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 4 Jul 2005 08:32 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 3 Jul 2005 16:56:36 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >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. WHAT "PAPERS"? I have given you citations and links to COMPLETE refereed papers as well as links to AAVSO notes, etc. All you have provided is a single sentence from a single web page taken completely out of context that discusses a Cepheid that has apparently been caught evolving outside of the Cepheid strip in the HR diagram. Jerry
From: bz on 4 Jul 2005 16:47 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:c0tgc19ghnbb1faca2k8sievsdkotirheg(a)4ax.com: > 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. That really sounds good Henri. "Your approach flies in the face of all statistical principles". But it applies better to your approach and to the approach of those that publish such curves without some reference that shows just how accurate the curve really is. Show me data, real data, that supports the statement that cepheid show "very little variation over many years". Show me data from any cepheid that supports the idea that 'very little variation' is 'within seconds'. Jerry has shown you articles. They give error figures. The figures are the kinds of figures I would expect to see from stars that vary due to internal processes. It would be interesting to compare the errors for cepheids with the errors for spectroscopic binaries. >>>>> 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 > :) So, how does this 'large orbit' around the galactic center have anything to do with time compression. >>>>>>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. That is a matter of opinion. >>>>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. How does LET's or SR/GR/EEP establishment that light moves at c wrt everything, how does that show the GR correction in GPS clocks as complete nonsense? ..... >> >>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. Probably right. >>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. Show me contrary data. Show me sub/superluminal photons. ..... -- 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 4 Jul 2005 18:53 On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 20:47:01 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:c0tgc19ghnbb1faca2k8sievsdkotirheg(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. > >That really sounds good Henri. "Your approach flies in the face of all >statistical principles". But it applies better to your approach and to the >approach of those that publish such curves without some reference that shows >just how accurate the curve really is. > >Show me data, real data, that supports the statement that cepheid show "very >little variation over many years". Show me data from any cepheid that >supports the idea that 'very little variation' is 'within seconds'. > >Jerry has shown you articles. They give error figures. The figures are the >kinds of figures I would expect to see from stars that vary due to internal >processes. > >It would be interesting to compare the errors for cepheids with the errors >for spectroscopic binaries. I am not surprised that you two will go down fighting. the fact is, quote, "cepheid periods are so constant one can used them as a clock". > >>>>>> 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 >> :) > >So, how does this 'large orbit' around the galactic center have anything to >do with time compression. The amount of information reaching a distant observer per unit time will depend on the position of the small barycentre around the large orbit. Information is compressed, rather than TIME. You will have to run my program to get a better understanding. Go to 'start page' and then 'time compression'. >> >> Well, I have now shown why the 'GR correction' in GPS clocks is a >> complete nonsense. > >How does LET's or SR/GR/EEP establishment that light moves at c wrt >everything, how does that show the GR correction in GPS clocks as complete >nonsense? Read my thread 'GPS GR CORRECTION MYTH' .. > >.... >>> >>>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. > >Probably right. I am 100% right > >>>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. > >Show me contrary data. Show me sub/superluminal photons. OK, I'll post some over..... 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 4 Jul 2005 19:22 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 20:47:01 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >news:c0tgc19ghnbb1faca2k8sievsdkotirheg(a)4ax.com: > > > >> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:29:57 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > >> wrote: > >That really sounds good Henri. "Your approach flies in the face of all > >statistical principles". But it applies better to your approach and to the > >approach of those that publish such curves without some reference that shows > >just how accurate the curve really is. > > > >Show me data, real data, that supports the statement that cepheid show "very > >little variation over many years". Show me data from any cepheid that > >supports the idea that 'very little variation' is 'within seconds'. > > > >Jerry has shown you articles. They give error figures. The figures are the > >kinds of figures I would expect to see from stars that vary due to internal > >processes. > > > >It would be interesting to compare the errors for cepheids with the errors > >for spectroscopic binaries. > > I am not surprised that you two will go down fighting. > the fact is, quote, "cepheid periods are so constant one can used them as a > clock". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Quoting -yourself- as an authoritative source???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Jerry
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Jul 2005 20:19
On 4 Jul 2005 16:22:37 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 20:47:01 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> >news:c0tgc19ghnbb1faca2k8sievsdkotirheg(a)4ax.com: >> > >> >> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:29:57 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> >> wrote: > >> >That really sounds good Henri. "Your approach flies in the face of all >> >statistical principles". But it applies better to your approach and to the >> >approach of those that publish such curves without some reference that shows >> >just how accurate the curve really is. >> > >> >Show me data, real data, that supports the statement that cepheid show "very >> >little variation over many years". Show me data from any cepheid that >> >supports the idea that 'very little variation' is 'within seconds'. >> > >> >Jerry has shown you articles. They give error figures. The figures are the >> >kinds of figures I would expect to see from stars that vary due to internal >> >processes. >> > >> >It would be interesting to compare the errors for cepheids with the errors >> >for spectroscopic binaries. >> >> I am not surprised that you two will go down fighting. >> the fact is, quote, "cepheid periods are so constant one can used them as a >> clock". > >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > >Quoting -yourself- as an authoritative source???? > >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > >Jerry 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." http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/deltacep.html "Delta Cep is one of the few easily-visible variables, its magnitude changing from 3.5 to 4.3 and back over an amazingly regular period of 5 days 8 hours 47 minutes and 32 seconds, the star acting like a natural clock. " http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cepheid.html http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mjp/cepheids.html http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/shadow/cepheids.html Don't run from the truth forever, 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. |