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 17 Apr 2005 19:31 On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:14:59 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:cnv261tp3cr5s0qk3l246r81307195hui8(a)4ax.com... > >> The reflection takes place over a very short distance but >> can we assume it occurs in zero time? I don't think so. > >I gave this a little more thought. Try using a >delay on reflection which is proportional to the >angle of incidence. Since the angle for one beam >increases while the other decreases, this should >give you the right qualitative result. That is one possibility. > >The problem then will be that when you derive the >equation for the whole instrument, it will be >independent of the size of the instrument when in >reality we know it depends on the area enclosed. A good point. > >Take this line of thought a few more steps and you >will find you are getting into Ralph Sansbury's >territory :-o Oh dear! *************************** I think we now both agree on the basic problem. The ballistic argument goes like this: ____________M->v /\ / \ s With mirror at rest in the source frame, light is reflected at 45deg from a plane mirror. Q) If the mirror is subsequently moved in the direction indicated, what is the effect on the reflected angle and the outgoing velocity, relative to the source frame? In the case of a perfectly elastic ball bouncing off a rigid 'frictionles' wall, the reflection should not be affected at all by wall movement. However, in real situations there will always be some kind of interaction between the ball and the wall. The normal velocity component should not be affected but the parallel one will be, as will the apparent angle of incidence. It is possible that the reflected angle may not be the same as the incident one. In the extreme case, the ball could leave the wall with a parallel speed equal to that of the wall. in fact we cannot really be certain that the normal velocity is not also altered in the process. Does that sum it up adequately? I will try to incorporate all these possibilities into my simulation. >George > 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 17 Apr 2005 19:37 On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:54:52 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:v391615qapgjrv2r9hb62t5k96thlnh005(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:48:23 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> >news:ofrt511i5lu7nui7rg15g88jle0lch8m1c(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:51:07 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> subtracted). >> >> > >> >> >BaT is disproved by the double-slit experiment >> >> >> >> Rubbish. What does that have to do with light speed. >> > >> >Sigh....bullets of light will not interfere with each other. You tell me >how >> >BaT explains the double-slit experiment. >> >> Photon fields extend to infinity. >> Photons have 'size, cross-section and volume'. > >So according to BaT what is the "size, cross-section and volume" of a >photon? Also why is that enables the photons to interfere with each other? Infinite in all directions. ..but the fields of a photon die off very rapidly in all directions too. I hereby invent a new term, 'half radius'....defined as the distance at which a photon's influence is reduced to half. It appears that the higher the energy, the smaller the half-radius of a photon. That is why gammas behave like particles and infrared like a wave. Get it? > >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.
From: Henri Wilson on 17 Apr 2005 19:55 On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:35:23 GMT ><5qrt51tp45duivsqe851nsc53im9cs61th(a)4ax.com>: >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:04:02 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> >>>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)". >> >> Sam, if astronomers want to stick with the concept that all light travels to >> Earth at c, they are bound to come up with stupid and completely incorrect >> conclusions like this one. >> >> In fact, a great deal more can be learnt about these stars when the BaT is >> accepted. > >Such as...? The shape of the curve tells us the eccentricity, the yaw angle, the presence of a companion and the properties of both. Observer distance is directly related to orbital speed and orbit roll. > >The thing about Cepheid variables (I'm assuming Omicron >Ceti is one such, and Google confirms it) is that there >seem to be a lot of them. > >http://www.answers.com/topic/variable-star > >describes them as yellow supergiants. A sudden increase of >7 magnitudes followed by a gradual falloff over the course of >11 doesn't seem to be consistent with the notion of a >dark companion eclipsing a central star, which would necessitate >a symmetrical darkening-brightening curve. > >http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998/omicet.gif I gave you a much better reference at britastro website.. > >is a plot of the lightcurve. It's a little odd-looking as >much data is missing between March 97 and September 97, >but it sure doesn't look like the curve of an eclipsing binary >to me. It isn't an eclipsing binary. > >A far better lightcurve is Delta Cephei's: > >http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998/dcep97.gif Another perfect example of what the ballistic theory predicts. > >which clearly shows an asymmetric nature. > >http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998.htm Ghost, have a look at http://www.britastro.org/vss/ Look at the 'long-term pixel curves'. These ones are typical of the ballistic predictions: R Aquilae R Andromedae R Arietis R Aur X Aur R Boo S Boo U Boo* V Boo* V CVn** R Cam V Cam" X Cam Z Cam R Cas* S Cas** t Cas** W Cas S Cep* T Cep* Omicron Ceti R Com R Crb*** S Crb V Crb W Crb R Cyg S Cyg V Cyg W Cyg AF Cyg*** CH Cyg----- Cyg---- Chi Cyg R Dra R Gem S Her* RU Her** SS Her AH her R Hya SU Lac X Oph U ori RU Peg--- GK Per--- R Scuti** R Ser V Tau R Uma S Uma T Uma CH Uma*** S Umi R Vul V Vul* Not the ones with ----after them. > >contains a fair number of descriptions for these strange, >lifeless stars (one has to assume that any planet orbiting >nearby is going to get a *lot* of variation in heat, enough >to sterilize it and/or freeze it to death). > >http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998/tcep97.gif > >T Cephei shows a rather interesting light curve which >looks very much like a sine wave. While the curve is >symmetrical, I for one would think that any eclipsing >binary would be flat for at least half the cycle unless >the companion was very very large (larger than the central >star!) and had a high albedo. > >I'll admit I'm not sure how chummy the particle physicists >and the astronomers are, though I suspect they correspond >on a very regular basis. BaT has some implications for >stellar reactions that I frankly can't verify (I don't >do that sort of math :-) ), but it's clear that they >will be different from the SR/GR postulates. You obviously haven't seen my Vbasic program that explains everything about variable stars and the BaT. See it at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe 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 17 Apr 2005 20:35 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:9an561la40b56ht684gqiuqfvvap0te9l7(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 01:01:35 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:sh0361pepm96fke2tvbim51f1ftv4ntja9(a)4ax.com: >> >>> OK, let's say half a fringe deflection corresponds to a rotational >>> speed of 1 degree per hour. >>> >>> The instrument reading fluctuates between between 0.4 and 0.6 of a >>> fringe shift over a period of a 30 minutes. >>> >>> How much has the thing rotated at the end of that period? >>> >>> If 100 fringes corresponded to say 1 degree per hour then it might be >>> possible to produce accurate results but is that the kind of movement >>> you get? >> >>http://www.fesg.tu-muenchen.de/us/Docs/Ring-SPb04.pdf > > Why don't you read these articles before you recommend them? It seemed to be germain to the discussion. > > >>http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_open.shtml > > What a useless article. I take it that you found nothing of interest in either article. Nothing that added anything worthwhile to your discussion. If so, I am sorry to have bothered you. -- 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 18 Apr 2005 00:00
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:55:31 GMT <l4t561dgijbskaukj5jn6oag419cavj9vb(a)4ax.com>: > On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:35:23 GMT >><5qrt51tp45duivsqe851nsc53im9cs61th(a)4ax.com>: >>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:04:02 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >>> >>>>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)". >>> >>> Sam, if astronomers want to stick with the concept that all light travels to >>> Earth at c, they are bound to come up with stupid and completely incorrect >>> conclusions like this one. >>> >>> In fact, a great deal more can be learnt about these stars when the BaT is >>> accepted. >> >>Such as...? > > The shape of the curve tells us the eccentricity, the yaw angle, > the presence of a companion and the properties of both. > Observer distance is directly related to orbital speed and orbit roll. And what's to prevent GTR from making similar predictions? > >> >>The thing about Cepheid variables (I'm assuming Omicron >>Ceti is one such, and Google confirms it) is that there >>seem to be a lot of them. >> >>http://www.answers.com/topic/variable-star > >> >>describes them as yellow supergiants. A sudden increase of >>7 magnitudes followed by a gradual falloff over the course of >>11 doesn't seem to be consistent with the notion of a >>dark companion eclipsing a central star, which would necessitate >>a symmetrical darkening-brightening curve. >> >>http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998/omicet.gif > > I gave you a much better reference at britastro website.. > >> >>is a plot of the lightcurve. It's a little odd-looking as >>much data is missing between March 97 and September 97, >>but it sure doesn't look like the curve of an eclipsing binary >>to me. > > It isn't an eclipsing binary. > >> >>A far better lightcurve is Delta Cephei's: >> >>http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998/dcep97.gif > > Another perfect example of what the ballistic theory predicts. > >> >>which clearly shows an asymmetric nature. >> >>http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998.htm > > Ghost, have a look at http://www.britastro.org/vss/ > > Look at the 'long-term pixel curves'. > > These ones are typical of the ballistic predictions: > R Aquilae > R Andromedae > R Arietis > R Aur > X Aur > R Boo > S Boo > U Boo* > V Boo* > V CVn** > R Cam > V Cam" > X Cam > Z Cam > R Cas* > S Cas** > t Cas** > W Cas > S Cep* > T Cep* > Omicron Ceti > R Com > R Crb*** > S Crb > V Crb > W Crb > R Cyg > S Cyg > V Cyg > W Cyg > AF Cyg*** > CH Cyg----- > Cyg---- > Chi Cyg > R Dra > R Gem > S Her* > RU Her** > SS Her > AH her > R Hya > SU Lac > X Oph > U ori > RU Peg--- > GK Per--- > R Scuti** > R Ser > V Tau > R Uma > S Uma > T Uma > CH Uma*** > S Umi > R Vul > V Vul* > > Not the ones with ----after them. Errrumm...did you have an actual *prediction* here? Let's put it this way. A star system has two arbitrary stars of arbitrary height and velocity. We can observe the shift of the light (spectroscopically, and by matching up the element-lines as given in such places as http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Na/key.html ) We can also observe the brightness of the couple as the stars move around each other. If we're real lucky we can see the individual stars' spectra as well (the second star is likely to be a different class than the first one). If they're touching things get even more interesting (Roche pairs, IINM). But never mind those. Some stars have companions that are neutron stars as well. Now...perhaps you can pick several of the stars, predict their lightcurves, feed them into your program below, etc.? Also, there are other binaries with one component being a neutron star. These binaries are augmented by a built-in clock. (A decaying clock, to be sure, but a clock nonetheless.) And presumably the BaT works for the low-mass X-ray binaries evidenced in http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2002-2/articlesu5.html > >> >>contains a fair number of descriptions for these strange, >>lifeless stars (one has to assume that any planet orbiting >>nearby is going to get a *lot* of variation in heat, enough >>to sterilize it and/or freeze it to death). >> >>http://www.popastro.com/sections/vs/vss1998/tcep97.gif >> >>T Cephei shows a rather interesting light curve which >>looks very much like a sine wave. While the curve is >>symmetrical, I for one would think that any eclipsing >>binary would be flat for at least half the cycle unless >>the companion was very very large (larger than the central >>star!) and had a high albedo. >> >>I'll admit I'm not sure how chummy the particle physicists >>and the astronomers are, though I suspect they correspond >>on a very regular basis. BaT has some implications for >>stellar reactions that I frankly can't verify (I don't >>do that sort of math :-) ), but it's clear that they >>will be different from the SR/GR postulates. > > You obviously haven't seen my Vbasic program that explains everything about > variable stars and the BaT. > See it at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe VBasic? Bleah. Non-standard. Reimplement it as a Java applet and I might be more interested. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |