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 27 Jun 2005 19:02 On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:11:03 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:t0eub1hpcakkobuqmr4es4skmjtjlt2957(a)4ax.com: > >> 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." > >'can be measured to a fraction of a second' does not necessarily mean 'is >constant to a fraction of a second'. > >There is no question that some cepheids are 'regular' for some period of >time. There is also no question that most, if not all cepheids show some >variations. Weren't you the one who recently accused ME of moving the goalposts? > >There is a question as to whether some people seem to have exaggerated the >regularity of cepheids. The BaT would predict that the periods of most cepheids should steadily increase or decrease by varying degrees due to 'time compression'. > >He specializes in positional astronomy. >http://weblore.com/richard/ > >> >> You cannot run away from the truth forever, Bob. > >I am searching for truth, Henri. The speed of all starlight is not miraculously adjusted so that it leaves its source at c wrt little planet Earth. Why don't you retaliate with this theory: Light leaves stars at an infinite range of speeds. WE on Earth can only detect that which is moving at c wrt us. That should make you think. It might not be as silly as it sounds. >>> >>>Each theory has its consequences. >>> >>>Double stars such as you describe are known to exist but they exhibit >>>characteristics quite different from cepheids. >> >> I am pretty certain the above type of star in elliptical orbit and in >> tidal lock would exhibit a cepheid like brightness variation. > >Cepheids show some distinctive characteristics, such as rapid cyclic shifts >in stellar type. That is related to observed brightness and 'estimated' size. I would expect variations in estimated luminosity. 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: Jerry on 27 Jun 2005 19:07 Arthur Dent wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > 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? (sigh) It is well known that Algol A and B form a semi-detached system, the two stars being so close together that there has been significant mass exchange between the two, the sub-giant having given up a large part of its mass to its companion so that it is now the less massive of the two. What's your problem with that? Jerry
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Jun 2005 19:08 On 27 Jun 2005 14:48:23 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> 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. 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. Are these figures derived from direct observations or from calculations based on Einsteiniana? > >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. RT Aur radial velocity curve is precisely that of a star in elliptical orbit with ecc ~0.25 and perihelion furthest from observer. Its light curve can be produced easily with my BaT program. >-Now- do you understand? > >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 27 Jun 2005 19:22 On 26 Jun 2005 16:37:14 -0700, "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >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 >> > >> >> >> >> > 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. Well, in any one frame, the BaT says tAB=tBA. (if A and B are mutually at rest). This is exactly what Einstein concocted to eliminate the aether. Did he believe deep down that nobody could ever prove him wrong because light speed is indeed c wrt everything in its source frame. Or did he just fluke the right answer for entirely the wrong reasons? The BaT says that clocks which are E-synched are in genuine ABSOLUTE synch. Einstein claimed simultaneity is relative. >> 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. I agree entirely. He was probably leaning towards his colleague Ritz at the time but considered his radical SR a much better sales proposition to the general public. > >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." Which forms the basis of the BaT and its ability to correctly predict star brightness curves. > >though, no matter how he tries to bullshit around it. >Arthur Dent. 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 27 Jun 2005 19:25
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:20:47 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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'? Bob, just run my movingframe program again. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe What happens in the rest frame is plotted in the other. The resulting configuration has nought to do with observers or what they see.. 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. |