years, you are outdone. > > > > No, it was worshiped. Different thing. > > Einstein is worshipped. Same thing. Einstein's theories are an integral part of the most accurate physical theory of all time, QFT. They are a daily part of life in the GPS. And so on and so forth. > > > The empirical data hasn't changed, only > > > our view of it. Ptolemy's peers had a philosophical prejudice against > > > facts that are contrary to their intuitions. Unfortunately your > > > argument is prejudicial, irrelevant, and carries no weight. > > > > <snip> > > > > > Unfortunately, your model can fit only the GROSS features of eclipsing > > > variable light curves. > > > > You obviously aren't familiar with current programs for > > modeling eclipsing binaries, which include limb darkening, > > tidal distortions, etc. > > > > Stop being ignorantly facetious. > > I will if you stop being an arrogant pompous know-it-all. > You obviously aren't familiar with ANY program for modelling c+v, you > are so certain it cannot be correct you don't even look. I modeled my own eclipsing binary observations using a Wilson-Devinney based program when I was a teen stargazing fanatic. (Well, my brother helped...) I guess it must have been around 1997 or so. I know that programs are continually being improved to include atmospheric models, multiple wavelengths, etc. I know what modeling is all about. I know that current programs work excellently. > <snip> > > Arthur, RU Cam was discovered to be a variable in 1907. > > And that proves c is constant in all frames of reference, does it? > > > For almost 60 years, it showed classic Cepheid behavior. > > And that proves c is constant in all frames of reference, does it? > > > Then, starting in 1966, its pulsations started to slow > > down, until by 1970, they had nearly ceased. > > http://weblore.com/richard/ru_cam_ex_cepheid_star.htm > > And that proves c is constant in all frames of reference, does it? That proves that c+v is incapable of explaining Cepheid light curves. And the presumptive explanation of Cepheid light curves is the fundamental argument that you have set forth in support of c+v. c+v has FAILED. > > > > There could be many explanations, and often we never find > > > the correct one. > > > > Yeah. > Good, we've agreed on something. That was a -sarcastic- "Yeah". > > How about, "stars evolve"? > > Sure. > What does that have to do with c being constant in all frames of > reference? It means that your c+v explanation for Cepheid behavior has failed. > > > How about, "Theory indicates that Cepheids pulsate for only > > a few hundred thousand years"? > > How about "Theories evolve", and none last for a few hundred thousand > years? > > > > With thousands of Cepheids > > identified in a century of observation, we got lucky to > > catch one in transition. > What does that have to do with c being constant in all frames of > reference? It means that your c+v explanation for Cepheid behavior has failed. > > <snip> > > > > > We (well, you) obtain the following data from the AAVSO: > > > The light curve of Algol with Julian dates clearly provided, accurately > > > observed by multiple astronomers for the date chosen. > > > The velocity curve with the same Julian date clearly provided. > > > >From that, it should be possible to determine whether c constant or > > > c+v is the correct model. > > > Get the data, and I'll tell you how. > > > > Sorry, that's attempting to sidetrack me. Won't work. > Ok, I'm used to arrogance and wilfull ignorance, I've seen it often. > Have a nice day. Unfortunately, I'm NOT used to arrogance and willful ignorance. Have a rotten day. Jerry
From: bz on 25 Jun 2005 13:52 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119684669.886770.228170(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > bz wrote: >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119649563.403402.140870(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: ..... > Egads, try to explain a simple principle and the confusion is rife. > Sarcasm mode: > What 100 days would that be, I wonder... yep. I did mess up. > Did I mention 101 days somewhere? nope. I done it all by my self. Focusing on days. > I don't think so. > Let me see I can get anyone to understand without getting them > confused. > > "Let there be a source of light moving in an elliptical orbit, the > barycentre of which is exactly 100 light years away." > > Is there 100 days or 101 days mentioned in that? No, I didn't think so. > There is 36525 days mentioned, because there are 365.25 days in a year, > if y'all want to drawl my figures. One big problem with Henri's program is lack of 'sanity testing' of the figures. Lets perform a little sanity testing. Max radial velocity is (1 day / 3.652e4 day) = 27.379 ppm c, rather than 1% of c as I said earlier. That is 8.208 km/s, 1.836e4 mph. You now have an orbital radius (assuming circular) of 2.805e5 mi (4.515e5 km) or 3.018e-3 AU. Quite a small orbit. This may be a bit of a problem. Yes. It is. When I assume one star has a mass of one Sol, and solve for the other mass, I come out with a negative mass, so our total steller masses must be smaller. Lets try Jupiter's mass. No luck. How about Earths mass? [don't worry, I will show you later how you can do this yourself.] Yep. You could have one body with the earths mass and another body with 75.3 times the mass of the earth and get them to orbit each other in 4 days. Of course, you won't have two stars. You won't have one star because even Jupiter (at 317 Earth masses) is too small [not enough mass] to light off the fusion furnace. > > "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." > > So the light left the star in June of 1905, on a Sunday, and travelled > 36,525 light-days (that is a unit of distance, and rounded) at 300,000 > km/second (that is a speed, also rounded) and gets here next Sunday. > Drawn to scale, the Earth is off to the right of the screen (in the > direction of the arrow) a little way. Not in the next room, not in the > next city, but on the next continent. I don't know what it is in > meters, nor am I going to work it out, but its a helluva lot. 36,525 > days * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours * 300,000 kilometers. I'll > call this distance d, then y'all won't have to check my figures. > > "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." So, when the photons arrive, 1 day late, we will "know" they traveled at c-27.379ppm of c. We instantly know the star was traveling at 27.379 ppm of c as it rounded the point in its orbit when its speed away from us was maximum. > That's emission on a Monday in June of 1905. The star had some velocity > away from us. Yep. The numbers ARE important. It was going away from us at 1.836e4 mph or 5.1 miles per second or 8.208 km/s > It also has a tiny bit of distance further away from us but that gets > lost in rounding up, the change in distance is extremely UNimportant. Not when we are doing sanity checking on the orbital parameters. We still don't know them but we do know the speed. We ALSO know it takes 4 days to make a complete circuit. That gives us enough to solve some problems. For a circle, C=2 pi r. Lets assume we have a circular orbit. [We could, of course, do it for an elipse, approximating the perimeter as 2 pi sqrt(1/2 (a^2+b^2).... or if you really want to be accurate 4 a integral{[from 0 to pi/2 radian](sqrt(1=(a^2-b^2)/a^2 sin(theta)^2) dtheta}... but lets just assume a cicular orbit, ok?] take orbital speed times 4 days to get the distance traveled in one orbit. That is our circumference. Divide that by 2 pi and you have the radius of the orbit. In this case, it is 2.805e5 mi, 4.515e5 km or 3.018e-3 AU. This mythical star MUST be orbiting the center of mass at about 0.003 times the earths distance from the sun. Kinda close, right? Ok... Working from the orbital parameters (period, velocity, radius) you can compute the masses. You can start from Period = 2 pi sqrt(a^3/(G*(M1+M2)) where a is principle axis of the orbit which is the radius for a circular orbit. We know the period, 4 days, we know a, the radius 4.5e5 km. We don't know masses, so we can just assume and see what happens. I manipulated the equation a bit and solved for M2. M2 is (4 a^3 pi^2 - M1 G P^2)/(P^2 G) When I plugged in The mass of the sun for M1, I got a negative number for M2. That told me the orbit was not possible around our sun. I found one earth and another body of 75.503 earth masses would orbit just fine. You can, of course, use any combination of masses that total near 76 times the mass of the earth. So, all your problems are solved, right? Not quite. This leaves you with a minor problem: 76 earth masses is too small a star to be visible at 100 light years. It is too small a star to be visible at 1 AU. It is too small a star to be visible at 0.003 AU. It is too small to be a star. Do you see why Henri's program (and yours) needs to do some sanity checking? Please. Confirm my calculations for yourself. ..... > If you really want to quantify the situation instead of simply looking > at it qualitatively, it might be advisable to understand it first. You are right that I was wrong when I started from 101 days. Would you care to examine your figures again? no sarcasm intended. -- 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 25 Jun 2005 16:05 Arthur Dent wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > I modeled my own eclipsing binary observations using a > > Wilson-Devinney based program when I was a teen stargazing > > fanatic. (Well, my brother helped...) I guess it must have > > been around 1997 or so. I know that programs are continually > > being improved to include atmospheric models, multiple > > wavelengths, etc. I know what modeling is all about. > > I know that current programs work excellently. > > So what? They don't model c+v, and you refuse to examine any model > that does. > Believe in aether all you want to, it makes no difference to me,and it > adequately supplies all you need for your model. They don't need c+v to accurately model -any- eclipsing binary. > > That proves that c+v is incapable of explaining Cepheid > > light curves. And the presumptive explanation of Cepheid > > light curves is the fundamental argument that you have > > set forth in support of c+v. > > > > c+v has FAILED. > > As I said, believe in the aether all you want to. Duh? SR is not an aether theory. > Since you have no > explanation of the 1966 phenomena, the relativity you worship > has FAILED, according to your own logic. Relativity has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of stellar evolution. We witnessed an aging star which is moving out of the regular pulsation stage of its life cycle. So it is irrelevant to relativity. On the other hand, the cessation of Cepheid pulsation is -extremely- relevant to c+v, since you claim that c+v explains Cepheid behavior. > > It means that your c+v explanation for Cepheid behavior has failed. > How so? Even if the star were to be intrinsically varying, the light > still gets here and we'd still see it. Except for the fact that you claim Cepheids are -not- intrinsically varying. > That doesn't invalidate c+v. You are showing your prejudice > with fallacious argument and faulty logic. Since you claim c+v explains Cepheid variability, it does. > Your relativity theory has no explanation for the 1966 lack of > variation, therefore relativity has failed. If I were as logical as > you, I'd shoot myself. As I said, the explanation lies in theories of stellar evolution, and has nothing to do with relativity. Jerry
From: Arthur Dent on 25 Jun 2005 16:45
Jerry wrote: <snip> I'm right and you are wrong, so let's leave it at that since you are not prepared to obtain the data I've asked for and reason sensibly, whining about being sidetracked. Arthur. |