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 2 Jul 2005 15:25 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1120327897.056568.64610 @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > Dear friend Bz, > Since you are all up-to-date an current on photon speeds and > paths and behavior and know all about the > the wizards that direct them, you can probably explain > a mystery... perhaps a miracle that I observed. > > Standing arms length from a mirror which was really to > large for my purposes (girls have lots of "wall stuff" > to hang) I traced my silhouette with lipstick on the mirror. > I then took the mirror to a glass cutter to have the > unecessary material removed. When I rehung the mirror, > my image was much dimmer than I recall. I had to to better > that quaduple the lighting in my bathroom just so my > makeup would look the same. I think the glass cutter > did something to silvering. What do you think ? ;-) There is only one explaination that I can think of. Sue, you never had a mirror. Someone sold you a holygram of a mirror instead of a real mirror. It is well known that if you cut a wholey-gram in pieces, each one will have the complete picture, but it will be dimmer and have less resolution. Mebbe thats why they call them wholey-grams. I don't have a holygram of a mirror, but I do have a holygram and a mirror. I cut both of them in half. The holygram got dimmer, the mirror didn't. I had a problem explaining to my wife why I cut the mirror in half, but I think she will eventually forgive me. A billygoat came along and ate half the holygram, so now there is a half- holy-billy-gram running around somewhere looking for a coherent light source. -- 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: Sue... on 2 Jul 2005 15:50 bz wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1120327897.056568.64610 > @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > Dear friend Bz, > > Since you are all up-to-date an current on photon speeds and > > paths and behavior and know all about the > > the wizards that direct them, you can probably explain > > a mystery... perhaps a miracle that I observed. > > > > Standing arms length from a mirror which was really to > > large for my purposes (girls have lots of "wall stuff" > > to hang) I traced my silhouette with lipstick on the mirror. > > I then took the mirror to a glass cutter to have the > > unecessary material removed. When I rehung the mirror, > > my image was much dimmer than I recall. I had to to better > > that quaduple the lighting in my bathroom just so my > > makeup would look the same. I think the glass cutter > > did something to silvering. What do you think ? ;-) > > There is only one explaination that I can think of. > > Sue, you never had a mirror. Someone sold you a holygram of a mirror > instead of a real mirror. > > It is well known that if you cut a wholey-gram in pieces, each one will > have the complete picture, but it will be dimmer and have less resolution. > Mebbe thats why they call them wholey-grams. > > I don't have a holygram of a mirror, but I do have a holygram and a mirror. > > I cut both of them in half. The holygram got dimmer, the mirror didn't. > I had a problem explaining to my wife why I cut the mirror in half, but I > think she will eventually forgive me. > > A billygoat came along and ate half the holygram, so now there is a half- > holy-billy-gram running around somewhere looking for a coherent light > source. > > << There is only one explaination that I can think of. >> Gee Wiz! How did I know that ? Keep thinking because I am quite sure is was a real mirror. :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: sue jahn on 2 Jul 2005 16:28 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1120333812.184932.39040(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > bz wrote: > > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1120327897.056568.64610 > > @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend Bz, > > > Since you are all up-to-date an current on photon speeds and > > > paths and behavior and know all about the > > > the wizards that direct them, you can probably explain > > > a mystery... perhaps a miracle that I observed. > > > > > > Standing arms length from a mirror which was really to > > > large for my purposes (girls have lots of "wall stuff" > > > to hang) I traced my silhouette with lipstick on the mirror. > > > I then took the mirror to a glass cutter to have the > > > unecessary material removed. When I rehung the mirror, > > > my image was much dimmer than I recall. I had to to better > > > that quaduple the lighting in my bathroom just so my > > > makeup would look the same. I think the glass cutter > > > did something to silvering. What do you think ? ;-) > > > > There is only one explaination that I can think of. > > > > Sue, you never had a mirror. Someone sold you a holygram of a mirror > > instead of a real mirror. > > > > It is well known that if you cut a wholey-gram in pieces, each one will > > have the complete picture, but it will be dimmer and have less resolution. > > Mebbe thats why they call them wholey-grams. > > > > I don't have a holygram of a mirror, but I do have a holygram and a mirror. > > > > I cut both of them in half. The holygram got dimmer, the mirror didn't. > > I had a problem explaining to my wife why I cut the mirror in half, but I > > think she will eventually forgive me. > > > > A billygoat came along and ate half the holygram, so now there is a half- > > holy-billy-gram running around somewhere looking for a coherent light > > source. > > > > > << There is only one explaination that I can think of. >> > > Gee Wiz! How did I know that ? > Keep thinking because I am quite sure is was a real > mirror. :o) > > Sue... OPPs! You are correct...sort of. The paths outside of the image are real but you need a curved mirror to prove it so that half wave adjacent paths don't cancel. I don't think you'd disagee that 1/2 a telescope mirror is dimmer than a whole telescope mirror... which was my point. So when I am finished blushing I'll be the one to recheck my clocks and arrows and: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22shut+up+and+calculate%22&btnG=Google+Search :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 21:51 On 2 Jul 2005 05:41:24 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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." Yes, the BaT explans this easily. Polaris has a WCH orbiting around it every 4 days. The whole star system is in large orbit around another mass centre. The period slowdown is indicative of reduction in time compresion as the system moves to a different phase of this large orbit, a phase which also brings the Earth closer to the critical distance of Polaris's small orbit. It is quite possible to have increasing period, decreasing brightness fluctuations and increasing average brightness. Or other combinations of these. >>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 ý 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 ý 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 All perfectly in line with the BaT. 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 2 Jul 2005 22:06
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:10:01 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:g4pcc1tpbcjvqqnn4cknab54vt3dnmci1g(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. > >You have never been shy about challenging the 'experts' especially when the >data does not support what the 'so called experts' say. > >You can download the data yourself. The data that I have seen does not >justify the claim. Bob, all cepheids are noted for the constancy of period. Some drift by seconds over a year. This is perfectly as predicted by the BaT. > >>>> 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. > >Does time compression only apply to distant cepheids? Mainly, but it depends on the large orbit and the speed around that orbit. ('large orbit' refers to the orbit around which the binary barycentre is moving. Small orbit is that of a member of the binary pair around the barycentre.) >>>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. > >I don't believe in miracles, but if they exist when starlight arrives here >at c, then the same miracle happens everywhere. > >Note: I am not calling it a miracle. I just call it a property of light. I call it a meaningless unproven postulate that has set physics back 100 years. > >>>> 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. > >In my universe, photons only go at one speed, so my flashlight doesn't need >an infinite amount of energy. Speed is always relative to something. > >I was pointing out that your theory would violate conservation of energy. None of MY theories violates that. there is one theory that does however. It is the theory that explains why so much energy exists in the universe at all. > >>>> 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. > >If it possesses all velocities, it must also possess all energies. It might not move at all...just appear to. > >> Is that a possibility? > >Not in this universe. > >> ......Like using a wave analyser on white noise. > >A wave analyser on white noise shows all frequencies are present in equal >amounts. The energy is spread across the spectrum. If you put a passband >filter on the signal, you will only pick up a small percentage of the power >within that passband. > >The amplifier, however, had to output much more power than makes it through >the filter. > >Your idea will not fly. Where's your imagination, Bob? I'm only trying to give Einstein a way out of his mess. >>>>>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. > >That is why your program needs sanity checking. > >> If for instance a star appeared cooler than it really was, ..because of >> gravitational redshift > >Such red shift does not make the star appear cooler. Red shift shifts the >peak of emission but it also shifts absorbtion lines. The temperature >estimates take red shift into account. How do you know if the absorption lines have shifted by the same amount as the emission spectrum?...You don't. > >>, (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 from us. > >Only if they fail to correct for doppler shift. the uncertain doppler shift? > >>>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 constant c, might not be what is real. > >Science only deals with what is observable, identifiable and verifiable. Scientists should look beyond the 'obvious'. > >When you start talking about what we see not being what is really >happening, then you step outside of science, into religion. The raindrops moving diagonally past Einstein's train window still took the same time to reach the ground. 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. |