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 6 Jul 2005 19:14 On 6 Jul 2005 04:57:55 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> The BaT would expect emitted light from WCHs to be heavily >> redshifted...so they may be a lot hotter than they appear to >> be...and consequently much smaller. > >Redshift does not affect temperature estimates of a star, which >are mostly based on analysis of line strengths, many of which >are cross-correlated with each other. An anomaly such as you >propose should have been long noticed. >http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s12.htm No it wouldn't ....becasue light speed is assumed to be c. >Sounds like you are predicting a HUGE correction to the >Cepheid luminosity-distance relationship. there probably isn't a relationship at all. > >Allen summarizes a century of work establishing the Cepheid >distance scale: >http://www.institute-of-brilliant-failures.com > >Other publications dealing with the Cepheid luminosity-distance >relationship: >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999ASPC..167..113P&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format= >http://www.rssd.esa.int/Hipparcos/pstex/pr-14Feb97.html >http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/lmc/lmc.html all based on constant c. Not worth the paper they are written on. > >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.
From: G on 6 Jul 2005 23:59 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 6 Jul 2005 01:50:13 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 5 Jul 2005 01:46:12 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> >The speed of radio waves from ground to satellite and back are not > >> >taken as > >> >travelling at c. > >> > >> That will certainly interest the SRians. > >> > > > > > >The GPS system has to deal with a lot of errors > > > >"Sources of GPS signal errors > > > >Factors that can degrade the GPS signal and thus affect accuracy > >include the following: > > > >Ionosphere and troposphere delays - The satellite signal slows as it > >passes through the atmosphere. The GPS system uses a built-in model > >that calculates an average amount of delay to partially correct for > >this type of error. > >Signal multipath - This occurs when the GPS signal is reflected off > >objects such as tall buildings or large rock surfaces before it reaches > >the receiver. This increases the travel time of the signal, thereby > >causing errors. > >Receiver clock errors - A receiver's built-in clock is not as > >accurate as the atomic clocks onboard the GPS satellites. Therefore, it > >may have very slight timing errors. > >Orbital errors - Also known as ephemeris errors, these are > >inaccuracies of the satellite's reported location. > >Number of satellites visible - The more satellites a GPS receiver can > >"see," the better the accuracy. Buildings, terrain, electronic > >interference, or sometimes even dense foliage can block signal > >reception, causing position errors or possibly no position reading at > >all. GPS units typically will not work indoors, underwater or > >underground. > >Satellite geometry/shading - This refers to the relative position of > >the satellites at any given time. Ideal satellite geometry exists when > >the satellites are located at wide angles relative to each other. Poor > >geometry results when the satellites are located in a line or in a > >tight grouping. > >Intentional degradation of the satellite signal - Selective > >Availability (SA) is an intentional degradation of the signal once > >imposed by the U.S. Department of Defense. SA was intended to prevent > >military adversaries from using the highly accurate GPS signals. The > >government turned off SA in May 2000, which significantly improved the > >accuracy of civilian GPS receivers. > > > >http://www.garmin.com/aboutGPS/" > > > >Funnily no mention of SRT in this explanation. > > Very funny :). But, take hope. There are articles that say that GPS cannot work without SRT, and is proof of SRT. There are articles that say the opposite. Our task is simple: with the help of our friends here, we will have to find out who is right. (unless you have already found out). > > > >> Did you know that frequency of the radio signals does not change, even though > >> their speed does. > >Of course not. How can the frequency change when it is caused by the > >emitting > >mechanism at point of emission? How can frequency change en route? > >If the target is moving however, there will be a frequncy change due to > >Doppler effect: this happens with sound as well. > > Paul Andersen's tick fairies gobble up some of the ticks. Are they dimensionless? And what relevance do ticks have here? > > > >> >Have you ever given the postulates of Bat as AE did with SRT? If it is > >> >an > >> >previous post just tell me and I will search. > >> > > >> >I am one of those "first principles" people > >> > >> The postulate of the BaT is that light initially travels at c wrt its source. > > > >Same as SRT if source, target frame is the same > > You don't need a target. > Sorry was thninking of MMX > > > >> It travels at c+v wrt other objects moving at -v wrt the source. > > > >Sounds reasonable enough, but how is it to be tested, proven? I can > >think of about four experiments that will have to be done in space. > > > >How about an MMX that uses starlight or sunlight? That would settle the > >issue - could cause interference fringes. Has this been done? > > No. Must be done in space. But won't light reaching the instrument be anything but c? And averaging out atmospheric disturbances can't it be done? Anyway good candidate for next shuttle launch. If they don't want to keep their jobs that is. > > > > 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: G on 7 Jul 2005 00:01 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 6 Jul 2005 01:50:13 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 5 Jul 2005 01:46:12 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> >The speed of radio waves from ground to satellite and back are not > >> >taken as > >> >travelling at c. > >> > >> That will certainly interest the SRians. > >> > > > > > >The GPS system has to deal with a lot of errors > > > >"Sources of GPS signal errors > > > >Factors that can degrade the GPS signal and thus affect accuracy > >include the following: > > > >Ionosphere and troposphere delays - The satellite signal slows as it > >passes through the atmosphere. The GPS system uses a built-in model > >that calculates an average amount of delay to partially correct for > >this type of error. > >Signal multipath - This occurs when the GPS signal is reflected off > >objects such as tall buildings or large rock surfaces before it reaches > >the receiver. This increases the travel time of the signal, thereby > >causing errors. > >Receiver clock errors - A receiver's built-in clock is not as > >accurate as the atomic clocks onboard the GPS satellites. Therefore, it > >may have very slight timing errors. > >Orbital errors - Also known as ephemeris errors, these are > >inaccuracies of the satellite's reported location. > >Number of satellites visible - The more satellites a GPS receiver can > >"see," the better the accuracy. Buildings, terrain, electronic > >interference, or sometimes even dense foliage can block signal > >reception, causing position errors or possibly no position reading at > >all. GPS units typically will not work indoors, underwater or > >underground. > >Satellite geometry/shading - This refers to the relative position of > >the satellites at any given time. Ideal satellite geometry exists when > >the satellites are located at wide angles relative to each other. Poor > >geometry results when the satellites are located in a line or in a > >tight grouping. > >Intentional degradation of the satellite signal - Selective > >Availability (SA) is an intentional degradation of the signal once > >imposed by the U.S. Department of Defense. SA was intended to prevent > >military adversaries from using the highly accurate GPS signals. The > >government turned off SA in May 2000, which significantly improved the > >accuracy of civilian GPS receivers. > > > >http://www.garmin.com/aboutGPS/" > > > >Funnily no mention of SRT in this explanation. > > Very funny :). But, take hope. There are articles that say that GPS cannot work without SRT, and is proof of SRT. There are articles that say the opposite. Our task is simple: with the help of our friends here, we will have to find out who is right. (unless you have already found out). > > > >> Did you know that frequency of the radio signals does not change, even though > >> their speed does. > >Of course not. How can the frequency change when it is caused by the > >emitting > >mechanism at point of emission? How can frequency change en route? > >If the target is moving however, there will be a frequncy change due to > >Doppler effect: this happens with sound as well. > > Paul Andersen's tick fairies gobble up some of the ticks. Are they dimensionless? And what relevance do ticks have here? > > > >> >Have you ever given the postulates of Bat as AE did with SRT? If it is > >> >an > >> >previous post just tell me and I will search. > >> > > >> >I am one of those "first principles" people > >> > >> The postulate of the BaT is that light initially travels at c wrt its source. > > > >Same as SRT if source, target frame is the same > > You don't need a target. > Sorry was thninking of MMX > > > >> It travels at c+v wrt other objects moving at -v wrt the source. > > > >Sounds reasonable enough, but how is it to be tested, proven? I can > >think of about four experiments that will have to be done in space. > > > >How about an MMX that uses starlight or sunlight? That would settle the > >issue - could cause interference fringes. Has this been done? > > No. Must be done in space. But won't light reaching the instrument be anything but c? And averaging out atmospheric disturbances can't it be done? Anyway good candidate for next shuttle launch. If they don't want to keep their jobs that is. > > > > 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 7 Jul 2005 03:41 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 6 Jul 2005 04:57:55 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > > > >> The BaT would expect emitted light from WCHs to be heavily > >> redshifted...so they may be a lot hotter than they appear to > >> be...and consequently much smaller. > > > >Redshift does not affect temperature estimates of a star, which > >are mostly based on analysis of line strengths, many of which > >are cross-correlated with each other. An anomaly such as you > >propose should have been long noticed. > >http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s12.htm > > No it wouldn't ....becasue light speed is assumed to be c. > > >Sounds like you are predicting a HUGE correction to the > >Cepheid luminosity-distance relationship. > > there probably isn't a relationship at all. > > > > >Allen summarizes a century of work establishing the Cepheid > >distance scale: > >http://www.institute-of-brilliant-failures.com > > > > > >Other publications dealing with the Cepheid luminosity-distance > >relationship: > >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999ASPC..167..113P&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format= > >http://www.rssd.esa.int/Hipparcos/pstex/pr-14Feb97.html > >http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/lmc/lmc.html > > all based on constant c. > Not worth the paper they are written on. What paper? These are online. Divide-by-zero error. Anyhow, you have made your position clear. A century of scientific inquiry involving many thousands of scientists is completely misguided. Only you, the great Henri Wilson, have the true answer. Despite the fact that you have predicted nothing correctly. Jerry
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Jul 2005 08:52
On 6 Jul 2005 21:01:23 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 6 Jul 2005 01:50:13 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >> >Funnily no mention of SRT in this explanation. >> >> Very funny :). > >But, take hope. There are articles that say that GPS cannot work >without >SRT, and is proof of SRT. There are articles that say the opposite. > >Our task is simple: with the help of our friends here, we will >have to find out who is right. (unless you have already found out). I have. See my thread about the GR clock correction. > >> > >> >> It travels at c+v wrt other objects moving at -v wrt the source. >> > >> >Sounds reasonable enough, but how is it to be tested, proven? I can >> >think of about four experiments that will have to be done in space. >> > >> >How about an MMX that uses starlight or sunlight? That would settle the >> >issue - could cause interference fringes. Has this been done? >> >> No. Must be done in space. > >But won't light reaching the instrument be anything but c? After passing through the atmosphere, who knows? >averaging out atmospheric disturbances can't it be done? Anyway >good candidate for next shuttle launch. If they don't >want to keep their jobs that is. No, it cannot be done on Earth. All complications must be eliminated. 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. |