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 27 Jun 2005 17:10 bz wrote: > 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 > "stationary" 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. Watch out for persuasive rhetoric, phrases like "is not possible without further assumption" when it is possible, and "In agreement with experience we further assume" because I don't know of anyone who shares his experience. I certainly don't. Or "with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments". What the hell in an imaginary experiment? A REAL experiment, MMX, showed that what Michelson IMAGINED was completely wrong. Such rhetoric is the true mark of the huckster, he's really saying he wants you to agree with him and calling you stupid if you don't. Here's another in a different paper: "Every child at school knows" Children at school are there to learn because they DON'T know. You don't find that kind of talk in most scientific papers, his arguments are pathetic. AD.
From: Arthur Dent on 27 Jun 2005 17:31 Jerry wrote: > Arthur Dent wrote: > > Jerry wrote: > > > Arthur Dent wrote: > > > > Try again. Fitting some published photometric curves, I find > > > > the mean period of RT Aur to be 3.729 days, with a random > > > > peak-to-peak scatter of 0.010 days. (This is over twice the > > > > uncertainty in my fitting routine, which was about 0.004 days > > > > given the limited data that I had available.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Its pretty obviously a ternary system, similar to the > > > > sun-earth-moon system > > > > The three body problem is a tad difficult to model, though. > > > > Arthur Dent. > > > > > > Invoking a third body doesn't work. Since the peak-to-peak > > > scatter that I observe quite literally occurs from one cycle > > > to the next, the implication would be that your hypothetical > > > perturbing body would be orbiting the two major bodies with a > > > period comparable the 3.7 day orbit of the major bodies. > > > That isn't stable, and the minor body would be ejected from > > > the system very quickly. > > > > > > Jerry > > > > Ah... > > I see. > > Let's look at a similar system to the one debated. > > Supposedly the Algol system is an eclipsing binary, with a 70 hour > > period, and the duration of the eclipse is 10 hours. > > We would not expect any orbit that was too eccentric, since one star > > would get extremely close to the other and tidal forces would rip them > > to shreds. So we'll use a circular orbit, as is claimed anyway. > > 10 hours in 70 hours is 1/7, and 360 degrees / 7 is about 52 degrees. > > What is the maximum distance the smaller star can be > > from the larger, in terms of the radius of the larger? > > I get 4.56 stellar radii, when both stars are of equal size, less > > if one is smaller than the other. > > That isn't stable, the minor body would merge with the major very > > quickly. Try again. > > Bogus argument. We were discussing close TERNARY systems, which > tend to be highly unstable. So your argument is bogus <shrug>. AD > Jerry
From: Jerry on 27 Jun 2005 17:48 Arthur Dent wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > Arthur Dent wrote: > > > Jerry wrote: > > > > Arthur Dent wrote: > > > > > Try again. Fitting some published photometric curves, I find > > > > > the mean period of RT Aur to be 3.729 days, with a random > > > > > peak-to-peak scatter of 0.010 days. (This is over twice the > > > > > uncertainty in my fitting routine, which was about 0.004 days > > > > > given the limited data that I had available.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its pretty obviously a ternary system, similar to the > > > > > sun-earth-moon system > > > > > The three body problem is a tad difficult to model, though. > > > > > Arthur Dent. > > > > > > > > Invoking a third body doesn't work. Since the peak-to-peak > > > > scatter that I observe quite literally occurs from one cycle > > > > to the next, the implication would be that your hypothetical > > > > perturbing body would be orbiting the two major bodies with a > > > > period comparable the 3.7 day orbit of the major bodies. > > > > That isn't stable, and the minor body would be ejected from > > > > the system very quickly. > > > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > > Ah... > > > I see. > > > Let's look at a similar system to the one debated. > > > Supposedly the Algol system is an eclipsing binary, with a 70 hour > > > period, and the duration of the eclipse is 10 hours. > > > We would not expect any orbit that was too eccentric, since one star > > > would get extremely close to the other and tidal forces would rip them > > > to shreds. So we'll use a circular orbit, as is claimed anyway. > > > 10 hours in 70 hours is 1/7, and 360 degrees / 7 is about 52 degrees. > > > What is the maximum distance the smaller star can be > > > from the larger, in terms of the radius of the larger? > > > I get 4.56 stellar radii, when both stars are of equal size, less > > > if one is smaller than the other. > > > That isn't stable, the minor body would merge with the major very > > > quickly. Try again. > > > > Bogus argument. We were discussing close TERNARY systems, which > > tend to be highly unstable. > > So your argument is bogus <shrug>. I think you are being deliberately dense. Algol C orbits at a distance of 3 A.U. from Algol A and B. So Algol is most decidedly not a close ternary, and it is quite stable. For the "period noise" in the RT Aur light curve to be due to a third body, the hypothetical minor body, whose estimated dimensions might be that of a large planet, would have to be orbiting the two primary bodies at a distance comparable to the spacing of the two primary bodies with respect to each other. This is not a stable configuration. -Now- do you understand? Jerry
From: Arthur Dent on 27 Jun 2005 18:43 Jerry wrote: > Arthur Dent wrote: > > Jerry wrote: > > > Arthur Dent wrote: > > > > Jerry wrote: > > > > > Arthur Dent wrote: > > > > > > Try again. Fitting some published photometric curves, I find > > > > > > the mean period of RT Aur to be 3.729 days, with a random > > > > > > peak-to-peak scatter of 0.010 days. (This is over twice the > > > > > > uncertainty in my fitting routine, which was about 0.004 days > > > > > > given the limited data that I had available.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its pretty obviously a ternary system, similar to the > > > > > > sun-earth-moon system > > > > > > The three body problem is a tad difficult to model, though. > > > > > > Arthur Dent. > > > > > > > > > > Invoking a third body doesn't work. Since the peak-to-peak > > > > > scatter that I observe quite literally occurs from one cycle > > > > > to the next, the implication would be that your hypothetical > > > > > perturbing body would be orbiting the two major bodies with a > > > > > period comparable the 3.7 day orbit of the major bodies. > > > > > That isn't stable, and the minor body would be ejected from > > > > > the system very quickly. > > > > > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > > > > Ah... > > > > I see. > > > > Let's look at a similar system to the one debated. > > > > Supposedly the Algol system is an eclipsing binary, with a 70 hour > > > > period, and the duration of the eclipse is 10 hours. > > > > We would not expect any orbit that was too eccentric, since one star > > > > would get extremely close to the other and tidal forces would rip them > > > > to shreds. So we'll use a circular orbit, as is claimed anyway. > > > > 10 hours in 70 hours is 1/7, and 360 degrees / 7 is about 52 degrees. > > > > What is the maximum distance the smaller star can be > > > > from the larger, in terms of the radius of the larger? > > > > I get 4.56 stellar radii, when both stars are of equal size, less > > > > if one is smaller than the other. > > > > That isn't stable, the minor body would merge with the major very > > > > quickly. Try again. > > > > > > Bogus argument. We were discussing close TERNARY systems, which > > > tend to be highly unstable. > > > > So your argument is bogus <shrug>. > > I think you are being deliberately dense. Yes, well... > Algol C orbits > at a distance of 3 A.U. from Algol A and B. So Algol is > most decidedly not a close ternary, and it is quite stable. o-------o / \ o o | B | Q o o \ /| o_______o | | | | | o-------o |/ \ o o | A | o o |\ / | o_______o | | | | | | | Observer. The angle BAQ is 26 degrees because 10 hours/70 hours * 360 degrees = 52 degrees. With a 10 hour eclipse in a 70 hour period, Algol B from Algol A can be no further than 2 /sin(26) = 4.56 * the radius of Algol A. That's not just unstable, that's meltdown NOW. The system should not be observed if your model is correct, Algol C is irrelevant. I haven't measured how deliberately dense you are, it goes off my scale. NOW do you understand? AD.
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Jun 2005 18:51
On 27 Jun 2005 06:16:53 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 26 Jun 2005 05:01:29 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >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? No. There is s simple explanation. Notice the period doesn't change much. Consider RU Cam as being a large star with a WCH orbiting it. The pair is in a much larger and probably highly eccentric orbit around something else, possibly a galactic centre. Under those circumstances, the brightness variation would die away quite quickly. I forecast that the amplitude will rise again eventually. >Try again. You just don't want to understand finer points of the BaT. > >> 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 A very likely explanation would be that a smaller object was temporaily captured by the binary pair CY Aqu, then thrown of again a short time later. That can happen. You must be pretty desperate to dig up such vague information. Most authors state categorically that Cepheids exhibit very constant periods. > >> 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! All objects in the universe are in some kind of orbit. Orbiting pairs are themselves in orbit around something else. That kind of movement is enough to cause a small but fairly steady change in observed period. The actual period would remain constant. >>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..." Don't believe everything you read. > >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. |