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: Henri Wilson on 26 Jun 2005 18:31 On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:46:39 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. Bob , when you plot something in another frame, you don't consider what anyone 'sees'. You plot it as is. 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 18:45 On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:46:40 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. Bob, you don't get it. What you see doesn't matter one iota. Plot the bloody thing. > >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. It must be done well away from Earth. I wonder how the expacted aberration would compare with the orbit wobble. > >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. I think you will find that the effect is far too small to be detected in a normal telescope. >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] Any binary pair should exhibit this kind of aberation. It would normally result in a slight bluring of the image. Remember the orbits of most binaries cannot be resolved optically. > >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. The angular variation would occur with the same period as the brightness curve. It would certainly not be detectable at ground level. >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. that is what the theorists will tell you. I'm not sure I agree with them. > >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. Aberration is caused by the Earth's rotation. It is a pretty small effect. We would be looking for a much smaller one, ~ 0.00001 of that which is now observed. I thoink you should do a few calculations before you make these 'useful' suggestions, Bob. 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 18:56 On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:00:08 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >"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 You just don't get it do you. How do you know the measuring equipment is not affected by movement? Two adjacent and relatively moving observers can simultaneously measure the constants at that point and come up with the same answers....but that doesn't ensure they really ARE the same, according to the arguments of LET. Now I'm not suggesting for a moment that there is an aether...but ...... > >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. > 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 19:17 On 26 Jun 2005 05:01:29 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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 >> >------------------------------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. > >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. Here are the light curves. http://weblore.com/richard/ru_cam_ex_cepheid_star.htm These are very easily explained by the BaT. In fact they provide even MORE evidence for the theory. RU Cam has moved away from the critical distance. It may be a binary pair that is in large orbit around something else or it may be just moving away from Earth. Since it has started to vary again, the former is the likely reason. RU Cam is returning towards the critical distance. Its brightness variations should eventually increase again, just as they decreased before. I don't see evidence of a third body in the curves. They are typical of a star in ecc~0.25 orbit. Incidentally note also: "Cepheids are known for their precise variability which can be measured to a fraction of a second." More proof that the curves are tied in with orbit period. No 'huff puff' process could posibly be that stable. Cepheids are largish stars that have a WCH (Wilson, cool, heavy) or neutron star orbiting them. To complicate the BaT picture, they may also be highly ellipsoidal in shape and in tidal lock... so that the area presented to the observer also varies with the period. (my latest theory) > >Jerry 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 19:22
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:23:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:sv6tb1p8jmhh8n2lmi2eb044igt0s1kqki(a)4ax.com: > >>>> >>>> "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. Here is another reference: http://weblore.com/richard/ru_cam_ex_cepheid_star.htm "Cepheids are known for their precise variability which can be measured to a fraction of a second." You cannot run away from the truth forever, Bob. > >> 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 a, pretty certain the above type of star in elliptical orbit and in tidal lock would exhibit a cepheid like brightness variation. > >> 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. |