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 21:29 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. Although the -mean- period of a Cepheid tends to be stable, individual peak-to-peak timing varies by amounts that may be up to a large fraction of an hour. The earliest observations of period noise date back more than a century ago. Since then, increasingly precise instrumentation has confirmed the effect. > >No explanation for Doppler broadening = BaT failed. > > BaT provides a perfect explanation. Jerry failed. Doppler broadening is associated with photospheric turbulence as the Cepheid goes through its cycle, bubbling up and then deflating. http://www.obs-hp.fr/www/preprints/pp107/pp107.pdf > >False prediction of orbital Doppler shifts = BaT failed. > > That statement is wrong....Jerry failed. Detection of stellar radial velocities due to orbital movements down to several meters per second is well within the capabilities of current instrumentation. The orbital movements predicted by BaT are not observed. > >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. Henri, YOU explained the disappearance of variability in RU Cam as being due to the star having moved beyond the "critical distance." My understanding of the origin of "critical distance" is that you predict that overlapping c+v and c-v light will add up destructively. You have a better explanation for this never observed phenomenon, Henri? > >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. Precise measurements of Cepheids reveal secular variations in their mean periods, typical on the order of several seconds per year. These are FACTS, Henri. > >Failure to explain overtone frequencies = BaT failed. > >etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.... > > Jerry failed...etc...etc....etc.... Jerry
From: Arthur Dent on 29 Jun 2005 00:14 bz wrote: > "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > news:1119811858.827607.249480(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > Here's ONE of his equations that needs correction. > > ½[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 Ok, I'm done. You think the time x'/(c-v) is equal to the time x'/(c+v) and you talk about sanity checking. I can't argue with faith, I'm restricted to mathematics and logic. Have a nice day. AD.
From: bz on 29 Jun 2005 05:56 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:skr3c11fud172t18igefmqqn15vhrpf7di(a)4ax.com: > 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. I don't think so. > Why do you think Einstein and Lorentz et al thought the vertical beam > moves diagonally in a moving frame? Because the beam would strike targets that lie along a diagonal path. > It doesn't require an observer to ubderstand that each element does > indeed follow a diagonal path when PLOTTED in the moving frame. Without an observer, there is no one to do the plotting. Each element follows a diagonal path when plotted in the moving frame. If all the photons were allowed to reach the upper edge Each element would strike a different target on that edge in the moving frame. From the viewpoint of the moving frame, the target which is stationary in the stationary frame (and intercepts all the photons), moves at the exact right speed to interecept all the photon. -- 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 29 Jun 2005 06:17 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ntr3c116fsqmuqunbm83fochjvniuh6r4o@ 4ax.com: >>> 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. It depends on where and when you look. > Doesn't tracking eliminate aberration anyway? No. Aberration is only eliminated when our motion is directly toward/away- from the star. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm [very interesting article] -- 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 29 Jun 2005 06:19
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ntr3c116fsqmuqunbm83fochjvniuh6r4o(a)4ax.com: > 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. Or a phased array of telescopes. Aberration should show up quite nicely. -- 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 |