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 25 Apr 2005 17:13 On Mon, 25 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 >>>> just a dead star will do. >>> >>>Neutron stars are better candidates; see below. A dead >>>star would be sufficient if the measurements are accurate enough. >> >> Neutron stars could account for the very small orbit periods. > >Well, they are smaller...but there's no real difference between >a dead star and a neutron star except that the neutron star >can be observed (though it depends on the star). I was thinking of something in between....a star that had cooled but had not contracted to a small size. >> >> Ghost, these are not cepheids and eclipsing binaries at all. >> They are, by and large, just ordinary orbiting stars. >> Throw away your Einsteiniana Ghost. Light leave stars at >> c relative to their source. > >No it does not. It leaves at less than c. It has to overcome >the gravitational pull, does it not? True. Usually that would make little difference to predicted brightness curves ...but I will look into the effects when very large strs are involved. > >> >>> >>>> spectral lines should appear broadened as well as shifted. >>> >>>The spectral lines might be broadened, at that...though I'd >>>have to look. >>> >>>> Ad to this the effects of thermal velocities of teh source >>>> molecules and you have a few additional complications. >>> >>>Nothing major. >> >> Not necessarily so. >> Thermal speeds of hot stars are generally considerably >> higher than orbit speeds. >> If no extinction occurs in, say, a gaseous cloud around >> a star, then the ballistic theory would fail to predict >> light curves accurately. Thermal velocities of source >> molecules would dominate. That also gives me cause to >> suspect that there might be a natural 'EM frame of >> reference' around any large mass. > >Not that it makes much difference. BaT is uniform across >all time and space, as I understand it; the transform is > >x_A = x_O - v * t_O >t_A = t_O > >for any pair A, O moving v relative to each other. But light can and will change speed as it traverses various regions of space. >> Say you have a star whizzing around a neutron star at >> high frequency. Presumeably, both members are rotating >> around their own axes. If the neutron star emits some >> kind of field in synch with its rotation, how does >> that help you? > >If the orbit is sufficiently eccentric the neutron star's >pulses will vary in frequency during the orbit. BaT >should predict this effect. That will apply to emitted light from any orbting star. > >There is another effect as well that it might predict: >the degeneration of the orbit. > >>>> >>>> Ghost, I have pointed out before that OWLS=TWLS only in flat gravity. >>>> I didn't want to repeat that every time I make the statement. >>>> Most TWLS experiments would be made in gravity that was >>>> sufficiently uniform not to affect the result. >>> >>>Of course most would be. My point is that, in order for the MMX to >>>succeed in showing any difference in the theories at all, that one >>>might have to introduce another parameter -- in this case, >>>gravity. >> >> If the MMX were carried out in free fall, it could be interesting. > >It would show nothing interesting with a local light source. > >> It couldbe orientated in any direction whereas on Earth, >> it must be horizontal. > >It *is* horizontal in free space relative to any coordinate system >that might be meaningful. Kenseto's and your theory agree on >this point. Seto doesn't have a meaningful theory. >> Ghost, I was refering to a TWLS measurement in which an obserevr >> on the fround fired a laser pulse vertically upward andmeasure >> the return time after reflection. > >OK, you've moved the light source. Fine. You are correct in >stating that there would be a slowdown in that case. > >> If it was carried out the other way round, the average light >> speed would be >c as you say. > >Except that it wouldn't according to GR. Yes it would. >of course, with light strange things happen; GTR in particular >>>predicts c everywhere, with a compensating wavelength-shift. >> >> The BaT predicts a changing light speed and a 'frequency' >> shift. > >How much of a frequency shift? Same as for GR > >> Frequency here refers to the rate at which the 'intrinsic >> spatial regularity' of an individual photon arrives at the observer. >> For generated EM, however, the frequency does not increase >> as the individual photons accelerate downwards. > >No, but the energy does in BaT -- Edelta = mgh = Egh/c^2, where E >is the original energy of the photon, g is the local acceleration, >and h is the height of the column. > >For a column of 100 meters and light of 500 nm (3.9756 * 10^-19 J >or 2.4814 eV) the change would be on the order of 2.70335 * 10^-14 eV. > >I believe GR also predicts this energy shift, but the wavelength in >GR would get *shorter*, not longer. > >> See: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/fallingwave.exe >> >> >>>>>> Why would any normal person want to assume something that >>>>>> is not correct and then create a maths theory that tries >>>>>> to make it correct. >>>>> >>>>>Oh, I see. Yes, you're right, SR/GR cannot possibly be correct. >>>>>We've been doing it wrong for nearly a century! >>>>> >>>>>Gosh, what fools we've been. >>>> >>>> You have!! You are unwittingly clinging to old aether principles. >>>> ..and as any devout christian knows, evidence of a god can be >>>> found everywhere one looks. :) >>> >>>Aether, schmaether. OK, so I'm an aetherist -- the question >>>remains: whose math more exactly matches the results? >> >> Much of GR maths matches BaT predictions. See the Pound-Rebka expt. > >All of GR maths matches BaT predictions, for all of GR maths >matches experimental results, and you have claimed that BaT >also matches experimental results. > >Therefore the two theories are nearly identical. In very simple cases, Earth centrism can produce the same results as Kepler. > >> >>> >>>That is the ultimate question. I wish I had some data for an answer. >>>Your data, such as it is, is insufficient; I want wavelength shifts >>>in addition to luminosity curves. >> >> I have not been able to find many. >> Paul Andersen seems to think many are readily available but >> I don't know where. > >I have been able to find French data on the laser echo between >Earth and Moon but I'm not sure how useful that data is for >verificatoin of SR, GTR, or BaT. Anything believable is bound to support the BaT. >> Two such presynched arrays in relative motion would still register >> the same time for any event. >> Clocks don't change when you give them a push Ghost. > >Oh yes they do. There's at least one storage-tube muon experiment >where the muons take longer to decay than they would while at rest. >I'd have to find it, though. > >Of course, you are free to claim that the muons are somehow damaged. Not damaged....they are held together more strongly by the magnetic constraining forces. As they spin, they are squashed and so don't decay so easily. >> You will learn a great deal from my demos Ghost. You might >> even be converted one day. > >I wouldn't bet the farm on it. However, here's a question for you: >can you predict the angular deviation per year of Gravity Probe B >solely from BaT? Haven't thought about that. >>> >>>You can't use Java? Download it from http://java.sun.com . >> >> I have tried. The code is easy , very similar to basic, but >> creating applets doesn't seem to work on my machine. > >Hmm...can you *view* applets? For instance, you can try >this one: > >http://home.earthlink.net/~ewill3/clocks/yadc/yadc.html > >(Yes, this is a shameless plug. However, the applet's fairly simple.) Java runs OK on my computer. I have just upgraded my java console actually. >>>> It cannot be assumed that light will continue to travel >>>> at exactly c wrt its source, for its entire lifetime. >>> >>>Why not? GTR makes *exactly* this assumption, and it works. >> >> I'm talking about many millions of LYs. > >So am I. GTR doesn't care distance-wise; a photon is observed >to travel at c everywhere it goes, in theory, anyway. > >> >> >>>>>> In what does space 'twist'? >>>>> >>>>>In itself. >>>> >>>> then it wouldn't be twisted. >>> >>>What would it be, then? The Lorentz postulates a space-time twist. >>>Galileo postulates a shear. >> >> I don't think the BaT postulates that spacetime even exists >> as a physical entity, Ghost. > >It doesn't have to. AIUI, the effect measured by >Gravity Probe B is basically a nonzero torque imparted >on the satellite. (An extremely tiny but nevertheless >measurable torque). > >> >> >>>>> >>>>>The satellite continues to point at the guide star using guidance >>>>>systems (presumably, it has a gyro of its own, which can be tweaked >>>>>to keep a small telescope aimed at the star). The gyroscopes >>>>>are left to free float and the deviance between the satellite and >>>>>the gyros measured on a regular basis. >>>> >>>> Hmmm! Not very conclusive Ghost. >>> >>>True, it's not all that conclusive. No experiment can be conclusive, >>>not even yours. >> >> It would be a good start. > >Only if it proves BaT. MMX would also have been excellent evidence >of a rigid aether. > >> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dark matter is largely made up of all the cold dead stars that many of the >>>>>> visible variable stars are orbiting. >>>>> >>>>>Dark matter is fine. I don't have a problem with dark matter; since >>>>>it doesn't glow in the, erm, dark, we can't see it directly. >>>> >>>> There are entire 'ancient universes' out there. >>> >>>Hmm...and we know this precisely how? >> >> Because of all the dead stars around which variable stars >> are orbiting. We can also assume that a great deal of >> matter from previous universes was never gobbled up by >> neutron stars and transformed by a 'little bang'. > >And why is that? I cannot see anything wrong with the idea that there is a great deal of non-glowing matter in the universe. >>>"Gravitational energy"? No such beastie. Doing work against >>>a field is of course possible, but what happens when one drops >>>a ball in Earth's field? >>> >>>Answer: the Earth moves a tiny smidgen. >> >> The energy ends up as heat. > >True, but the Earth still moves a smidgen -- undetectably so in >the case of a 1 kg ball dropping from a 1m height (since the Earth >is 5.976 * 10^24 kg, it would have to move 1.673 * 10^-25 m to >compensate). The Earth also moves a 'mirco-smidgen when a photon travels past. What is more, it continues to move...and the energy comes from the photon. That's one cause of the cosmic redshift. > >> >> >>>>>Define "real". SR can't even measure the length of a moving rod! >>>>>One has to deduce it. >>>> >>>> SR says GPS clocks change rates PHYSICALLY wrt the original >>>> ground frame. >>> >>>Not SR. GTR. SR can't apply here as space is curved. >>> >>>> >>>> yet SR says clocks and rods retain their original physical >>>> properties after an acceleration. >>>> (my question: "if a rod is given a push, does it physically >>>> lengthen or shorten", proves my point.) >>> >>>The question is not whether a rod physically lengthens, in this case. >>>The question is: what does another observer see happening? >> >> In that case you have to employ Paul Andersen's famous tick fairies >> to gobble up the missing GPS ticks as they fall to Earth. > >Actually, they would *disgorge* ticks. yes. They can do that too. It's all written in Paul Andersen's fairy tales. >>>Ah, but it is. >> >> George Dishman said he might convert my Vbasic code >> to Java, just for you Ghost. >> Actually is should be quite easy to do just that. > >As long as the source is in fact available. It is. I have nearly finished.... but it has developed an annoying bug. 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 25 Apr 2005 17:18 On 25 Apr 2005 05:51:24 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >Henry > >In the MMX how did they determine the speed for the ether relative to >the earth.? > >It was known that the earth orbited the sun, therefore the earth was >not >at rest WRT the ether > >It was known that the Sun was not the centre of the universe and was >moving >relative to other stars. Therefore it was either at rest WRT to ether >or it was not. > >If the SUN was not at rest WRT ether then how was it possible to >measure the >speed of the sun WRT to ether? Distant stars? > >Doesn't this impact the whole area of measurement of light from distant >stars? > >Can someone shed some light I have often wondered if the average vector momentum of all the stars in the universe could be used to define a unique reference frame. There must be one frame in which it balances out to zero. Even if we were to use just the part of thhe universe we can see, such a frame might be theoretically feasible. > > >G 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 25 Apr 2005 19:01 On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:39:51 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ikgd61966v4b9r1gd195nkr8ddk6vjllk3(a)4ax.com... George, I'm slowly getting there. Have a look at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.exe This simulates the standard explanation. For small rotation rates, it doesn't tell us much. 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: Herman Trivilino on 25 Apr 2005 19:27 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote ... > I have often wondered if the average vector momentum of all the stars in > the > universe could be used to define a unique reference frame. > > There must be one frame in which it balances out to zero. > > Even if we were to use just the part of thhe universe we can see, such a > frame > might be theoretically feasible. There was the oft-used phrase "with respect to the fixed stars". ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Apr 2005 23:56
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:27:47 -0500, "Herman Trivilino" <physhead(a)kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote: >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote ... > >> I have often wondered if the average vector momentum of all the stars in >> the >> universe could be used to define a unique reference frame. >> >> There must be one frame in which it balances out to zero. >> >> Even if we were to use just the part of thhe universe we can see, such a >> frame >> might be theoretically feasible. > >There was the oft-used phrase "with respect to the fixed stars". Are they fixed? On average, they may be. 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. |