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: Henri Wilson on 3 Jul 2005 08:01 On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 04:09:06 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:q5hec1luv5qut62lrpe17joau4mc2eskde(a)4ax.com: > >>>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. > >You are neglecting the variation in period called 'period noise'. I hate noise. That's why I live in the bush. >You are neglecting the variations in the data cause by the difficulty in >estimating the exact magnitude of a star. > >You are neglecting the variations in the data cause by errors in time >recording. > >All of these introduce an uncertainty into the measurement of the period. > >Those who look at the data after it has been smoothed and fitted to >numerous data points may be tempted to say that the period is constant. >Some have done so. It is misleading to do so. The data does NOT say that >the period is constant. > >If the data is honestly handled, the estimated error will be included. >Failure to include the error statistics leads some to believe, wrongly, >that the period is exact. We can't honestly say that. Bob, there are hundreds of published brightness curves from all kinds of stars, including 'cepheids'. They all have one thing in common. Their periods show very little variation over many years. >> 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.) > >The barycenter for a binary star system does not move[except around the >barycenter of its star cluster/galaxy], or are you talking about a trinary >system? Nothing sits still in the universe. If it isn't in orbit it will soon collide with something. Binary pairs are themselves orbiting galactic centres and maybe other very large objects. >>>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. >> > >It is one of the most tested postulates that has ever been proposed. Never measured. >>> >>>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. >> > >Right. In my universe, photons only go at one speed. >That speed is the same when measure relative to any FoR attached to any >body that has rest mass in the universe. that's an LET principle...light speed will always be measured as c. >>> >>>If it possesses all velocities, it must also possess all energies. >> >> It might not move at all...just appear to. > >Get real. Water doesn't have to move sideways when a wave goes across its surface. > >>>> Is that a possibility? >>> >>>Not in this universe. >>>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. > >You look at the intensity of the spectrum. >If the effect is due to doppler shift, things shift together. If they don't >shift together, you have something other-than/in-additon-to doppler shift >taking place. Yes OK. >>> >>>Only if they fail to correct for doppler shift. >> >> the uncertain doppler shift? > >I am not certain which uncertain doppler shift you are talking about. > >>>>>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'. > >They do. Observable, identifiable, verifiable does not imply 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. > >Nope. The passing train slowed them down. Some never even made it to the >ground at all. > >Actually, it depends on who's clock is being use to measure their decent. No it doesn't. All observers use the Earth's rotation as their universal time reference. 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: bz on 3 Jul 2005 11:29 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:60kfc15io30g10ithf841u3f0u1brf0mru(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 04:09:06 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:q5hec1luv5qut62lrpe17joau4mc2eskde(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>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. >> >>You are neglecting the variation in period called 'period noise'. > > I hate noise. > That's why I live in the bush. None the less, noise exists. The brightness observations are subject to many different forms of noise. > >>You are neglecting the variations in the data cause by the difficulty in >>estimating the exact magnitude of a star. >> >>You are neglecting the variations in the data cause by errors in time >>recording. >> >>All of these introduce an uncertainty into the measurement of the >>period. >> >>Those who look at the data after it has been smoothed and fitted to >>numerous data points may be tempted to say that the period is constant. >>Some have done so. It is misleading to do so. The data does NOT say that >>the period is constant. >> >>If the data is honestly handled, the estimated error will be included. >>Failure to include the error statistics leads some to believe, wrongly, >>that the period is exact. We can't honestly say that. > > Bob, there are hundreds of published brightness curves from all kinds of > stars, including 'cepheids'. They all have one thing in common. Their > periods show very little variation over many years. Henri, those curves represent a fit to a bunch of data points. Unless the datapoints are shown and the error is stated, it is misleading to show the curve. "very little variation over many years" is a relative term and you have placed too much faith in it. >>> 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.) >> >>The barycenter for a binary star system does not move[except around the >>barycenter of its star cluster/galaxy], or are you talking about a >>trinary system? > > Nothing sits still in the universe. If it isn't in orbit it will soon > collide with something. > Binary pairs are themselves orbiting galactic centres and maybe other > very large objects. You still have failed to make clear WHAT your 'large orbit' barycenter is moving around. What are you talking about? >>>>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. >>> >> >>It is one of the most tested postulates that has ever been proposed. > > Never measured. That is a matter of opinion. >>>>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. >>> >> >>Right. In my universe, photons only go at one speed. >>That speed is the same when measure relative to any FoR attached to any >>body that has rest mass in the universe. > > that's an LET principle...light speed will always be measured as c. Sounds like you have become an aetherist. As you well know, it is also a postulate of SR, a foundation of GR, and well stablished part of EEP. >>>>If it possesses all velocities, it must also possess all energies. >>> >>> It might not move at all...just appear to. >> >>Get real. > > Water doesn't have to move sideways when a wave goes across its surface. Tell that to the tsunami victims. Oh, I understand what you are saying, but it is a poor illustration. There is a big difference between insufficient study and "you can never know because what you see is not what is going on." If you color a water molecule and follow its motion, you will find that it follows a somewhat circular path as the wave passes. Any scientist observing wave motion in water quickly determines what is moving and what isn't. And, we were talking about light. It has been established by experiment to consist of packets of energy that have wavelength, frequency, energy, moves at c in a vacuum wrt all possible inertial FoRs, as far as we know from currently available data. ..... >>> The raindrops moving diagonally past Einstein's train window still >>> took the same time to reach the ground. >> >>Nope. The passing train slowed them down. Some never even made it to the >>ground at all. >> >>Actually, it depends on who's clock is being use to measure their >>decent. > > No it doesn't. > > All observers use the Earth's rotation as their universal time > reference. That is a 'Henri pronouncements'. It does not make it a fact. -- 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 3 Jul 2005 19:38 On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:29:57 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:60kfc15io30g10ithf841u3f0u1brf0mru(a)4ax.com: >>> >>>If the data is honestly handled, the estimated error will be included. >>>Failure to include the error statistics leads some to believe, wrongly, >>>that the period is exact. We can't honestly say that. >> >> Bob, there are hundreds of published brightness curves from all kinds of >> stars, including 'cepheids'. They all have one thing in common. Their >> periods show very little variation over many years. > >Henri, those curves represent a fit to a bunch of data points. >Unless the datapoints are shown and the error is stated, it is misleading >to show the curve. "very little variation over many years" is a relative >term and you have placed too much faith in it. Bob, if hundreds of 'best fit' graphs show constancy and we know that considerable uncertainty always exists in the measurement process, why would anyone want to conclude that each graph was anything BUT constant. Your approach flies in the face of all statistical principles. > >>>> 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.) >>> >>>The barycenter for a binary star system does not move[except around the >>>barycenter of its star cluster/galaxy], or are you talking about a >>>trinary system? >> >> Nothing sits still in the universe. If it isn't in orbit it will soon >> collide with something. >> Binary pairs are themselves orbiting galactic centres and maybe other >> very large objects. > >You still have failed to make clear WHAT your 'large orbit' barycenter is >moving around. What are you talking about? A galactic centre maybe... ...period 1-5000 years maybe. Some galaxies are much smaller than others...but you probably know that :) > >>>>>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. >>>> >>> >>>It is one of the most tested postulates that has ever been proposed. >> >> Never measured. > >That is a matter of opinion. OWLS has never been measure from even a source at rest, let alone a moving source. >>> >>>Right. In my universe, photons only go at one speed. >>>That speed is the same when measure relative to any FoR attached to any >>>body that has rest mass in the universe. >> >> that's an LET principle...light speed will always be measured as c. > >Sounds like you have become an aetherist. >As you well know, it is also a postulate of SR, a foundation of GR, and >well stablished part of EEP. Well, I have now shown why the 'GR correction' in GPS clocks is a complete nonsense. > >>>>>If it possesses all velocities, it must also possess all energies. >>>> >>>> It might not move at all...just appear to. >>> >>>Get real. >> >> Water doesn't have to move sideways when a wave goes across its surface. > >Tell that to the tsunami victims. Oh, I understand what you are saying, >but it is a poor illustration. There is a big difference between >insufficient study and "you can never know because what you see is not what >is going on." > >If you color a water molecule and follow its motion, you will find that it >follows a somewhat circular path as the wave passes. yes. If momentum is being carried along with the wave, the molecules move in an ellipse. In a confined pond, the molecules basically just go up and down. > >Any scientist observing wave motion in water quickly determines what is >moving and what isn't. Water waves are very interesting. > >And, we were talking about light. Another transverse wave. > >It has been established by experiment to consist of packets of energy that >have wavelength, frequency, energy, moves at c in a vacuum wrt all possible >inertial FoRs, as far as we know from currently available data. Stop dreaming Bob. > >.... >>>> The raindrops moving diagonally past Einstein's train window still >>>> took the same time to reach the ground. >>> >>>Nope. The passing train slowed them down. Some never even made it to the >>>ground at all. >>> >>>Actually, it depends on who's clock is being use to measure their >>>decent. >> >> No it doesn't. >> >> All observers use the Earth's rotation as their universal time >> reference. > >That is a 'Henri pronouncements'. It does not make it a fact. 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 3 Jul 2005 19:56 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:29:57 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >Henri, those curves represent a fit to a bunch of data points. > >Unless the datapoints are shown and the error is stated, it is misleading > >to show the curve. "very little variation over many years" is a relative > >term and you have placed too much faith in it. > > Bob, if hundreds of 'best fit' graphs show constancy and we know that > considerable uncertainty always exists in the measurement process, why would > anyone want to conclude that each graph was anything BUT constant. > Your approach flies in the face of all statistical principles. Henri, it was realized a century ago that the observed cycle-to-cycle variations in Cepheid period and amplitude were too large to explain in terms of measurement error. Period noise is inconsistent with theories attributing Cepheid variation to orbital effects, and was a key factor leading to the downfall, nine decades ago, of the binary star explanation of Cepheid variation. Nowadays, we have far more to go on, in rejecting the binary star explanation. Yes, Cepheid variation USED TO BE thought to be the result of binary star behavior, and the Ritzian explanation USED TO BE considered a viable theory for Cepheid behavior. But that was a century ago. Jerry
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Jul 2005 06:44
On 3 Jul 2005 16:56:36 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:29:57 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> >Henri, those curves represent a fit to a bunch of data points. >> >Unless the datapoints are shown and the error is stated, it is misleading >> >to show the curve. "very little variation over many years" is a relative >> >term and you have placed too much faith in it. >> >> Bob, if hundreds of 'best fit' graphs show constancy and we know that >> considerable uncertainty always exists in the measurement process, why would >> anyone want to conclude that each graph was anything BUT constant. >> Your approach flies in the face of all statistical principles. > >Henri, it was realized a century ago that the observed >cycle-to-cycle variations in Cepheid period and amplitude >were too large to explain in terms of measurement error. >Period noise is inconsistent with theories attributing >Cepheid variation to orbital effects, and was a key factor >leading to the downfall, nine decades ago, of the binary >star explanation of Cepheid variation. > >Nowadays, we have far more to go on, in rejecting the >binary star explanation. You are free to make up anything you like and publish it here. I am free to recognize absolute bullshit when I see it and reject it. > >Yes, Cepheid variation USED TO BE thought to be the result of >binary star behavior, and the Ritzian explanation USED TO BE >considered a viable theory for Cepheid behavior. > >But that was a century ago. Now it is being revisited. Every paper I read says cepheids are noted for the extreme constancy of their brightness period. > >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. |