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: sue jahn on 1 Jul 2005 19:25 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns9686B2C01E0A1WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42c5b736$0$18637 > $14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > >> With the right dye, if you pump the chamber with a nitrogen laser, you > >> can reduce the attenuation below zero. > > > This seems reasonable and has perhaps been observed for atmospheric > > paths. Does bigger equal faster in this business ? > > Maybe. Perhaps the size of the can does matter. > > >> > << In a completely hollow guide waves with both and parallel to the > >> > axis of the guide are impossible. But with a conductor along the axis > >> > these waves are possible. Their dispersion relation is simply >> > >> > http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node6.html > >> > > >> > The TE10 mode is the dominant mode of a rectangular waveguide > >> > with a>b, since it has the lowest attenuation of all modes. > >> > Either m or n can be zero, but not both. > >> > http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/waveguide.htm > >> > >> When I send my laser beam down the S-band wave guide, I can't tell if I > >> have TE or TM mode propagation. In fact, I get the same results on my x- > >> band wave guide. > >> > >> Any idea why? > > The waveguide can't tell either so before too long you are wishing it > > was a single wire or glass fiber. > > > > << Waveguides are generally used in a frequency range where > > only the lowest mode, or exceptionally the lowest few modes, will > > propagate. If one wants to launch a mode in a guide which supports > > more than one propagating mode, one drives it with probes or loops > > I tried a fiber but my loupe must be too large. The lense won't fit into > the fiber. Nobody node the troubles I 'c'. > > > which have a symmetry that does not excite any of the other (unwanted) > > modes. >> > > http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/wguide.html > > > > http://www.ee.bilkent.edu.tr/~ee428/manual/html/node9.html > > > > You and Henri have about conviced me > > 1- that double stars must be lasers ...with columating lenses > > no less. > > I think you must be right Sue. > > They should be called the Sue-laze-stars. > > >(still a gaussian intensity profile) > > dontch know it HAS to be lawrencian? > > > > 2-The path between earth and the double-stars is dye or nitrogen. > > I'm dy'n to find out. > > > 3- Sometimes the dye or nitrogen moves toward the earth ? > > So that's why they call it dye-namics? > > > What if we put a big dog behind every postal worker? > > Wouldn't that work better ? :o) > > That might be ruff on the uniforms. :) Knock it off. Jay Leno is trembling in his boots. :o) Sue... > > > > > > -- > 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 2 Jul 2005 06:09 On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:hp01c1lh3je73ctsvk8ltttsih401i30q9(a)4ax.com: > >>>> 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? > >Which goalposts did I move? I have been trying to show you that the >'constancy of the cepheid' is overblown. That's not what the experts say. > >> The BaT would predict that the periods of most cepheids should steadily >> increase or decrease by varying degrees due to 'time compression'. > >So, eventually the period reaches infinity or zero? No Bob. They would vary sinusoudally usually over very long periods of time and only slightly....maybe up to a factor of four. >>>> >>>> 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. > >And AE says quite clearly that the earth is not unique. Every FoR >throughout the universe sees the same miracle. If you believe in miracles there is no room for you in science. Paul Andersen believes in fairies. > >> 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. > >It would require an infinite amount of energy to run my flashlight. You had better charge the battery then. > >> That should make you think. It might not be as silly as it sounds. > >It is only viable if you throw away the principles of conservation of mass >and energy. I didn't say it was variable. I said it possesses all velocities. We only detect one. Is that a possibility? .......Like using a wave analyser on white noise. >>>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. > >That is relative to the shape of emission spectrum and the absorption lines >in the spectrum after doppler shift is correct for. > >It is related to the size and temperature of the star. There are about four inter-related factors. A mistake in one will throw the others out. If for instance a star appeared cooler than it really was, ..because of gravitational redshift, (the BaT type...same as GR) then its size would have to be exaggerated to account for the amount of energy it was radiating, as estimated from its peak spectral wavelength and its distance form us. >BaT should not cause changes in the type of star. Only changes in the >atmospheric chemistry of the star can do that. But what is seen, based on constanbt c, might not be what is real. 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 2 Jul 2005 08:41 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >Which goalposts did I move? I have been trying to show you that the > >'constancy of the cepheid' is overblown. > > That's not what the experts say. Henri, I sent you links to peer-reviewed articles that discuss the non-constancy of Cepheids. You ignore them. Secular period changes and random cycle-to-cycle period noise are documented for practically every Cepheid that has been closely examined. Take, for instance, Polaris, whose pulsations have nearly ceased. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia: "Polaris is 431 light years (132 parsecs) from Earth, according to measurements made by the Hipparcos satellite. It is an F7 supergiant (Ib) or bright giant (II), with two smaller companions: an F3 V main sequence star about 2000 AU away and a close companion in an orbit with a 5 AU semi-major axis. The main star is a Population II cepheid variable, the pulsations of which cause it to cycle steadily. Around 1900, the star varied between being 8% brighter than its average luminosity and 8% dimmer (0.15 magnitudes in total) with a 3.97 day period. As of 2005, the variations are about 2% from peak to trough. The star is also about 15% brighter (on average) than it was in 1900; the period has also lengthened by about 8 seconds each year since then." Or how about V19 in M33, which was studied by Hubble in his pioneering work establishing a distance scale for the universe: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v550n2/005988/005988.text.html "We report on the remarkable evolution in the light curve of a variable star discovered by Hubble in M33 and classified by him as a Cepheid. Early in the 20th century, the variable, designated as V19, exhibited a 54.7 day period, an intensity- weighted mean B magnitude of 19.59 ± 0.23 mag, and a B amplitude of 1.1 mag. Its position in the period-luminosity plane was consistent with the relation derived by Hubble from a total of 35 variables. Modern observations by the DIRECT project show a dramatic change in the properties of V19: its mean B magnitude has risen to 19.08 ± 0.05 mag, and its B amplitude has decreased to less than 0.1 mag. V19 does not appear to be a classical (Population I) Cepheid variable at present, and its nature remains a mystery. It is not clear how frequent such objects are or how often they could be mistaken for classical Cepheids." Strange things are happening to the Polaris light curve: http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v34n4/aas201/885.htm
From: bz on 2 Jul 2005 09:28 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:lpgbc1dase2cnjttt92k44r35lcdqpp4sf(a)4ax.com: > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:34:21 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:2st9c1h5qs4fi28oeqafls5t4pc0bqqjko(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:25:49 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:s7e7c1pu2p6dhipa07l6upr7oru6msuoft(a)4ax.com: ..... >>>>Is this correct: beyond the critical distance, a star no longer >>>>displays the effects of BaT? >>> >>> beyond the CD, multiple images can be expected. >> >>But you have cited critical distance as a reason to NOT to see variation >>in brightness, haven't you. > > No. > At the critical distance, the first 'infinite' brightness peak is > expected. Beyond that, multiple images will be seen. Each star has its > own critical distance and, particulalry for elliptical orbits, that is > direction dependent. Then, beyond the critical distance, we should see broadened absorption lines or NO absorbtion lines. Even if we can't resolve the image, we should NOT see the typical cepheid lines indicating a huffin-puffin star. But we do. Even with cepheids considerable distance away. >>>>Or is this correct: below the critical distance, BaT effects can not >>>>be observed? >>> >>> The critical distance is very dependent on radial velocity. Many stars >>> are just too close to exhibit much variation. >> >>They MUST be close for short variable cycles. You can't get wide >>separation and rapid orbiting without velocities that are inconsistent >>with the observed doppler shifts. > > No, the radial velocities are consistent with doppler shifts. They have > to be. That is how they are measured. For any star in orbit, the doppler shift, when measured using different absorption lines, should give the same results. Cepheids do not. They show cyclic changes in chemistry. The average between absolute value of max and min radial velocities must be consistent with the orbital velocity, must be consistent with the orbital period, orbital radius, and the mass. Absent those sanity checks, all you have is 'garbage in-garbage out'. >>> In the case of a pair >>> whose masses are very different, the velocity of the larger one might >>> be only a fraction of that of the smaller. So one star might show >>> considerable variation in brightness while the other appears almost >>> stable. the spectrum would still show the opposite doppler shifts of >>> both. >> >>But it will show the velocities of each. Those must be consistent with >>the orbital periods. In a two body system, the periods must be equal. >>The more massive object must move slower and in a smaller orbit > > That's right. ...and consequently its brightness variation will be quite > different. It doppler shift should be observable.. and 180 out wrt the > other. Right. When you build eclipsing binary emulation into your program, it should be interesting. >>>>I wonder how many BaT enthusiasts there are in the world? >>>>If there are 1000 and we can get each to kick in 500 bucks, we can do >>>>it. We rent the equipment for 30 days and run the experiment. >>> >>> But it would have to be done on a couple of high mountains. >>> Atmospheric effects would drown the time differences you are looking >>> for. >> >>Do it in a vacuum chamber to avoid extinction. >> >>http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/200002news/200002han.html > > Very interesting. I often wondered if light could build up intensity in > a reflection system like that. > Maybe they will lend you the cavity. Maybe you can get them to perform > your experiment. > However a null result would suggest that the apparatus tube constituted > some kind of EM reference frame. If you would discount a null result, that way, it is not worth bothering. I am looking for a practical experiment that we can all agree will either invalidate SR/GR/EEP or invalidate BaT. Otherwise why bother? -- 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: Rebmun on 2 Jul 2005 10:29
"bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96819C0CC7A8DWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > news:1119814579.784047.167960(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > >> >> >> bz wrote: >>> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >>> news:1119578949.505498.21960(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >>> >>> > 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, >>> > >>> >>> The pulses must start from A and from B >>> at the same time so that they travel the same distance. >>> >> LOL! >> The light leaves A, takes time to get to B, reflects at B >> and then returns to A. > > There is nothing to indicate reflection. > > [quote] > We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be > defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required > by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel > from B to A. [unquote] > > "we establish by definition that the "time" required for light to travel > from A to be equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A." > > Notice, he does NOT say the time to travel from A to B and be reflected > back to A. He says nothing about mirrors or reflections. > > He is talking about requirements for syncronizing clocks and explains that > we must assume that it takes light the same time to travel the same path, > no matter which way it is traveling that path. > > > > > > -- > 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 The speed of light is a universal constantfro what should be the obvious reason that the matter which we use in the instruments which measure that speed use the velocity of light to control their parameters. In absolute terms, the speed of light changes between velocity and elevation reference frames. It is this effect which produces the relativisitc effects and releases the energy of gravitation. The idea that the speed of light is a constant follows from Dr. eisntein's hare-brained error in the derivation of relativity and his attempt to plaster over that error by ascribing the gravitational field to "curved space". |