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 19:26 On 26 Jun 2005 04:52:29 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> 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. Read the RU Cam reference again: "Cepheids are known for their precise variability which can be measured to a fraction of a second." You cannot run from the truth forever, Jerry. > >---------------- >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 The BaT predicts and easily exlains such regular variations. If you car to run my program, you will find a section called 'time compression'. It explains everything. Basically, if a binary pair is itself in a larger orbit around something, the information received from the pair will be regularly condensed and expanded in tiem. I'm sorry Jerry but I am way ahead of you. > >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 19:29 On 26 Jun 2005 06:58:48 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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... >:-) Lucky boy! Incidentally, the weather has always provided considerable uncertainty in this type of astronomical observation. > >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: Arthur Dent on 26 Jun 2005 19:37 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 23 Jun 2005 19:09:09 -0700, "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > >bz wrote: > >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > >> news:1119567979.270217.176120(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > > >> > and since I do not accept > >> > his analysis of time, I see no reason to question Doppler. Therefore a > >> > red shifted photon is one that is subluminal. > >> > >> I will accept it as subluminal IF you can show, by timing its passage between > >> two points, that it is moving slower than c. > > > >Challenge accepted. > > > >Let there be two points in a vacuum, A and B. > >Let A and B be increasingly separated as a function of time. > >(That just means one is moving away from the other. We could perhaps > >use Earth and Mars as A and B) > >Let the speed of light be finite. (I think 300,000 km/sec has been > >quoted, > >and that is much less than infinity/sec, it takes around half an hour > >to get a signal to Mars and back) > >Let a ray of light be emitted from A toward B. > >Let it arrive at B when B is at a distance d from A. > >During the interval of time (finite and > 0)it takes for the light to > >return to A, the distance between A and B will be greater than d. > >Call this distance d' > d. > >By Einstein's definition that it takes the same time to make the return > >trip from B to A as it took to travel from A to B, and the distance > >between A and B now being greater when the light returns, it follows > >that there are two speeds of light, c' = d'/t and c = d/t, by the > >standard definition of speed. If you have some other definition of > >speed, keep it to yourself, please. > >Which you call subliminal and which you call superliminal is up to you, > > > >but one speed is greater than the other, by Einstein's own definition. > >A non-relativist would simply say it takes longer because it has > >further to go, > >but he'd also employ the vector addition of velocities, (c +/- v)t for > >the distances, and not the composition of velocities. > > > > > >> > >> > You've been shown. Denial is the argument of a relativist. > >> > >> Show me photons that MOVE slower than light [in vacuum] and you will have my > >> applause. > > > >Thank you. Read the above. You may now clap. > > > >> > >> [einstine says] > >[snip] > >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, > >his entire argument was built on that and was subjective and > >irrational. > > Was he off his rocker?....or just very devious? Devious, H, devious. I said that for bz's benefit. There is no question in my mind that the huckster was pulling a fast one. Nobody could be that stupid, *and* think up such a theory. > > His 'brute force' definition of clock synching was aimed at eliminating the > need for an aether. (According to LET, the times should be different in the two > opposite directions). > > However we know now that according to the BaT, light SHOULD take the same time > to travel in each directions between two fixed objects. > > A|--------<-L>---------|B > Sure, but BaT is making use of c in the moving frame. > Light is emitted at c wrt both A and B. > It will take L/c seconds in both directions. Yep. > > So is this evidence that Einstein was really a believer in Ritz's theory? > > I think so! But he wasn't going to tell anyone. He wanted to agree with Lorentz's "length contraction", it was more exotic, and he read H.G. Well's new book "The Time Machine" as a teenager. Time travel appealed to him, it was in the public eye, so he made use of it. He's stuck with "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t." though, no matter how he tries to bullshit around it. Arthur Dent.
From: bz on 26 Jun 2005 19:20 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:v3bub15u21gk55gnhhsdf2t4ugri4kuib8(a)4ax.com: > 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. "As it is" IS what an observer in that For sees. What other meaning can there be for 'as it is'? -- 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 19:49
bz wrote: > "As it is" IS what an observer in that For sees. > What other meaning can there be for 'as it is'? A straight stick poking out of water is a straight stick, "as it is". We see it bent, but what we see in our FoR is not "as it is". How's that for another meaning? Sanity check, please. AD. |