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: Sam Wormley on 13 Apr 2005 20:02 Henri Wilson wrote: > > This is a most typical brightness curve as predicted by the BaT for low > eccentricity orbits. > Omicron Ceti - is a variable pulsating star, HD 14386 -- Variable Star of Mira Cet type http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/sim-id.pl?Ident=Mira http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Vars/mira.html
From: Henri Wilson on 14 Apr 2005 02:29 On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:02:13 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> >> This is a most typical brightness curve as predicted by the BaT for low >> eccentricity orbits. >> > >Omicron Ceti - is a variable pulsating star, HD 14386 -- > Variable Star of Mira Cet type > http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/sim-id.pl?Ident=Mira > http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Vars/mira.html It aint. It is a normal star orbiting a dark companion. 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: kenseto on 14 Apr 2005 08:51 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:6s4r51pestqfoagi83moeh47maqqs7lpa0(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:53:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > > > To prove the BaT correct, the original pulse and the relayed pulse will have to > arrive at different instants at the Earth receiver. (The known delay must be > subtracted). BaT is disproved by the double-slit experiment as well as the following references: 1. Michelson, A.A. 1913. "Effect of Reflectionfrom a Moving Mirroron the Velocity of Light" Astrophys. J.,37, 190-193. 2. Beckmann, P. and Mandics, P. 1965. "Test of the Constancy of Electromagnetic Radiation i High Vacuum" Radio Science, 69-D, 623-638 Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 14 Apr 2005 09:04 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:02:13 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >>Omicron Ceti - is a variable pulsating star, HD 14386 -- >> Variable Star of Mira Cet type >> http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/sim-id.pl?Ident=Mira >> http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Vars/mira.html > > > It aint. > It is a normal star orbiting a dark companion. > > > HW. > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. Ref: http://www.seds.org/~spider/spider/Vars/mira.html "Mira is the brightest and most famous long-period pulsating variable in the sky, and gave the name to this whole class of stars. It changes its brightness normally between maxima of about 3rd magnitude and minima of about mag 10, but occasionally brighter maxima up to mag 2.0 are observed (e.g. by William Herschel), or fainter when Mira stays at about magnitude 5. At a distance of about 400 light years, this corresponds to absolute magnitudes of about -2.5 near the maxima and +4.7 near its minima, so giant cool Mira is only about as, or even less luminous than our sun near its minima, but brightens up to about 700 and occasionally even over 1500 solar luminosities near the maximum of its cycle". "Mira is also the dominant component of a double star, which is separated by only 0.6 arc seconds. As the companion orbits Mira in about 400 years, it has now just once orbited the star since Fabricius discovered its variability. The linear distance was given as about 70 Astronomical Units, i.e. 70 times the distance between Earth and Sun. The companion is probably a white dwarf in interaction with Mira, which is surrounded by an accretion disc of material which it has captured away from the red giant Mira, and which may well be brighter than the companion star itself. This companion has a brightness which also varies, between 9.5 and 12 visual magnitudes (its variable star designation is VZ Ceti). Its variation is rather complicated: A slow variation of about 13 years period is superimposeds by rapid fluctuations over minutes, and occasionally a rare flare of some minutes duration. CZ is currently coming even closer to Mira, to about 0.1 arc seconds at its periastron in 2001; their separation has been about 1.7 arc seconds around 1800. Would the companion be closer, this system would be classified as a symbiotic star (like R Aquarii)".
From: Henri Wilson on 14 Apr 2005 18:29
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:51:07 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:6s4r51pestqfoagi83moeh47maqqs7lpa0(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:53:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >> >> To prove the BaT correct, the original pulse and the relayed pulse will >have to >> arrive at different instants at the Earth receiver. (The known delay must >be >> subtracted). > >BaT is disproved by the double-slit experiment Rubbish. What does that have to do with light speed. >as well as the following >references: >1. Michelson, A.A. 1913. "Effect of Reflectionfrom a Moving Mirroron the >Velocity of Light" Astrophys. J.,37, 190-193. Rubbish. All theoretical stuff..never proven. Did he ever move a mirror and measure OWLS from it? > >2. Beckmann, P. and Mandics, P. 1965. "Test of the Constancy of >Electromagnetic Radiation i High Vacuum" Radio Science, 69-D, 623-638 All TWLS stuff. OWLS is 100% isotropic and equal to c in any particular frame. > >Ken Seto > 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. |