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 26 Jun 2005 12:54 bz wrote: > "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. There ya go, well done. The sun moves in a twelve year small orbit about it's barycentre with Jupiter and an even smaller one year orbit about its barycentre with Earth, and of course one motion is superimposed on the other. It gets a little complicated when we add in all the other planets, doesn't it? :-) > 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. Yep indeed. > > > 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. Built into the program, old son. Can't manage a model without it. Did you think old farts like Henri and I are not aware of Kepler? We are WAY ahead of you :-) Here is the routine for Kepler's second law. double Kepler(double M) { double epsilon = 0.00001; double R=0,E; //Mean anomoly M, e= eccentricity, E = eccentric anomoly //M = E-e.sin(E) if (M<0) { M=-M; sign = -1; } else sign = 1; do { E=R; R = M - eccentricity*sin(E); } while (fabs(R-E)> epsilon); return E * sign; } > > > 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. Err... Algol ECLIPSES for 10 hours in every 70 hours. it VARIES every 70 hours. Isn't that interesting? So for a circular orbit, 10/70 * 360 = 52. One star is (supposedly) hiding behind the other for 52 degrees of its orbit. In terms of the radius of the larger star, the orbit can be no greater than 2/sin(26 degrees) = 4.56 stellar radii of star at B. Co \ Ao---0 B ----------------------------------------> Observer / Do Angle ABC = 26 degrees. Totally occulted at A, totally seen at C and D, distance AB = 4.56 time radius of primary, 2 * 26 = 1/7 of 360 degrees complete orbit. Sorry I cant draw it to scale here. Now that is a close orbit. > 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 Yep. Very unstable. Should go kaboom any day now. :-) And now you want to turn it into a three body system? Even more unstable. Where do you want to put the third body? > 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. Yeah, well, your back of the envelope calculations came up with one star having negative mass. I'd start using the front of the envelope if I were you :-) > 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. Yeah, sure. 52 degrees of eclipse. 4.56 stellar radii. :-) Sanity check: One star is a distance of 4.56 stellar radii of the larger, based on the eclipse interval of 10 hours in a period of 70 hours. Compared to the Earth-Moon system, the CENTRE of the moon would be 4.56 * radius of Earth away from the Earth's CENTRE. Radius of Earth, 4,000 miles. 4.56 * 4,000 ~ 18,000 miles. Take off 4000 miles to the surface of the Earth, the moon would be 14,000 miles above your head and would completely fill the sky. Seen from Mars the Earth would eclipse the moon for 1/7 of the orbit of the moon. Tidal forces would be washing the oceans across the continents, though.:-) Not spot on, but possible, huh? I don't think so. I think the moon would be torn apart, ripped into rings like those of Saturn long ago, and it would never happen. But this is what your web pages are claiming is happening with Algol. I don't call that "sane". > > 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. Yep. So do you and the rest of the mob. But for Algol, YOU are claiming two stars of comparable size, and I am claiming a star and a planet. Sanity check, please. > > 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. Well, sanity check your double star for Algol then. > > > > > 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. LOL! Good luck! Sanity check for model I've used for http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Period like Pluto, orbit like Halley's comet. Viewed in the plane of the orbit along the major axis. Some flaring at periastron. > > 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. Relativity, old son, says the speed of the light we see the star by is constant for the observer, independent of the source. Relativity is saying the eclipse of Algol is real because we see a variation in the light intensity. Henry and I are saying the variation of the light intensity is caused by a variation in the light's speed. Einstein was not an astronomer, Galileo was, and Galileo adds velocities. And when we model the variation in light's speed using a computer, we get the variation in intensity that Algol demonstrates. Sanity check, please. Which model should we use, they both reproduce the same empirical result? A double star, or a star and planet? I'm sure you've heard of Ockham's Razor. I've even been to Ockham :-) Which is the simpler model? Why are you defending the insanity of relativity, do you have some axe to grind? > .... > >> > >> 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. Observation of a circular orbit: When the star is moving away, red shift. When the star is moving toward you, blue shift. By relativity's c constant model and your circular orbit, the peak red and blue shift should be 180 degrees apart, right? By the addition of velocities model, the peak red and blue shift should be 52 degrees apart. So: No need to argue which is correct, all we need do is look at the real data. Get the velocity curve of Algol, show me that the peak velocities are close to 180 degrees apart, and I'll concede. If they are closer to 52 or (360-52) = 308 degrees apart, then the speed of light is source dependent and relativity falls by its own postulate. I can't say fairer than that, can I? Why 52 degrees apart?, you might ask. Henri knows the answer, he discovered it quite independently of Sekerin and shook ME when he said it, although I'd already seen it beforehand but hadn't realised it's significance. > > >> 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. Oh? What happened to your earlier calculation then? :-) > > > 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. Is it? Well, it has a circular orbit of 4.56 stellar radii then, and tidal forces don't pull it apart. Maybe that negative mass prevents it with its antigravity :-) Sorry, can't help ribbing you on that on. > >> 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. As I've said, you can show you are right with the velocity curve of Algol and a 180 degree difference in the peak red and blue shifts. c constant (relativity) model predicts: <======60 hours =======>|< 10 >|, total 70 hours <=======308 degrees====>|< 52 >| total 360 degrees ------------ ------------------------- ------------ max luminosity. | \ / | | \ / | \ / |<----180----->| \ / | \/ | degrees | \/______Min luminosity at eclipse. |<----180------>| | Max redshift Max blue Max red as star moves away. (approach) Ballistic c+v model predicts: <====60 hours =========>|< 10 >| <=====308 degrees======>|< 52 >| ------------ ------------------------- ------------ max luminosity. |\ /| |\ / | \ / |<-------- 308 -------->| \ / | \/ | degrees | \/______Min luminosity. | | | Max red Max blue Max red Sanity check: The slow light (red shifted) leaves on time, travels at c-v (less than c), taking longer to get here. The fast light (blue shifted) leaves on time but gets here early, travelling at c+v. So take a look at the real data, the velocity curve of Algol. Just remember that you claimed a circular orbit, and I've agreed. An elliptical orbit would bring the two stars even closer at periastron making the system even more unstable. I took a look at http://www-astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~lam/research/algol/ that you cited. Struggling, are they not? "Some additional physical mechanism must suppress the instability described above in the Algol system itself. Tidal circularization, if it had a time scale less the 130 y, could cancel the effect. However, typical estimates for this time scale are much greater than 130 y (Zahn 1977)." "We suggest three applications for further study. " I suggest we throw Einstein's nonsense out, then we'll have some rational explanations in physics and astronomy instead of groping with a system we cannot directly observe at close quarters. AD
From: bz on 26 Jun 2005 13:36 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119804845.219241.326590(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> Nope. Algol works out quite nicely as possible. > > Oh? What happened to your earlier calculation then? :-) Nowhere did I say that the Algol calculations gave a negative mass If you re read what was written, you will see that the mention of negative mass was context from earlier articles and was talking about YOUR 4 day orbit at rather low speeds. The negative mass came when I tested a solar mass and later a jupiter mass for the mass of one of the bodies. I again ask you to check the figures I provided for Algol. > 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. See, 2.218 sol for one star and 0.287 for the other. >> > 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. > > Is it? Well, it has a circular orbit of 4.56 stellar radii then, and > tidal forces don't pull it apart. Maybe that negative mass prevents it > with its antigravity :-) > Sorry, can't help ribbing you on that on. You may be missing a rib. Negative on the negative on algol. >> >> 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. >> > -- 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 26 Jun 2005 14:50 bz 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 > >> 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. Yep. I have. > > > 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. After 100 years I would thing any error in translation would have been discovered by now and there is no need to translate equations. Einstein did speak English, he moved the Princeton, New Jersey.. He would quite easily have seen a flaw in a translation of his own paper. You are clutching at straws. > > > 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 "Principle > of Relativity") That's Galilean Relativity. He gives an example of it because it isn't easy to describe without an example. It reduces to v = v1-v2, or by way of example, two cars travelling side by side at 60 mph have a relative velocity of 0 = 60 -60 and the occupants can toss a ball one to the other as they drive along, side by side. A car coming the other way at 60 mph has a relative velocity of 120 mph with respect to the first, as the extent of the damage when they collide will testify. The example he uses is the relative motion of a conductor and a magnet, in the first paragraph. > 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] 20 years later he has realised the "apparent" irreconcilability, appealing to schoolchildren. http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html "Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec." Pure kiddy talk, he hasn't said what the speed of light is with respect to. ALL velocities are with respect to something. "In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school." In short, the kiddy in school can justifiably believe in Santa Claus, too, if he's told enough times. > >> 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. They are not right. In section V, he claims the c = (c+v)/(1 + v/c). That is AFTER he has used t = x'/(c+v) in section III. Why didn't he use t = x'/[ (c+v)/(1 + v/c)] in section III? He makes use of the vector addition of velocities to claim you cannot use the vector addition of velocities. Sanity check that. Only by having that ability will you > be able to show what the conclusions should be with the mistake corrected. Correct it then. Here's ONE of his equations that needs correction. ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) Do you see that c-v and c+v? They are the vector addition of velocities. Use the composition of velocities like you are supposed to and then derive the composition of velociies from it. 1 = 1 + 2 because we are supposed to use 1 = (1+2)/(1 + 2/1) Sanity check please. Einstein was INSANE if he thinks I'm buying that, and only an idiot would worship at his door. There are plenty of those around here that do,though. They take his word as gospel and never question it. That's religion, not science. The Lorentz transformations show this, the Lorentz transformations show that. Load of old rubbish, the Lorentz transformations cannot be derived. > >> 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. I doesn't matter what you say to a believer, you will never overcome faith with logic. Proof works only on those that can question faith. Einstein was a very glib salesman, he sold himself the the masses and they believe him without question. He was the greatest con-artist in history, exceeding even Ptolemy. Here's what Newton said of Ptolemy: The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:- This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history. Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:- [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html I accuse Einstein of the same crime. > >> 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. The atom bomb did the trick in 1945. Langevin derived E = mc^2 from classical physics, and Einstein derived E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) You've never heard of Langevin, I suppose. I expect you also believe Edison invented the light bulb, and don't know he purchased the patent from Swann. Both Einstein and Edison went to a lot of trouble to promote themselves, claiming to be the first. That's human nature, and I don't claim to be a psychologist, but I wish I'd studied psychology years ago. > > >> > 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. That's Henri's hang-up, unfortunately. The trouble with time dilation being derived from a vertical beam and claiming c =AB/tau in one frame and c = AC/t in the other is that c is the same in both frames, time isn't, is that they get reversed when you kick the flashlight through an angle arctan(v/c). Now you have c = AB/t and c = AC/tau, and no amount of sanity checking will show the faithful relativist just how insane that is. > > .... > >> 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. Relativists are not true scientists and they have blind faith. > THey continually examine their > basic assumptions when they review the data from their experiments. A scientist does that. A relativist doesn't. You'll find that Bilge, Tom Roberts, Alan Schwartz, John Baez and others, all of whom are contributors to this newsgroup at some time or other, all CLAIM to be scientists, but reasoning with them is hopeless. Bilge and Schwartz (self-styled "Uncle" Al) particularly delight in being smart-arses. They'll bury their heads in the sand and ignore anyone that doesn't attend there Holy Church of Relativity, of which they see themselves as the high priests. I fart in their church for the fun of it. :-) There is a little puppy dog, Dinky Van der Torquemada, that runs around the newsgroup peeing against the leg of anyone that farts in this church, he's best ignored, as are most of the congregation. > > They are HOPING to find something that will challenge well established > priciples because there the nobel prizes are found. Sure they are. Self-glorification and fame is best attained on the heels of the already established. It doesn't matter what nonsense it might be. The more nonsensical it is, the better your chance of a Nobel Prize. > > .... > > 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. Good, I'm glad you straightened that one out. :-) Now work on the separation distance. AD.
From: Arthur Dent on 26 Jun 2005 15:36 bz wrote: > "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > news:1119578949.505498.21960(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > > Who cares what the lunatic said? He was totally off his rocker when he > > said > > it takes the same time for light to travel from A to B as it takes from > > B to A, > > > > The pulses must start from A and from B > at the same time so that they travel the same distance. > LOL! The light leaves A, takes time to get to B, reflects at B and then returns to A. AD.
From: bz on 26 Jun 2005 16:20
"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119814579.784047.167960(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > > bz wrote: >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119578949.505498.21960(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >> > Who cares what the lunatic said? He was totally off his rocker when >> > he said >> > it takes the same time for light to travel from A to B as it takes >> > from B to A, >> > >> >> The pulses must start from A and from B >> at the same time so that they travel the same distance. >> > LOL! > The light leaves A, takes time to get to B, reflects at B > and then returns to A. There is nothing to indicate reflection. [quote] We have not defined a common ýtimeý for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ýtimeý required by light to travel from A to B equals the ýtimeý it requires to travel from B to A. [unquote] "we establish by definition that the "time" required for light to travel from A to be equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A." Notice, he does NOT say the time to travel from A to B and be reflected back to A. He says nothing about mirrors or reflections. He is talking about requirements for syncronizing clocks and explains that we must assume that it takes light the same time to travel the same path, no matter which way it is traveling that path. -- 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 |