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 18 Apr 2005 03:43 On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:35:32 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:9an561la40b56ht684gqiuqfvvap0te9l7(a)4ax.com: > >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. You aren't related to Eric Gisse, by any chance are you? 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 18 Apr 2005 03:45 On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:50:03 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:d0o561peg25rjssbo4h696r8vv3grnvbv1(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>There is also a possible ambiguity if the simple >>>technique is used because a shift of 1/8 fringe >>>is indistinguishable from a shift of 3/8 fringe >>>(think of a sine wave). The maximum rate for the >>>DSP3000 is 375 degrees per second so I would >>>expect that is less than 1/4 fringe. The spec >>>is here: >>> >>> http://www.kvh.com/pdf/DSP3000_5.04.pdf >> >> It doesn't tell us anything about the actual design. >> that's what we want to know. > >The details will be commercial so not published >but there are other sources that give generic >descriptions. I'll try to dig some out when >I have time but given the specs and some basic >facts, we can get some good estimates. Not only that, much of the theory and design criteria are apparently highly secret for defence reasons. So maybe we will never know. > >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 18 Apr 2005 03:55 On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >>>> 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? What connection would GR have to these straightforward BaT predictions? None! >>> >>>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 Why would you want to give me such a reference Ghost. I am a physicist, remember...probably the only one on this NG. > >) > >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 Not working. But you can be sure the BaT explains all. How could light leave a star at 'c' wrt ALL objects in the universe? >> >>> >>>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. Java would have to be the worst program ever invented. I am quite aware that you don't have any interest in truth, Ghost. > >[.sigsnip] 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 18 Apr 2005 04:13 Dear Henri The speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the source: this is true for light, sound waves, mechanical waves. That is, the forward motion of the source does not impart any velocity to the light waves. The best proof of this is that when you cross the street, you assume the light from vehicles travelling at speed v and not v+c. If this was the case, vehicles would appear x metres closer to you than they really are. Is the speed of light the speed of individual photons? Ballistic theory? Saw your demos. Nice work. Faster than Java applets!! G
From: bz on 18 Apr 2005 05:01
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:m8p66199qsvcavirqob941ci6msgk1j9an@ 4ax.com: > You aren't related to Eric Gisse, by any chance are you? I have no idea who Eric Gisse is. If he is human, then we are "brothers", but as far as I know, there is no other relationship. Why do you ask? -- 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 |