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: bz on 28 Jun 2005 08:58 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119811858.827607.249480(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > bz wrote: >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119749417.927070.92220(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> > bz wrote: ..... >> > ... because the flaw is there. [Einstein's SR theory] >> >> It may be. The task is to find it. > > Yep. I have. You have yourself convinced, thats easy. Now convince me. >> > Of course you have to read the original paper to find it, reading >> > the copycat trash from the thousands that didn't find it isn't going >> > to help much. >> >> In the original german. > > > After 100 years I would thing any error in translation would have been > discovered by now and there is no need to translate equations. Einstein > did speak English, he moved the Princeton, New Jersey.. He would quite > easily have seen a flaw in a translation of his own paper. You are > clutching at straws. I am not clutching at straws. I was just trying to make the point 'to read the original paper', to really read it, one must read it in the german. I can't. I doubt you can. So, there is always a slight chance we may misunderstand an important point because we[most of us] can't read the original paper. >> > They say things like "the velocity of light is the same in >> > all frames of reference" but of course Einstein never did say that. >> >> [he said {in the english translation}] >> ...the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all >> frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We >> will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be >> called the "Principle of Relativity") > > That's Galilean Relativity. He gives an example of it because it isn't > easy to describe without an example. It reduces to v = v1-v2, or by way > of example, two cars travelling side by side at 60 mph have a relative > velocity of 0 = 60 -60 and the occupants can toss a ball one to the > other as they drive along, side by side. A car coming the other way at > 60 mph has a relative velocity of 120 mph with respect to the first, as > the extent of the damage when they collide will testify. The example he > uses is the relative motion of a conductor and a magnet, in the first > paragraph. That is not what he say. He says that for all frames of reference where the laws of mechanics [F=ma... etc, Newton's laws], for all such frames, the laws of electrodynamics and optics will also hold true. He goes on to say that he won't try to prove it, we just postulate that it is true. >> to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another >> postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, >> namely, >> that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity >> c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. >> [unquote] His second postulate is that light, in empty space, always travels at c, independent of the motion of the emitting body. This, together with the first postulate, says that light travels at c wrt all observers in all FoR [provided the laws of mechanics also hold in the FoR]. > 20 years later he has realised the "apparent" irreconcilability, > appealing to schoolchildren. > http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html > "Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this > propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 > km./sec." > > Pure kiddy talk, he hasn't said what the speed of light is with respect > to. ALL velocities are with respect to something. And light is with respect to everything [except light]. > "In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the > velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at > school." He goes on later and explains in detail. > In short, the kiddy in school can justifiably believe in Santa Claus, > too, if he's told enough times. [quote] it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later. [unquote] ..... >> Simply knowing where it is wrong, if it is, is not enough. >> >> You must be able to show that all conclusions based on the mistake >> would have >> been right if the mistake were not made. > > They are not right. > In section V There is no section V in his original paper. You appear to mean section 5. > , he claims the c = (c+v)/(1 + v/c). > That is AFTER he has used t = x'/(c+v) in section III. > Why didn't he use > t = x'/[ (c+v)/(1 + v/c)] > in section III? He is showing what happens to the equation just above, which shows the 'composition' of two sub c velocities, will always result in c when c is one of the velocities. > He makes use of the vector addition of velocities to claim you cannot > use the vector addition of velocities. > Sanity check that. He shows that the 'composition' always gives c. > Only by having that ability will you >> be able to show what the conclusions should be with the mistake >> corrected. > > Correct it then. > Here's ONE of his equations that needs correction. > ý[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) > > Do you see that c-v and c+v? They are the vector addition of > velocities. No. They are terms used in the calculation TIME. x'/(c-v) is the time for the beam to travel from A to B x'/(c+v) is the time for the return trip It IS permitted to use such terms in the computation of time. > Use the composition of velocities like you are supposed to and then > derive the composition of velociies from it. ..... > > Sanity check please. saying that x'/(c-v) involves an operation on speed is wrong. substitute "a distance" for x', "b distance/time" for c, and "d distance/time" for v you get a distance/(b distance/time - d distance/time) = a time/(b - d) THEN you subtract d from b. The illusion that you were adding or subtracting velocities with the velocity of light vanishes. Of course, you were NEVER adding velocities, you were calculating times. > Einstein was INSANE if he thinks I'm buying that, and only an idiot > would worship at his door. There are plenty of those around here that > do,though. > They take his word as gospel and never question it. That's religion, > not science. > The Lorentz transformations show this, the Lorentz transformations show > that. > Load of old rubbish, the Lorentz transformations cannot be derived. PROOF? >> >> 2) because what you say will be more credable when you know what you >> >> are talking about. >> > >> > Einstein didn't know what HE was talking about. >> >> That may be true, but the trick is proving it. Until you can do that, >> to the 'believers', you have nothing. > > I doesn't matter what you say to a believer, you will never overcome > faith with logic. There are 'hard' faithful, and 'soft' faithful, and 'no' faith. The hard, would not know a clue if it bit them. The soft, will change, if you present them with clue in the right manner. A clue-by-four applied stoutly. The no faith will only require of you what they require of every other theory: a theory consistent with all known evidence. > Proof works only on those that can question faith. > Einstein was a very glib salesman, he sold himself the the masses and > they believe him without question. He was the greatest con-artist in > history, exceeding even Ptolemy. > Here's what Newton said of Ptolemy: > > The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from > Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:- > > This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed > by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of > the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived > mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy > and history. > > Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation > claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:- > > [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that > they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the > theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so > that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his > theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice > is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship. > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html I know nothing of Ptolomy's crime. I do know that 'the truth will out' and true scientists do their best to avoid any questionabled data because they know that science is based on reproducable data. They know that fake data will be detected. > I accuse Einstein of the same crime. He is not around to defend himself. That makes him an easy target for such accusations. It does you no credit to make such an accusation. Were he alive, he would have a good case against you for libel. >> >> 3) A good salesman knows his competitors products better than the >> >> competitor does. He can sell the competitor's product to a client, >> >> and THEN show them why his product is BETTER. >> > >> > Physicists are not salesmen, though, but Einstein was. He sold >> > himself and his ideas, and people bought it. >> >> Einstein was an unknown. His work made little impression for quite some >> time. >> It was only after some of his predictions came true that people started >> to notice him. I doubt the Einstein spent much time or energy 'selling' >> his ideas. They sold theirselves once his predictions appeared to be >> true. > > The atom bomb did the trick in 1945. Oh, his works were well accept before then. > Langevin derived E = mc^2 from classical physics, and Einstein derived > E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > You've never heard of Langevin, I suppose. Study of the Einstein-Langevin Equation makes me tense. It is quite a grave situation. > I expect you also believe Edison invented the light bulb, and don't > know he purchased the patent from Swann. Swann's bulb had large problems due to the small resistance of the carbon rod that emitted the light. http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/lighting/19thcent/comp19.htm Edison probably bought the patent from Swann to avoid a courtroom battle. Hiram Maxim [an early radio researcher] also invented a light bulb. > Both Einstein and Edison went to a lot of trouble to promote > themselves, claiming to be the first. I doubt that either claim to be first. Others may credit them with being first, but most scientist I know are quite open and honest and glad to credit those who's shoulders they stand upon. > That's human nature, and I don't > claim to be a psychologist, but I wish I'd studied psychology years > ago. > Most who go into psychology do so because they are afraid they are crazy. I was told that by a very smart social worker. ..... >> Henri says it isn't a beam because the photons are 'skewed', pointing >> in a different direction than they are traveling. I tried to show him >> the the front and back end of the photon end up diagonal also (from the >> FoR of the outside observer) Of course the observer at A sees his beam >> go straight > up >> and hit B as it moves by. > That's Henri's hang-up, unfortunately. The trouble with time dilation > being derived from a vertical beam and claiming c =AB/tau in one > frame and c = AC/t in the other is that c is the same in both frames, > time isn't, is that they get reversed when you kick the flashlight > through an > angle arctan(v/c). Now you have c = AB/t and c = AC/tau, and no amount > of sanity checking will show the faithful relativist just how insane that > is. No amount of sanity checking will show any priest or faithful follower. Be the religion plutonium, falling light, dual space, BaT, LET, or SR/GR/EEP. >> >> If it were 100% plausible, everyone reading about it would be >> >> convinced. >> > >> > No son, you cannot overcome easily blind faith, you have to be >> > receptive and open minded and think logically. >> >> True scientist do NOT have blind faith. > Relativists are not true scientists and they have blind faith. Depends on what you mean by relativists. There are scientist and priests of the religion of science. Scientists TEST theories, hoping to break them. Priests look ONLY for support for their pet theories. >> THey continually examine their >> basic assumptions when they review the data from their experiments. > > A scientist does that. A relativist doesn't. Conditional acceptance of relativity, then, would not make one a 'relativist', in your use of the word. ..... snipped Arthurs opinions of specific posters. [some of which I might agree with, but insulting others is not something someone with self respect needs to do]. >> They are HOPING to find something that will challenge well established >> priciples because there the nobel prizes are found. > > Sure they are. Self-glorification and fame is best attained on the > heels of the already established. It doesn't matter what nonsense it > might be. The more nonsensical it is, the better your chance of a Nobel > Prize. It doesn't work that way. If it did, S&P and their cold fusion would have been prize winners. The first step in science is to find a hole in a current theory or data that is outside of all theories. Next, explain the data. Predict new results. Publish. Next, other scientist try to replicate your results [or find mistakes you have made]. If your theory withstands the furnace of scientific testing AND If your theory is a springboard upon which other knowledge is gathered, THEN you get the prize. Otherwise.... nada. ..... >> > You'll find Henri is quite sane most if the time. >> > Dunno about your negative mass for Algol B, though :-) >> >> Negative on the negative mass. It worked out quite fine. > > > Good, I'm glad you straightened that one out. :-) > Now work on the separation distance. That was ok, also. You do realize that this is a contact binary, don't you? Significant matter exchange is taking place. -- 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 28 Jun 2005 11:11 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:p7bub1tun1kf8260mkdnbcu0i036c6rpcp(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:46:40 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:tl8tb152v0gn26qdip73peho1jk5gphsti(a)4ax.com: >> >>> No it isn't. The beam AS A WHOLE remains vertical. Draw the bloody >>> thing if you don't believe me. >> >>Henri, Remember the moving band of graph paper experiment I proposed. >>The front end of the photons and the back end of the photons get skewed >>by the same amount as the beam itself when seen from another FoR >>because, from the other FoR the two ends of the photon are not >>simultanious. >> >>> Plot the positions of hyopthetical wavecrests. >>> They remain vertically in line in ALL frames. >>> >>> Do you think light poles lean over when you drive past them? >> >>If you go fast enough they do. The light from the bottom of the pole >>reaches you sooner than the light from the top of the pole. >> >>Between seeing the light from the bottom and the light from the top, you >>have moved. This makes the pole appear to lean. >>Poles behind you will be leaning the other way. >> >>BTW, this doesn't depend on Einstein, relativity, >>or anything else except simple geometry. > > Bob, you don't get it. > What you see doesn't matter one iota. > Plot the bloody thing. We disagree. >>Henri, you inspired the following idea! We have a test for BaT! >> >>Astronomers use the above mentioned effect to measure the distance to >>stars. >> >>See the second section on this page [you can ignore the first part] >>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/star.html >>[quote]Aberration of Starlight >>You have to tilt your telescope to catch the star light just as you have >>to tilt your umbrella to keep off wind-driven rain. It is a matter of >>relative velocity. >> >>Actual experiments involve measurements of the change in the apparent >>positions of stars at different times of the year. >>[unquote] >> >>In fact, Henri, we can now, once and for all, lay to rest the question >>of c'=c+v photons and their being the cause of cepheid variables. >> >>We can do it with observations already being taken in space by the HST. >> >>All we need to do is ask if the Aberration of Starlight from nearby >>cepheid variable stars CHANGES with the brightness of the star. > It must be done well away from Earth. > I wonder how the expected aberration would compare with the orbit > wobble. Good question. >>You and Arthur contend that the brightness varies due to the arrival of >>photons of different velocities. >> >>Different velocity photons will display different degrees of >>aberratation when observed by the HST because the amount of aberration >>depends on the relative rates of motion of the telescope and light. > > I think you will find that the effect is far too small to be detected in > a normal telescope. I would expect that is correct. >>Anyway, you have been saying that the HST is seeing c'=c+v photons all >>the time. Your cepheid theory provides a perfect test. A nearby cepheid, >>one that is already close enough to be known to show aberration should >>be observed and the aberration recorded during several points in the >>brightness cycle. [Probably it already has been, in which case we just >>need to look at the data] > Any binary pair should exhibit this kind of aberation. Right. > It would normally > result in a slight bluring of the image. Remember the orbits of most > binaries cannot be resolved optically. If the image gets brighter because of the arrival of a significant number of c' photons, and the cepheid is close enough to the earth, the HST should see a sudden widening or shift of the image. >>Just like the umbrella analogy, where we tilt the umbrella to compensate >>for the wind and the effect that the drops are not vertical wrt our >>motion, in the case of Henri/Dent Cepheids, the 'wind' should be >>changing rapidly and we would need to keep changing the tilt on our >>umbrella (stellar aberration correction) to compensate. > > The angular variation would occur with the same period as the brightness > curve. It would certainly not be detectable at ground level. I agree that it is *probably* not detectable at ground level. >>c'=c+v photons would display different amounts of aberration in >>terrestrial telescopes also, unless they all start obeying the >>speedlimit when they enter the atmosphere. > that is what the theorists will tell you. > I'm not sure I agree with them. I would have expected you to agree with my statement, expecially with the speedlimit qualifications. >>The same 'aberration effect' should be useable in a laboratory to test >>for photon speed from moving sources by using a moving detector that is >>sensitive to changes in direction of the incoming photons. > Aberration is caused by the Earth's rotation. Usually by the earths motion about the sun. But with c' photons, the effect should be independent of the earth's position in its orbit. > It is a pretty small effect. Yep. > We would be looking for a much smaller one, ~ 0.00001 of that > which is now observed. HST sees some very small details. You are the expert on telescopes, aren't you? How did you estimate that number? What about extra galactic Cepheid? Cepheids outside our galaxy. The sun [and planets] are moving "at from 220 km/sec to 250 km/sec towards the Cygnus constellation"[http://s91589888.onlinehome.us/sgc/sgc7.htm] The earth is moving at 29.78 km/sec around the sun. It seems like if the speed of the photons is varying by +/- 90 km per second (some cepheids show such radial velocites) [a lot of orbiting stars show MUCH higher radial velocities, I wonder why THEY don't show up as cepheids?] then you should have photons arriving with 180 km second differences in speed at different times. That is about a tenth of a percent of the speed of light. It should result in some noticable aberrations. Especially when the light has been traveling a long way. [quote http://www.anti-relativity.com/stellaraberration.htm] Stellar aberration is the effect well known by astronomers to cause stars to shift up to 20.5 arc seconds in their location in the sky. [unquote] [quote http://zeus.colorado.edu/astr1120-toomre/Lectures/lecture06-- 24jan05.pdf] HST Sharpness of Images HST Resolution: HST Resolution: 0.05 arcseconds Compare with ýbest seeingý ground based observations Compare with ýbest seeingý ground based observations at 0.5 arcseconds, and ýtypicalý 2 arcsecond [unquote] > I think you should do a few calculations before you make these 'useful' > suggestions, Bob. Henri, that is a very good suggestion. We should all take it. -- 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 28 Jun 2005 14:54 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119839022.543041.172060(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > bz wrote: >> Henri, you inspired the following idea! We have a test for BaT! > > This is the test for BaT. It's quite independent of anyone's opinion. > > You have a near circular orbit for Algol, according to the "known" > data. Inner binary is nearly circular, e=0.075. Outer binary e=.225 http://homepage.mac.com/antallan/algol2.html The system is NOT simple due to mass exchange between the stars. > Light from one side of the orbit, according to Einstein, takes the > same time, > t1 = d/c, to get here as light from the oposite side, > t2 = d/c, d being the distance to the star, and t1 = t2. I assume 'one side' is the point of max v wrt earth, toward us, and 'the opposite side' is max -v wrt earth? [as opposed to point furthest from earth vs point closest to earth, which should be at minimum v wrt earth]. > According to BaT, there are two times involved, t1 = d/(c-v) and > t2 = d/(c+v) > > When the star is moving directly away from us it will show maximum red > shift. right. > When it is directly approaching, it will show maximum blue shift. right. > If > Einstein's c constant is correct the maximum red and blue shifts will > be still be 1/2 the period of the orbit apart when the light gets here. without the third body in the situation, that is correct. > If the Galilean addition of velocities is correct, the blue shifted > light will travel faster (c+v) and arrive early; the red shifted light > will travel slower (c-v) and arrive late. The arrival times will NOT be > half the period of the orbit apart. sounds reasonable, absent the third star, extra stellar mass, and mass exchange underway. > So look at the velocity curve of Algol, case solved. How, exactly, should we account for Algol C and its effect on A&B's orbits? I am not quite sure, yet, how the equations should work. I suppose I could simulate the eliptical orbits, then with the equation for distance from earth, I should be able to solve for the velocity and see how the shape of the curve varies as the three stars orbit each other. I imagine someone has already done this and that is where they got the orbital parameters they have settled upon. -- 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 28 Jun 2005 16:57 bz wrote: > "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > news:1119839022.543041.172060(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > bz wrote: > >> Henri, you inspired the following idea! We have a test for BaT! > > > > This is the test for BaT. It's quite independent of anyone's opinion. > > > > You have a near circular orbit for Algol, according to the "known" > > data. > Inner binary is nearly circular, e=0.075. > Outer binary e=.225 > > http://homepage.mac.com/antallan/algol2.html I do hope you are not trying to tell me that two stars can orbit a common barycentre with different eccentricities... Wanna try for different periods as well? :-) http://homepage.mac.com/antallan/images/algol/hilla.jpg There it is, old son. :-) Minimum velocity at phase 0.06, max velocity at phase 0.7 0.7 - 0.06 = 0.64, not 0.5. 360 * 0.64 = 144 degrees, not 180 degrees. > The system is NOT simple due to mass exchange between the stars. Occam's Razor says you are making the system more complicated than it need be. > > > Light from one side of the orbit, according to Einstein, takes the > > same time, > > t1 = d/c, to get here as light from the oposite side, > > t2 = d/c, d being the distance to the star, and t1 = t2. > > I assume 'one side' is the point of max v wrt earth, toward us, and 'the > opposite side' is max -v wrt earth? [as opposed to point furthest from earth > vs point closest to earth, which should be at minimum v wrt earth]. Your assumption in this case would indeed be correct, I'm glad we are on the same wavelength :-) The velocity of the star toward Earth is zero when crossing our line of sight, unless the orbit is eccentric with the major axis at an angle to the line if sight, plus any velocity in our direction of the system as a whole. > > > According to BaT, there are two times involved, t1 = d/(c-v) and > > t2 = d/(c+v) > > > > When the star is moving directly away from us it will show maximum red > > shift. > > right. > > > When it is directly approaching, it will show maximum blue shift. > > right. > > If > > Einstein's c constant is correct the maximum red and blue shifts will > > be still be 1/2 the period of the orbit apart when the light gets here. > > without the third body in the situation, that is correct. > > > If the Galilean addition of velocities is correct, the blue shifted > > light will travel faster (c+v) and arrive early; the red shifted light > > will travel slower (c-v) and arrive late. The arrival times will NOT be > > half the period of the orbit apart. > > sounds reasonable, absent the third star, extra stellar mass, and mass > exchange underway. > > > So look at the velocity curve of Algol, case solved. > > How, exactly, should we account for Algol C and its effect on A&B's orbits? We don't care about Algol C, it doesn't have a 70 hour period and is irrelevant to the discussion on the eclipsing BINARY and the vector addition of light. Analogously I usually don't include Jupiter's mass in figuring out Earth's tides, either. The predominant body is the moon, but we include the mass of the sun for spring and neap tides. > I am not quite sure, yet, how the equations should work. I suppose I could > simulate the eliptical orbits, then with the equation for distance from > earth, I should be able to solve for the velocity and see how the shape of > the curve varies as the three stars orbit each other. > > I imagine someone has already done this and that is where they got the > orbital parameters they have settled upon. Ya reckon, huh? So what you are saying is that because we SEE the min and max velocity at phases of min and max velocity 0.06 and 0.7, we can calculate the orbit using Kepler's laws. That's fair enough, but it assumes 'c' constant and the timing of what we see is when we see it. That differs from what I'm saying, that the fast light arrives early and the slow light arrives late, and that is what we SEE. Same observation, different model. Nobody should be disputing the emprical data, it is the model that is questioned. Incidentally, this is where deSitter's argument for a constant speed of light fails. He assumes it, says he knows the orbital parameters because that is what he sees. It is intuitive to believe what we see, but unfortulately it is also subjective. It is also intuitive to add velocities, and that is OBJECTIVE. Science would not be of any value without objectivity. When I take Kepler's laws into consideration I get a less eccentric orbit than you, that works in my favour because an eccentric orbit places the two stars further, at periastron, inside the Roche limit than they already are. AND... I get the same luminosity curve. It was the luminosity curve of Algol that caused me to throw out my original progam written in DOS back in 1987, I said to myself, thinking about it, there was no way in hell the program could ever reproduce that! So I forgot about it for four years. Then I recreated the program using Windows, doodled around with the data and suddenly there it was. My model of Algol is a single star with a Jovian planet. I will add that nobody has actually seen your third body, it is inferred from the period of Algol A. And it isn't possible to resolve Algol A and Algol B into two stars either. It is hard enough to resolve Sirius A and B, and that is only 8 light years away with a 50-year period! There is no chance of resolving two stars with a 70 hour period, much further away. AD.
From: bz on 28 Jun 2005 18:16
"Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1119992269.319099.60580(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > bz wrote: >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119839022.543041.172060(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >> > >> > >> > bz wrote: >> >> Henri, you inspired the following idea! We have a test for BaT! >> > >> > This is the test for BaT. It's quite independent of anyone's opinion. >> > >> > You have a near circular orbit for Algol, according to the "known" >> > data. >> Inner binary is nearly circular, e=0.075. >> Outer binary e=.225 >> >> http://homepage.mac.com/antallan/algol2.html > > > I do hope you are not trying to tell me that two stars can orbit > a common barycentre with different eccentricities... I take it you didn't check the reference. You are off by one star. > Wanna try for different periods as well? :-) As a matter of fact, yes. > > http://homepage.mac.com/antallan/images/algol/hilla.jpg > There it is, old son. :-) > Minimum velocity at phase 0.06, max velocity at phase 0.7 > 0.7 - 0.06 = 0.64, not 0.5. > 360 * 0.64 = 144 degrees, not 180 degrees. > >> The system is NOT simple due to mass exchange between the stars. > > Occam's Razor says you are making the system more complicated than > it need be. Occam's razor says there are 3 stars, two of them are so close that they are not spherical and mass is streaming out of one and falling into the other. >> >> > Light from one side of the orbit, according to Einstein, takes the >> > same time, >> > t1 = d/c, to get here as light from the oposite side, >> > t2 = d/c, d being the distance to the star, and t1 = t2. >> >> I assume 'one side' is the point of max v wrt earth, toward us, and >> 'the opposite side' is max -v wrt earth? [as opposed to point furthest >> from earth vs point closest to earth, which should be at minimum v wrt >> earth]. > > Your assumption in this case would indeed be correct, I'm glad we are > on the same wavelength :-) close, but there seems to be a doppler shift in the wavelength, perhaps due to the gravity of the situation. > The velocity of the star toward Earth is zero when crossing our line of > sight, unless the orbit is eccentric with the major axis at an angle to > the line if sight, plus any velocity in our direction of the system as > a whole. That would indeed be expected from spherical star in circular orbit. >> > According to BaT, there are two times involved, t1 = d/(c-v) and >> > t2 = d/(c+v) >> > >> > When the star is moving directly away from us it will show maximum >> > red shift. >> >> right. >> >> > When it is directly approaching, it will show maximum blue shift. >> >> right. >> > If >> > Einstein's c constant is correct the maximum red and blue shifts will >> > be still be 1/2 the period of the orbit apart when the light gets >> > here. >> >> without the third body in the situation, that is correct. >> >> > If the Galilean addition of velocities is correct, the blue shifted >> > light will travel faster (c+v) and arrive early; the red shifted >> > light will travel slower (c-v) and arrive late. The arrival times >> > will NOT be half the period of the orbit apart. >> >> sounds reasonable, absent the third star, extra stellar mass, and mass >> exchange underway. >> >> > So look at the velocity curve of Algol, case solved. >> >> How, exactly, should we account for Algol C and its effect on A&B's >> orbits? > > We don't care about Algol C, it doesn't have a 70 hour period and is > irrelevant to the discussion on the eclipsing BINARY and the vector > addition of light. However, in this case, it does seem to make a difference. > Analogously I usually don't include Jupiter's mass in figuring out > Earth's tides, either. The predominant body is the moon, but we include > the mass of the sun for spring and neap tides. Jupiter is not within a few radii of the surface of our sun. >> I am not quite sure, yet, how the equations should work. I suppose I >> could simulate the eliptical orbits, then with the equation for >> distance from earth, I should be able to solve for the velocity and see >> how the shape of the curve varies as the three stars orbit each other. >> >> I imagine someone has already done this and that is where they got the >> orbital parameters they have settled upon. > > > Ya reckon, huh? > So what you are saying is that because we SEE the min and max velocity > at phases of min and max velocity 0.06 and 0.7, we can calculate the > orbit using Kepler's laws. > That's fair enough, but it assumes 'c' constant and the timing of what > we see > is when we see it. > > That differs from what I'm saying, that the fast light arrives early > and the slow light arrives late, and that is what we SEE. > Same observation, different model. Nobody should be disputing the > emprical data, it is the model that is questioned. I do not dispute the emperical data. > Incidentally, this is where deSitter's argument for a constant speed of > light fails. He assumes it, says he knows the orbital parameters because > that is what he sees. It is intuitive to believe what we see, but > unfortulately it is also subjective. It is also intuitive to add > velocities, and that is OBJECTIVE. I beg to differ on one point. Intuition is NOT objective. You will find that reality is often counter intuitive. > Science would not be of any value without objectivity. Agreed. > When I take Kepler's laws into consideration I get a less eccentric > orbit than you, that works in my favour because an eccentric orbit > places the two stars further, at periastron, inside the Roche limit > than they already are. I thought you wanted to be OUTSIDE the Roche limit (unless you WANT to breakup) [queue the song 'breaking up is hard to do'] > AND... I get the same luminosity curve. > It was the luminosity curve of Algol that caused me to throw out my > original progam written in DOS back in 1987, I said to myself, thinking > about it, there was no way in hell the program could ever reproduce > that! So I forgot about it for four years. Then I recreated the program > using Windows, doodled around with the data and suddenly there it was. > My model of Algol is a single star with a Jovian planet. > I will add that nobody has actually seen your third body, it is > inferred from the period of Algol A. Not just 'from the period of Algol A'. Look over the reference I gave earlier. Take a look at the xray and radio data also. You don't get that kind of xray radiation and radio emissions from a single normal star with a Jovian planet. > And it isn't possible to resolve > Algol A and Algol B into two stars either. They separate the star spectroscopically. > It is hard enough to resolve > Sirius A and B, and that is only 8 light years away with a 50-year > period! There is no chance of resolving two stars with a 70 hour > period, much further away. Question, is your emotional investment in your model so strong that you can't be objective? I don't have an emotional investment in any theory. -- 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 |