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 19:31 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 27 Jun 2005 14:48:23 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >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? Algol A and B are a spectroscopic pair. The Doppler shifts of the two components are easily distinguished. Algol C is resolvable from A and B, and its orbit has been directly measured. >From the observed data, calculations of orbital parameters are based on Newtoniana. Jerry
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Jun 2005 19:32 On 26 Jun 2005 19:02:33 -0700, "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >bz wrote: >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119829768.103136.201980(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >> > 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. No I am not, A. I say the infinitesimal elements move along their individual diagonal paths at sqrt(c^2+v^2) in the moving frame. These are dimenionless points and have no physical significance other than to define a path. They certainly do not constitute a 'diagonal light beam'. There is only one on each diagonal. The vertical beam as a whole takes the same time to go up and down again no matter who measures it. Its vertical component is always c in all frames. >You on the other hand are arguing FOR the vector addition of >velocities, so >that would indicate you accept c+v, c and v being vector quantities. >AD. 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 21:39 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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? No explanation for period noise = BaT failed. No explanation for Doppler broadening = BaT failed. False prediction of orbital Doppler shifts = BaT failed. Failure to explain Cepheid stars observable in Magenellic Clouds (far beyond critical distance) = BaT failed. Failure to explain secular variations in Cepheid periods = BaT failed. Failure to explain overtone frequencies = BaT failed. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.... Jerry
From: David Evens on 27 Jun 2005 23:21 On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:22:05 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >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. Indeed you cannot, as the swentence you quote seems to be the only part of the particular page it appears on that does noty contradict your halucinations. It immediately preceeds a description of the helium valve model, and is on a page about a cepheid that has definitely not stayed in a steady pulsation pattern. >>> 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. The3n why don't they? We see LOTS of stars that you claim cepheids to be, in all directions, and at all distances. >>> 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 never done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: bz on 28 Jun 2005 03:54
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:vk21c15crve4klnsn677mgpsmprusg56rl(a)4ax.com: > 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: ..... > 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.. On the contrary. You are showing what an all-seeing being would see if your model were valid. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu |