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 26 Jun 2005 08:01 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 25 Jun 2005 15:01:07 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >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 > > 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. Henri, RU Cam was discovered to be a variable in 1907. >From 1907 to 1965, its behavior was that of a classic Cepheid variable. In 1965, the amplitude of its pulsations began to decrease, and its period became irregular. So, Henri. According to you, RU Cam was a binary system during a nearly 50 year observational period from 1907 to 1965, and then gradually transformed itself into a ternary system? Try again. Jerry
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Jun 2005 08:27 On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:46:25 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:4uprb15hj6u8rgi7825mu1dter2e3k4kln(a)4ax.com: > >> >> 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. " >> > >The data would seem to indicate that the author of the phrase quoted might >have waxed a bit too much about the regularity of the waining of Delta Cep. He wouldn't say it acted like a clock if it wasn't pretty stable. You can look at any long term pixel curve on the britastro site and see that most star curves appear dead constant over many years. I have another theory about cepheids anyway. I still reckon they are largish hot stars orbitted (e=~0.25) by a WCH or neutron star. They experience very large tidal distortions, giving them an ellipsoidal shape. That causes their effective area facing us to vary in synch with the orbit period. Consequently, the majority of the brightness variation might not be due to the BaT after all. I think you will find that typical cepheid curves like that of RT Aur are produced by this model. The BaT effect must also be included. 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 26 Jun 2005 08:37 On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:17:17 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> 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. 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. What better approach than to point out an obvious flaw in the first paragraph? > >> 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. I should have said it is 100% plausible for many variable stars. It is 0% plausible for many others. > >How are the sanity checks going for your program? Many changes and improvements. My next task is to relate predicted brightness with doppler shift. > >Arthur Dent posted an example that I computed some sanity check on. >Check my figures yourself. I was relieved to discover that 'Arthur' is none other than our once good friend and colleague 'Androcles' who vanished suddenly and mysteriously from the group some months ago. He was presumed either dead or the victim of an ingenious time machine of his own making. Arthur and I have produced the same Algol type curves quite independently. Looking at such a curve, it would be hard to say if it an eclipsing binary or not. 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 26 Jun 2005 08:57 On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 07:03:26 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >news:1119749417.927070.92220(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > >> >> >> bz wrote: >>> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >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. I have gone to the trouble of animating the problem because I realised the difficulty of understanding the moving geometry.. A vertical beam, appears vertical in all frames moving along the horizontal. In the moving frame, each 'infinitesimal element' of the beam moves along its own unique diagonal path. However, each element remains exactly vertically positioned above the next. One infinitesimal element hardly constitutes a light beam that should supposedly move at c. If the moving observer projects a laser beam at the same diagonal angle, it is obvious that the elements of THAT beam bear no similarity to the diagonal element of the aforementioned vertical beam. see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > >> If I move a frame past a vertical beam, then the beam is indeed >> diagonal >> in the moving frame. > >yes. No it isn't. The beam AS A WHOLE remains vertical. Draw the bloody thing if you don't believe me. Plot the positions of hyopthetical wavecrests. They remain vertically in line in ALL frames. Do you think light poles lean over when you drive past them? > > >.... > >> 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) No they don't.. consider vertically fired machine gun bullets. Their long axes remain vertical in all frames even though the centre of the bullet moves diagonally. >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. 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: Jerry on 26 Jun 2005 09:58
Jerry wrote: > 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 Correction of typo: "For example, Goodricke's original observations, conducted from Oct 19, 1784 to June 28, 1785" Goodricke did NOT live to be 200+ years old... :-) Jerry |