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 27 Jun 2005 09:16 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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 > >> >-------------------------------------------------- > >> >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. RU Cam would have needed to move away from us at speeds in excess of c in order to explain the transition between 1964 and 1965, using your BaT theory. Shouldn't that have evidenced itself in Doppler shift? Try again. > 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." The mean periods of most Cepheids show a secular change in length that amounts to an increase or decrease of mean period by seconds per year. They also exhibit "period noise" which means the interval from one peak to another varies randomly by amounts up to a good fraction of an hour, depending on the Cepheid. This is a well-documented phenomenon. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1983Ap%26SS..96..185S http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1985IBVS.2802....1K > More proof that the curves are tied in with orbit period. No 'huff puff' > process could posibly be that stable. But Cepheids aren't that stable! >From Szabados (1983): "In spite of the fact that the Cepheids pulsate quite regularly their pulsation period remains constant only in the first approximation. These variables (as well as other pulsating stars) spend only a tiny part of their lifetime in the instability strip of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.... These variations of individual Cepheids do indicate, however, that the observed period variation is mainly due to stellar evolution, at least in the case of the rapidly evolving long period Cepheids..." Jerry
From: Arthur Dent on 27 Jun 2005 11:46 bz wrote: > "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > news:1119837295.763924.158100(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > bz wrote: > >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > >> news:1119829768.103136.201980(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > >> That may be a good way of looking at lorentz contraction. The stick > >> doesn't change length or bend but to an observer in a different > >> environment, it looks different. > > > > Yeah, it might. And then again, the speed of light is c/n in water, n > > being the refractive index, and that is the cause of the ILLUSION. > > Following you suggestion, length contraction is an illusion too, but > > the illusion is one of the mind. Since nobody has ever SEEN Lorentz > > contraction, you might say its all in your dreams. > > > > > >> > >> And it may give Henri a different view of his vertical laser beam and > >> the street lights. > > > > > > I can't help Henri on that one. He's arguing against the vector > > addition of velocities and that is something only a relativist should > > do. > > Why should relativists argue against vector addition of velocities? > > > You on the other hand are arguing FOR the vector addition of > > velocities, so > > The vector addition of velocities is part of newtonian mechanics. > It should be valid and accepted under SR and BaT. [quote] "Thus the law of the parallelogram of velocities is valid according to our theory only to a first approximation." [unquote] It ISN'T accepted under SR, so there is no "should" about it. [quote, from section 5] "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." [unquote] So why did Einstein contradict his earlier statement [quote from section 3] "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." Huh? [unquote] That MUST have been only a first approximation, right? [sarcasm mode] Maybe c-v is the English translation of the German (c-v)/(1-v/c), perhaps? [end sarcasm mode] > > > that would indicate you accept c+v, c and v being vector quantities. > > Well there are some limits. That's a handwaving statement, not rigorous mathematics. I thought you wanted sanity checks? I want more than sanity checks, old son, I want rigour. Einstein's paper is riddled with flaws but the faithful are blind to them. Shake the flaws out and there is nothing left but handwaving. AD.
From: YBM on 27 Jun 2005 11:59 Arthur Dent a ýcrit : > So why did Einstein contradict his earlier statement > [quote from section 3] > "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." > Huh? > [unquote] > > That MUST have been only a first approximation, right? He didn't contradict : please notice the part "when measured in the stationary system" (the one where k move at v), it is *not* composition of velocities (i.e. it is *not* the velocity of light as measured in the k frame) it is computation of the closing velocity. [sarcasm mode] Any "sanity check" performed on Androcles/Dent or Henri programs would show that the problem lies between the keyboard and the chair. (http://pebkac.ubergoth.net/) [/sarcasm mode]
From: bz on 27 Jun 2005 12:58 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119887208.173804.31990(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > > bz wrote: >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119837295.763924.158100(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >> > >> > >> > bz wrote: >> >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> >> news:1119829768.103136.201980(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: ..... >> > I can't help Henri on that one. He's arguing against the vector >> > addition of velocities and that is something only a relativist should >> > do. >> >> Why should relativists argue against vector addition of velocities? >> >> > You on the other hand are arguing FOR the vector addition of >> > velocities, so >> >> The vector addition of velocities is part of newtonian mechanics. >> It should be valid and accepted under SR and BaT. > > [quote] > "Thus the law of the parallelogram of velocities is valid according to > our theory only to a first approximation." > [unquote] > It ISN'T accepted under SR, so there is no "should" about it. To a first approximation it is valid. For motion directly toward or away from the observer at low velocities, it is valid. > [quote, from section 5] > "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by > composition with a velocity less than that of light." > [unquote] > > So why did Einstein contradict his earlier statement > [quote from section 3] > "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." > Huh? > [unquote] I am sure he didn't say 'Huh?' Lets go back just a little.... to where he says "it being borne in mind that light is always propagated along these axes [Y and Z], when viewed from the stationary system, with the velocity sqrt(c^2 - v^2)." "What the heck?" you might say. He said light moves at c, always, and now he says sqrt(c^2-v^2). But does the formula remind you of anything? How about the sides of a right trangle? Could he be talking about light not moving directly toward or away from the observer? I bet he is. He certainly seems to be; at no point does he say that his moving coordinate system is oriented co-axial with his stationary system. I suspect that he has been so general at this point in his derivation that there is no such assumption needed. The rule 'light moves at c' ONLY applies to light moving directly toward the observer. Maybe that is why they talk about two different doppler shifts? The formula that you asked about, "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c - v," seems to be a continuation of the discussion of the 'off axis' velocity of light as seen by the observer. Maybe it makes a bit more sense to you, now? > That MUST have been only a first approximation, right? He was talking oranges, you were squeezing lemons. > [sarcasm mode] > Maybe > c-v > is the English translation of the German > (c-v)/(1-v/c), > perhaps? > [end sarcasm mode] Off axis, light doesn't appear to move at c. >> > that would indicate you accept c+v, c and v being vector quantities. >> >> Well there are some limits. c is a limit. > That's a handwaving statement, not rigorous mathematics. > I thought you wanted sanity checks? Yep. > I want more than sanity checks, old son, I want rigour. So do I. > Einstein's paper is riddled with flaws but the faithful are blind to > them. If you find one, let me know. Check the context. In this case, he is correct. -- 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 27 Jun 2005 14:53
Subject: Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant? Newsgroups: LSU news server:sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics To: Arthur Dent <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119894775.406827.289610(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > bz wrote: >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119887208.173804.31990(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >> > >> > >> > bz wrote: >> >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> >> news:1119837295.763924.158100(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > bz wrote: >> >> >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> >> >> news:1119829768.103136.201980(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> .... >> >> > I can't help Henri on that one. He's arguing against the vector >> >> > addition of velocities and that is something only a relativist >> >> > should do. >> >> >> >> Why should relativists argue against vector addition of velocities? >> >> >> >> > You on the other hand are arguing FOR the vector addition of >> >> > velocities, so >> >> >> >> The vector addition of velocities is part of newtonian mechanics. >> >> It should be valid and accepted under SR and BaT. >> > >> > [quote] >> > "Thus the law of the parallelogram of velocities is valid according >> > to our theory only to a first approximation." >> > [unquote] >> > It ISN'T accepted under SR, so there is no "should" about it. >> >> To a first approximation it is valid. >> >> For motion directly toward or away from the observer at low velocities, >> it is valid. >> >> > [quote, from section 5] >> > "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered >> > by composition with a velocity less than that of light." >> > [unquote] >> > >> > So why did Einstein contradict his earlier statement >> > [quote from section 3] >> > "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 > ." >> > [unquote] >> > Huh? >> Lets go back just a little.... to where he says Looks like I should have gone back further to where he said "Let us in ýstationaryý space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point. Let the axes of X of the two systems coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel." I am going to have to read carefully and follow the math. I will get back to you when I have done so. ..... -- 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 |