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 25 Jun 2005 20:17 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:j8rrb192u7ptfc7e7v1c3bntiblr5nrf0b(a)4ax.com: > Why would I want to understand a theory that is logically wrong from > start to finish. 1) because it isn't logically wrong from start to finish. If there is a flaw in it, it is subtile because thousands of very smart people have failed to find it. So, until you understand it well enough to know where it is right, you will be unable to tell others where it is wrong. 2) because what you say will be more credable when you know what you are talking about. 3) A good salesman knows his competitors products better than the competitor does. He can sell the competitor's product to a client, and THEN show them why his product is BETTER. > A light beam that is vertical in one frame does not lean over and become > diagonal in another. It remains vertical in all frames. Henri, we have talked about this before. Repeating your assertions does not make it any more convincing than it was the first time. You need a better approach. > Bob, I am happy to be able to provide a 100% plausible explanation for > variable star activity based on basic principles and hard evidence. If it were 100% plausible, everyone reading about it would be convinced. How are the sanity checks going for your program? Arthur Dent posted an example that I computed some sanity check on. Check my figures yourself. -- 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 25 Jun 2005 21:30 bz wrote: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:j8rrb192u7ptfc7e7v1c3bntiblr5nrf0b(a)4ax.com: > > > Why would I want to understand a theory that is logically wrong from > > start to finish. > > 1) because it isn't logically wrong from start to finish. If there is a > flaw in it, it is subtile because thousands of very smart people have > failed to find it. Well, I suppose that is quite an accolade, because the flaw is there. Of course you have to read the original paper to find it, reading the copycat trash from the thousands that didn't find it isn't going to help much. They say things like "the velocity of light is the same in all frames of reference" but of course Einstein never did say that. > So, until you understand it well enough to know where it > is right, you will be unable to tell others where it is wrong. > I'd rephrase that. Until you understand it well enough to know where it is WRONG, you will be unable to tell others where it is wrong. It isn't right, so it impossible to understand where it is right. > 2) because what you say will be more credable when you know what you are > talking about. Einstein didn't know what HE was talking about. > > 3) A good salesman knows his competitors products better than the > competitor does. He can sell the competitor's product to a client, and THEN > show them why his product is BETTER. Physicists are not salesmen, though, but Einstein was. He sold himself and his ideas, and people bought it. > > > A light beam that is vertical in one frame does not lean over and become > > diagonal in another. It remains vertical in all frames. > > Henri, we have talked about this before. > Repeating your assertions does not make it any more convincing than it was > the first time. > You need a better approach. Ok, so H needs a better approach. I do not agree with his statement either. If I move a frame past a vertical beam, then the beam is indeed diagonal in the moving frame. _________ |B C| | | | | | | At the start: | | Light leaves A and goes straight up the page to C. | | Frame moves to the right simultaneously. |________A| _________ |B C| | | | | | | | | | | At the finish: |________A| Light arrives at B, which as moved to the right. Looks to me that the light beam was vertical on the page and moved from A to B in the frame. Of course I compute its speed in the frame as distance over time, or AB/t = sqrt(AC^2 + BC^2)/t, which is different to its speed on the page, BC/t. A relativist would say AB/tau, and claim that tau <> t. The reason I would not accept that is that I'd AIM the light diagonally at B and move the frame to the left. Now the beam goes from A to C in the frame, but diagonally on the page. That makes argumentative relativists very angry, it is fun watching them squirm and pout and call you names. > > Bob, I am happy to be able to provide a 100% plausible explanation for > > variable star activity based on basic principles and hard evidence. > > If it were 100% plausible, everyone reading about it would be convinced. No son, you cannot overcome easily blind faith, you have to be receptive and open minded and think logically. > > How are the sanity checks going for your program? > > Arthur Dent posted an example that I computed some sanity check on. > Check my figures yourself. You'll find Henri is quite sane most if the time. Dunno about your negative mass for Algol B, though :-) AD.
From: bz on 26 Jun 2005 02:40 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119745578.470493.166080(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > bz wrote: >> "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: ..... >> > "Let there be a source of light moving in an elliptical orbit, the >> > barycentre of which is exactly 100 light years away." >> One big problem with Henri's program is lack of 'sanity testing' of the >> figures. > Ok... >> Lets perform a little sanity testing. > Gladly. >> >> 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. > > Oh? The last time I heard, planets were being discovered because the > primary was seen wobbling in a small orbit. I like small orbits. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3856401.stm Small orbits are ok. It depends on WHAT is moving in the small orbit. Of course our sun moves in a small orbit around the sun-jupiter barycenter. The problem with your example was that the orbital velocity was too small to sustain massive bodies in small orbits. The parameters must be self consistent. That is what I mean by the need for a sanity check. >> 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. > > Oh dear. That looks like trouble. yep. > How about Earths mass? >> [don't worry, I will show you later how you can do this yourself.] > > I'm familiar with Kepler's laws, I invented this system as a > demonstration of a principle. I really don't care if the system is 10 > light years away, a thousand light years away or 100 light years away, > and I don't care if the light arrives one hour late or one day late, the > principle doesn't change. But do carry on, this is interesting. Yep. >> 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. > > See, the thing is, when I wrote a computer program to simulate a light > curve, I don't put in things like negative masses or huge orbits. We > simply plug in the known period, because that is empirical data and not > to be argued with. That is fine as long as the empirical data and your assumptions are consistent with kepplers laws. > Algol (beta-Perseus), supposedly an eclipsing binary, has a period of > 70 hours 70 hr = 2.917 days Actually, algol varyies every 10 hours or so. And appears to be an unstable 3 body system with considerable mass interchange taking place as we speak. http://www-astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~lam/research/algol/ http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/binary.html Speaking of computer programs, this is interesting: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0207/0207318.pdf My 'back of the envelope' calculations for Algol show it is quite possible. I circularized the orbit to simplify things. I got 3.2e5 mph,146 km/s, 90.7 mi/s as an orbital velocity. I used the 2.8673191 day period. I calculate an orbital radius of 0.054 AU, 4.9e6 mi, 8e6 km I used M1=2.218 Msol, for one body and got 0.287 Msol for the other. Not spot on, but possible. And remember I made the orbit circular. > whatever the masses of the stars might be, so whatever you are > calculating, it had better agree with the known period. I can change > the one day difference simply by changing the distance to the system. > > For example, the data I put into my program looks like this: > Distance 30,000 parsecs. > Period 5.0 days > Eccentricity 0.2 > Semi major axis 0.2 AU (yep, a very tiny orbit) > Yaw 110 degrees > Pitch 75 degrees > > and that produces a cepheid-type light curve with a peak-to-peak > variation of about one magnitude. I don't need to put the masses into > the program since I'm not computing the period, that is given data. Ah, but YOU are assuming there is an orbit. Therefore you need the sanity checks to make sure that it is a feasable orbit. If "reasonable masses" can't orbit in that time, at that distance, you have problems. Without sanity checking, you don't know you have problems. > > When I put in > Distance 30,000 parsecs. > Period 3.0 days > Eccentricity 0.6 > Semi major axis 0.015 AU (yep, an even tinier tiny orbit) > Yaw 180 degrees > Pitch 85 degrees (yep, almost face on) > > I get an eclipsing variable (Algol) type curve, again with a > peak-to-peak > of about a magnitude. > So I contend that there is NO eclipse of one star by the other, Algol > is a single star with a large planet in orbit around it, and we are seeing > the orbit almost face on, not edge on. > But you know what is really interesting? > Take a look at this curve > http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif > > I've modelled that, too. Yep, 7 magnitudes. > Of course it peaked even higher than that, the astronomer didn't start > recording until after he saw it flare up. He thinks it's a nova, of > course, but to me its a constant emitter and the light curve is an > illusion caused by an eccentric long period orbit. Stick around for 200 > years and you'll see it again. That should be interesting. I'll try my best. > Why is it special? The double maxima, of course, and the curve bwtween > them. c+v reproduces that, and you have no relativistic explanation for > it. A lot of nova show this double maxima. Relativity isn't needed to explain. It could be explained by a second shock wave from the nova, hitting and exciting the gas thrown off by the first shock wave. ..... >> >> 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. > > Ok, use a real system, like Algol. OK. I will circularize the orbit for simplicity. I will do that by taking sqrt( (Ka^2+Kb^2)/2) as the velocity. >> It was going away from us at >> 1.836e4 mph or 5.1 miles per second or 8.208 km/s 3.264e5 mph or 90.7miles per second or 145.9 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. > > Ok, use a real system. I chose 1 day and 100 light years to explain the > principle and the system doesn't really exist. You'd complain if I > called an old bicycle a penny-farthing because it had different sized > wheels, saying they are not penny-size or farthing-size. >> We still >> don't know them but we do know the speed. We ALSO know it takes 4 days >> to make a complete circuit. > > No we don't know that at all, I made that up to explain a principle. > You'd nitpick if I said your heart was a pump, complaining it has no > electric motor to drive it. > > 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. 4.987e6 mi, 8.026e6 km or 0.054 AU. ..... >> I manipulated the equation a bit and solved for M2. >> M2 is (4 a^3 pi^2 - M1 G P^2)/(P^2 G) ..... > You are in trouble, then, because Algol is supposed to be a binary with > > a period of 70 hours. Maybe the companion has negative mass, but I > rather suspect you are not doing your sums right :-) Nope. Algol works out quite nicely as possible. > Still, I don't mind if you prove Algol cannot be a binary, since it > isn't a binary in the c+v model anyway. It is a perfectly good binary. >> I found one earth and another body of 75.503 earth masses would orbit >> just fine. M1=2.218 Msol M2=0.287 Msol Now you may nitpick and say that M2 should be 94 Msol. That may be right. The Algol parameters I found only shows a_12 = 2.218 mas and a_2 = 94.61 mas. I am ASSUMING they are the masses of two of the bodies (third unlisted) OR they could be the COMBINED MASSES of the pairs of bodies, in which case my M2 really represents the error due to cicularizing the orbit. An eyeball 10% error wouldn't be bad. >> 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: > > No, old son. It leaves YOU with a problem. You now need to explain the > Algol system since according to your calculations, it cannot be an > eclipsing binary. So sorry to fail to live up to your expectations. Algol tested out quite nicely as a possible eclipsing binary. ..... >> Please. Confirm my calculations for yourself. > > No need: Your calculations confirm Algol isn't what everyone else says > it is and the companion star has negative mass. :-) ..... >> Would you care to examine your figures again? > Me? Examine MY figures again? Why should I? I made up the 100 ly and > the 4 day orbit. I could just as easily have said the system was a > thousand light years away, and that cuts your velocity by 10. > The orbit I'm using is just a wobble, smaller than the star itself, > caused by a Jovian planet (very hot, glowing, because of its proximity > to the star)in orbit around it. > You are the one struggling with negative masses, you do the sanity > check. > >> no sarcasm intended. > That's a good thing, because if you are going to shoot yourself in the > foot > it's better to use a rubber bullet :-) Quite right. I have an advantage. I don't mind finding out I am wrong. I learn that way. -- 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 -- 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 26 Jun 2005 03:03 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119749417.927070.92220(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > bz wrote: >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:j8rrb192u7ptfc7e7v1c3bntiblr5nrf0b(a)4ax.com: >> >> > Why would I want to understand a theory that is logically wrong from >> > start to finish. >> >> 1) because it isn't logically wrong from start to finish. If there is a >> flaw in it, it is subtile because thousands of very smart people have >> failed to find it. > > Well, I suppose that is quite an accolade, because the flaw is there. It may be. The task is to find it. > Of course you have to read the original paper to find it, reading > the copycat trash from the thousands that didn't find it isn't going to > help much. In the original german. > They say things like "the velocity of light is the same in > all frames of reference" but of course Einstein never did say that. [he said {in the english translation}] ....the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ýPrinciple of Relativityý) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. [unquote] >> So, until you understand it well enough to know where it >> is right, you will be unable to tell others where it is wrong. > > I'd rephrase that. Until you understand it well enough to know where > it is WRONG, you will be unable to tell others where it is wrong. > It isn't right, so it impossible to understand where it is right. Simply knowing where it is wrong, if it is, is not enough. You must be able to show that all conclusions based on the mistake would have been right if the mistake were not made. Only by having that ability will you be able to show what the conclusions should be with the mistake corrected. >> 2) because what you say will be more credable when you know what you >> are talking about. > > Einstein didn't know what HE was talking about. That may be true, but the trick is proving it. Until you can do that, to the 'believers', you have nothing. >> 3) A good salesman knows his competitors products better than the >> competitor does. He can sell the competitor's product to a client, and >> THEN show them why his product is BETTER. > > Physicists are not salesmen, though, but Einstein was. He sold himself > and his ideas, and people bought it. Einstein was an unknown. His work made little impression for quite some time. It was only after some of his predictions came true that people started to notice him. I doubt the Einstein spent much time or energy 'selling' his ideas. They sold theirselves once his predictions appeared to be true. >> > A light beam that is vertical in one frame does not lean over and >> > become diagonal in another. It remains vertical in all frames. >> >> Henri, we have talked about this before. >> Repeating your assertions does not make it any more convincing than it >> was the first time. >> You need a better approach. > > Ok, so H needs a better approach. I do not agree with his statement > either. Yes. > If I move a frame past a vertical beam, then the beam is indeed > diagonal > in the moving frame. yes. ..... > Looks to me that the light beam was vertical on the page and moved from > A to B in the frame. > Of course I compute its speed in the frame as distance over time, or > AB/t = sqrt(AC^2 + BC^2)/t, which is different to its speed on the > page, > BC/t. > A relativist would say AB/tau, and claim that tau <> t. > The reason I would not accept that is that I'd AIM the light diagonally > at B you can't 'aim' at B because you can't see it to aim at it. None the less the beam arrives at B. > and move the frame to the left. Now the beam goes from A to C in the > frame, > but diagonally on the page. That makes argumentative relativists very > angry, > it is fun watching them squirm and pout and call you names. Henri says it isn't a beam because the photons are 'skewed', pointing in a different direction than they are traveling. I tried to show him the the front and back end of the photon end up diagonal also (from the FoR of the outside observer) Of course the observer at A sees his beam go straight up and hit B as it moves by. ..... >> If it were 100% plausible, everyone reading about it would be >> convinced. > > No son, you cannot overcome easily blind faith, you have to be > receptive and open minded and think logically. Most true scientist do NOT have blind faith. THey continually examine their basic assumptions when they review the data from their experiments. They are HOPING to find something that will challenge well established priciples because there the nobel prizes are found. ..... > You'll find Henri is quite sane most if the time. > Dunno about your negative mass for Algol B, though :-) Negative on the negative mass. It worked out quite fine. -- 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 26 Jun 2005 07:52
Henri Wilson wrote: > "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." As the prototype Cepheid, Delta Cep has been very well studied, and its period is known to change. ---------------- data from The Bright Star Catalogue, 5th Revised Ed. (Preliminary Version) (Hoffleit+, 1991) ADS 15987A, CDelta 3.48 - 4.34V, 5.366341d. Period varies. Prototype star Delta Cep, discovered by Goodricke in 1784. Blue companion ADS 15987C is also var. and SB. http://www.alcyone.de/SIT/mainstars/SIT000496.htm ---------------- Indeed, you find the caveat "period varies" or "period changes" attached to nearly every star of "Delta Cep" type. Because of the variability of its period, the calculated mean period for Delta Cep depends on what interval has been selected for averaging. For example, Goodricke's original observations, conducted from Oct 19, 1784 to June 28, 1985, led him to calculate a period of 5d 8h 37.5m http://www.aavso.org/publications/journal/zissell.pdf Jerry |