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 25 Jun 2005 18:01 Arthur Dent wrote: > 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. You attempted without success to sidetrack the issue from one which was absolutely, totally fatal to the BaT/c+v theory of Cepheid light variability. Run away, you pathetic, whining loser. Hide your head in the sand and issue one of your famous plonks. You plonked my brother two or three times as I recall. The challenge remains: Please explain RU Cam in terms of BaT / c+v theory -------------------------------------------------- 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
From: Arthur Dent on 25 Jun 2005 18:13 I'm right and you are wrong, you are too chicken to address real data and you can't explain RU Cam in term of of c constant theory. Arthur.
From: Jerry on 25 Jun 2005 19:02 Arthur Dent wrote: > I'm right and you are wrong, you are too chicken to > address real data and you can't explain RU Cam in term of > of c constant theory. Hey, loser! Can't you read? The problem of RU Cam is one of stellar evolution, not relativity. Theory indicates that Cepheids pulsation is a temporary phenomenon. As a star ages, it may cross a part of the HR diagram where its outer layers become unstable. Energy trying to escape from the star is absorbed by cool material near the surface, causing the star to expand. The blocking layer thins, allows energy to escape, and the star cools and contracts. In a few hundred thousand years, as the star ages, it exits this region of the HR diagram and is no longer a Cepheid. It is you and Henri, on the other hand, who want to explain Cepheids in terms of c+v theory. Jerry
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Jun 2005 19:12 On 25 Jun 2005 15:01:07 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Arthur Dent wrote: >> 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. > >You attempted without success to sidetrack the issue >from one which was absolutely, totally fatal to the >BaT/c+v theory of Cepheid light variability. > >Run away, you pathetic, whining loser. Hide your head >in the sand and issue one of your famous plonks. >You plonked my brother two or three times as I recall. > >The challenge remains: >Please explain RU Cam in terms of BaT / c+v theory >------------------------------ý-------------------- >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 Jerry, the ballistic theory of light (BaT) fully explains the phenomena you claim brings its downfall. If you care to study my Vbasic program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe you will learn how the predicted brightness curves are very much 'observer-distance' dependent. There are many factors other than direct intrinsic changes that might affect the varying appearance of a star. Eclipsing binaries, for instance, might NOT all be just that. The BaT shows that stars in moderately eccentric orbits with their perihelions closest to observer will exhibit the same type of brightness variation.... Algol type stars. RU Cam is probably a ternary system, which would account for any period irregularity. Alternatively, it is a binary pair that is itself in orbit around another large mass. Under certain conditions, that situation can cause 'time compression' of observed information. Hence, the observed period can appear to change steadily over a long period when in fact it is quite stable. Its variation faded away simply because the star moved well aweay from the critical observer distance. Your problem is that you have never even tried to consider the full rammifications of the fact that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. All the starlight in the universe WAS NOT emitted, godlike, at exactly c wrt little planet Earth. Light is emitted at c wrt its source. It has no other reference. You rant and rave about how the BaT DOESN'T explain this or that when you don't know the first thing about the subject and haven't even bothered to find out more. My variablestar program is undergoing improvements at present but will still tell you a great deal about the BaT. 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 25 Jun 2005 19:24
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:47:09 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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.' quote: "Delta Cep is one of the few easily-visible variables, its magnitude changing from 3.5 to 4.3 and back over an amazingly regular period of 5 days 8 hours 47 minutes and 32 seconds, the star acting like a natural clock. " 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. |