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 28 Jun 2005 18:55 bz wrote: > "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > news:1119992269.319099.60580(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > 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. Algol C was resolved by speckle interferometry in 1974. The authors of the paper were cautious about claiming a definitive identification, but overall the data looked pretty good to me. > 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. ....and to judge from the spectra, Algol B sure ain't a Jovian planet! It's very definitely two stars. Jerry
From: bz on 28 Jun 2005 19:45 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in news:1119999318.422598.174040(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > bz wrote: >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119992269.319099.60580(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > >> > 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. > > Algol C was resolved by speckle interferometry in 1974. > The authors of the paper were cautious about claiming a > definitive identification, but overall the data looked > pretty good to me. > >> 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. > > ...and to judge from the spectra, Algol B sure ain't > a Jovian planet! It's very definitely two stars. By "It's", I suspect you mean the Algol A & B combination. :) -- 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: Henri Wilson on 28 Jun 2005 20:40 On 27 Jun 2005 18:39:03 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. define this 'noise' please. >No explanation for Doppler broadening = BaT failed. BaT provides a perfect explanation. Jerry failed. >False prediction of orbital Doppler shifts = BaT failed. That statement is wrong....Jerry failed. >Failure to explain Cepheid stars observable in Magenellic > Clouds (far beyond critical distance) = BaT failed. Jerry doesn't even understand the connection bertween critical distance and other orbit parameters. ....Jerry failed. >Failure to explain secular variations in Cepheid > periods = BaT failed. Cepheid periods are known to be very constant ...as predicted by the BaT. Variation, when they occur are fuly explained by the BaT.....Jery failed. >Failure to explain overtone frequencies = BaT failed. >etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.... Jerry failed...etc...etc....etc.... > >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 28 Jun 2005 20:45 On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:54:43 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:vk21c15crve4klnsn677mgpsmprusg56rl(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. Bob, you are seriously confused here. Why do you think Einstein and Lorentz et al thought the vertical beam moves diagonally in a moving frame? It doesn't require an observer to ubderstand that each element does indeed follow a diagonal path when PLOTTED in the moving frame. 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 28 Jun 2005 21:05
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:11:29 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:p7bub1tun1kf8260mkdnbcu0i036c6rpcp(a)4ax.com: > > >>>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. It may be possible to detect this....but you can bet the official 'reason' will not be related to c+v. > >>>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. Yes. I basically do..but I am in two minds about what happens to light as it moves into the atmosphere. Does it all end up a c/n or at (c+v)/n? If the former, then according to the BaT, doppler shifts would not be detectable at ground level. Yet there is pretty good evidence that 'extinction' DOES take place. I see this as a very crucial problem that will reveal a lot about how light travels. >>>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. It might depend on where one looks in the sky. Doesn't tracking eliminate aberration anyway? >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? That's about the order of v in c+v >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. It might be worth looking at but I still think the effect would be far to small to detect in normal telescopes. What you want, Bob, is an extra long version. > >[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. The above figures suggest that your experiment would be right on the limit of resolution. 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. |