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 26 Jun 2005 09:46 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:tl8tb152v0gn26qdip73peho1jk5gphsti(a)4ax.com: > 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. Not when seen from a FoR that is moving rapidly. It take longer for the light from the front of the bullet to arrive at the observer than light from the back of the bullet. The bullet appears skewed because the observer has moved during that time interval. -- 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: sue jahn on 26 Jun 2005 11:00 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:aprrb1lrmij2scvkhuv4mk57rqdv6s13tu(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:43:35 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> > wrote: > > > > >"bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns967DCB094520WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >> news:gprjb1ll6nepkofq8cqkbpf6hfmjc4cp5c(a)4ax.com: > > >> SR says that all light moves at c WRT every mass in the universe, including > >> our little insignificant ball of left over star vomit. > >> > >> > the two claims are incompatible. > > > >Frequently AE refers to a passive *observer* when he really should > >model the near-field effects of an EM coupling structure which is > >not passive but actually modify the E and H plane components of > >an incident wave. > ><< A surprising result is that even though the infinitesimal dipole is > >minute, its effective aperture is comparable to antennas many times its size! > >>> > >http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dipole-antenna > > > >So give the good professor a c minus in electromagnetism and > >hear out his argument that Maxwell's Equations is *generally* > >compatable with a constant speed of light. > > Maxwell's equations require values for two constants. epsilon and mu yes > There is no reason to believe that relatively moving observers will obtain the > same values for those constants. Indeed, the coupling structures and local dielectric would dictate that. There is also no reason to believe that they > would have any way of knowing if their values were different (LET). They have impedance bridegs and cell phones. ;-) > There is also no proof that light emitted by a moving source will adjust its > speed in another frame, to conform with Maxwell. Well... maybe not in the last 10 minutes but do we get to include the last 80 years ? Near and Far Fields - From Statics to Radiation Wave impedance is the ratio of the electric field magnitude, E, to that of the .... In this article, we'll show that the wave impedance in free space is ... http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html Sue... > > >IOW... Rene' Descartes was not on the creator's payroll. > > > >Sue... > > > > > > > >> > >> My statements are compatible. I have no idea which two 'claims' you say are > >> incompatible. > >> > >> >> > >> >>> The Einsteinian religion has been rigorously defended by the > >> >>> same kind of people for 100 years. > >> >> > >> >>For over 100 years scientists have repeatedly attacked Einstein's > >> >>theories and tried to disprove them. > >> >> > >> >>Practially everyone who has closely studied Einstein's work has tried to > >> >>think of a definitive test that will invalidate his postulates. None > >> >>have succeeded. > >> > > >> > until recently, there was no sci.physics.relativity > >> > >> There were physicists in labs all over the world looking for holes in > >> published articles. > >> > >> > If Einstein were here today, he would be shot down in flames. > >> > All he did was re-orientate aether theory. > >> > >> His work is still here today. People keep shooting at it and missing. > >> > >> > He reasoned that if every observer's clocks and rods are contracted > >> > according to LET, then light emitted by any one of them would arrive at > >> > any other at c, as measured by the latter's contracted rods and clocks. > >> > > >> > Unfortunately, it breaks down because v appears in quadratic form and > >> > not linear. > >> > >> Unfortunately many physical processes are not linear. > >> > >> >>> There is not an ounce of supporting > >> >>> evidence for any of it. > >> >> > >> >>There has never been any evidence against it, despite people trying > >> >>their best to find such evidence. All such attempts have failed. > >> >> > >> >>You act like there has been a conspiracy to prevent people from testing > >> >>SR and GR. To the contrary, the exact opposite has been happening. There > >> >>is no conspiracy and scientists have repeatedly tried to disprove SR and > >> >>GR. > >> > > >> > SR cannot be tested directly because there is no known way to measure > >> > OWLS from a moving source. > >> > >> OWLS/TWLS, it doesn't matter unless you believe in aether. > >> > >> > 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. > >> > >> >>They have found, over and over, while searching for subluminal and > >> >>superluminal photons, that the range of possible velocities becomes > >> >>narrower and narrower, closer and closer to c. > >> > > >> > They don't know how or where to look. > >> > The HST receives light at speeds other than c all the time. > >> > >> I look forward to you providing irrefutable evidence for that assertion. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > 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: bz on 26 Jun 2005 10:46 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:tl8tb152v0gn26qdip73peho1jk5gphsti(a)4ax.com: > No it isn't. The beam AS A WHOLE remains vertical. Draw the bloody thing > if you don't believe me. Henri, Remember the moving band of graph paper experiment I proposed. The front end of the photons and the back end of the photons get skewed by the same amount as the beam itself when seen from another FoR because, from the other FoR the two ends of the photon are not simultanious. > 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? If you go fast enough they do. The light from the bottom of the pole reaches you sooner than the light from the top of the pole. Between seeing the light from the bottom and the light from the top, you have moved. This makes the pole appear to lean. Poles behind you will be leaning the other way. BTW, this doesn't depend on Einstein, relativity, or anything else except simple geometry. Henri, you inspired the following idea! We have a test for BaT! Astronomers use the above mentioned effect to measure the distance to stars. See the second section on this page [you can ignore the first part] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/star.html [quote]Aberration of Starlight You have to tilt your telescope to catch the star light just as you have to tilt your umbrella to keep off wind-driven rain. It is a matter of relative velocity. Actual experiments involve measurements of the change in the apparent positions of stars at different times of the year. [unquote] In fact, Henri, we can now, once and for all, lay to rest the question of c'=c+v photons and their being the cause of cepheid variables. We can do it with observations already being taken in space by the HST. All we need to do is ask if the Aberration of Starlight from nearby cepheid variable stars CHANGES with the brightness of the star. You and Arthur contend that the brightness varies due to the arrival of photons of different velocities. Different velocity photons will display different degrees of aberratation when observed by the HST because the amount of aberration depends on the relative rates of motion of the telescope and light. Anyway, you have been saying that the HST is seeing c'=c+v photons all the time. Your cepheid theory provides a perfect test. A nearby cepheid, one that is already close enough to be known to show aberration should be observed and the aberration recorded during several points in the brightness cycle. [Probably it already has been, in which case we just need to look at the data] Just like the umbrella analogy, where we tilt the umbrella to compensate for the wind and the effect that the drops are not vertical wrt our motion, in the case of Henri/Dent Cepheids, the 'wind' should be changing rapidly and we would need to keep changing the tilt on our umbrella (stellar aberration correction) to compensate. c'=c+v photons would display different amounts of aberration in terrestrial telescopes also, unless they all start obeying the speedlimit when they enter the atmosphere. The same 'aberration effect' should be useable in a laboratory to test for photon speed from moving sources by using a moving detector that is sensitive to changes in direction of the incoming photons. -- 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 12:23 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:sv6tb1p8jmhh8n2lmi2eb044igt0s1kqki(a)4ax.com: > 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. The degree of regularity seems to have been over emphasized. Dead constant over many years seems to mean that when the data is collected and averaged over many years the fit is not TOO bad. However the degree of fit should have been reported. > 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. Each theory has its consequences. Double stars such as you describe are known to exist but they exhibit characteristics quite different from cepheids. > 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. -- 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 12:36
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:or7tb1dsnfegqtk7t338mt1ojk32co7qp5(a)4ax.com: > 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? You didn't point out an obvious flaw in the first paragraph, you simply asserted that the theory is flawed from start to finish. If there is a flaw in the first paragraph, but all the reasoning based on that flaw would be true if the flaw were true, THEN you should understand all the reasoning so that you can use it when you point out what that flaw is and correct it. Subsequent reasoning is still valid, formula may need to be modified to correct for the error, but it is dead wrong to simply say that everything is wrong. >>> 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. If the theory is 100% plausible for even one star, everyone reading about it would be convinced it applies to that one star. >>How are the sanity checks going for your program? > > Many changes and improvements. My next task is to relate predicted > brightness with doppler shift. That should be interesting. >>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. Sanity checks will be vital for the credibility of your program results. Orbital parameters need to be checked against each other and the results flagged when there are inconsistent parameters. -- 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 |