 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / June 2005Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
Come on DHRs, please define an inertial frame. 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. > Come on DHRs, please define an inertial frame. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. An inertial frame has been defined since 1905. You ARE a failure. You have wasted your life trying to prove Einstein wrong without realizing the you need to do it experimentally or by providing a demonstration of a LOGICAL flaw in relativity. You have done neither. Sorry, Henri, but you're a mental masturbator. John Anderson >> Come on DHRs, please define an inertial frame. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >An inertial frame has been defined since 1905. I know what it is. Now would you please tell bz. He has no idea and he wont listen to me. >You ARE a failure. You have wasted your life trying to prove >Einstein wrong without realizing the you need to do it experimentally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >John Anderson 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. Henri Wilson schrieb: > Come on DHRs, please define an inertial frame. It's a frame that's too lazy to get out of bed in the morning. > 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. Think POSITIVE, boy, think positive. Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel: >Henri Wilson schrieb: >> Come on DHRs, please define an inertial frame. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Think POSITIVE, boy, think positive. That's not possible, since thinking positive requires thinking and henri is incapable of thinking. In sci.physics.relativity, Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote on Sat, 28 May 2005 07:51:37 GMT <slrnd9gbjl.57s.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>: > Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > That's not possible, since thinking positive requires thinking > and henri is incapable of thinking. He does like his mantra that "BaT has never been disproven". I'll admit we have a similar mantra -- "SR/GR has never been disproven" -- but at least we have good, hard, experimentally-obtained evidence: [*] * MMX (which disproves rigid aether), * Hafele-Keating (which is an interesting illustration of GR, and possibly SR as well), * NST-2 (SR+GR effects), * a theoretical muon computation (if one assumes superluminal muons one has to work around quite a number of issues), * Compton electron scattering (I'd love to see the raw data but it looks to be a very easy experiment to set up; it's little more than a tube-type photocell impinged by a light source) * design parameters of the LHC (which assume SR), * supernova observations, specifically the neutrino/light-flare near-coincidence * an experiment that measures resonance of particles moving in a circular storage ring with a laser, * a rather crude measurement of lightspeed of photons resulting from decaying muons moving at high speed (~ 0.2c -- a crude measurement is sufficient to discern between c and 1.2 or 0.8 c) * a rather crude measurement of lightspeed of photons resulting from the combination of electrons and positrons moving at high speed * moving-block Fe-57 Mossbauer effect / gamma ray experiments (one can move the block, set the gamma ray unit on a pedestal, or both) * orbiting neutron star observations Since BaT has never been disproven I must assume that BaT = SR/GR here. :-) (Gravity Probe B is currently aloft and is designed to measure a fairly esoteric consequence of GR; therefore I'm not quite sure whether it can be used in the above list, or not -- though it would be very surprising for it to predict c'=c+v, assuming it's capable of even doing so when all data are in, as it's measuring a spacetime torque of some sort. Uncle Al's chirality experiments I don't know quite where to put at this time, though I would think they're upwardly compatible with SR/GR. However, I can't say until I understand them. :-) ) Now some of these Henri has already discarded as "improper". I'll admit I don't know his criteria of acceptance. * MMX * Ha/Ke * NST-2 * Compton * orbiting neutron stars are the ones I remember him stating that they're "improper". [*] Sam Wormley has a better list, but this will do for a start. I can't say I'm a giant, just a more or less average layman who knows a little more than some and a lot less than others.  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, Bilge ><dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> Ghost, I can only assume from the responses in this thread that no DHR here has the faintest idea what an inertial frame is. The reaction to a perfectly straightforward question was to immediately change the topic and launch a personal attack. Can we not be serious occasionally? If this is the best SRians can do then t is pretty obvious that they represent the arse end of physics. NOW, WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO bz WHAT AN INERTIAL FRAME 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. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sat, 28 May 2005 23:22:08 GMT <p0vh919dstudfiuhtg9lejc47qjvflepcg@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, Bilge >><dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> > > Ghost, I can only assume from the responses in this thread > that no DHR here has the faintest idea what an inertial frame is. There's no such thing in the real world anyway. Too many masses around. > The reaction to a perfectly straightforward question > was to immediately change the topic and launch a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > NOW, WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO bz WHAT AN INERTIAL FRAME IS. AFAIK, an inertial observer is an observer that is undergoing no acceleration in a strain-free space. An inertial frame is the hypothetical coordinate-space surrounding that observer; for various reasons the observer is always at the space origin. (Side issue: AIUI, a *stress* is a force on something. A *strain* is the response to that force. For example, a rubber band, unstressed, has a certain natural length. Stretch the rubber band -- apply a force to each endpoint -- and one is stressing it; the strain is the stretchage. It's a poor metaphor but one common metaphor is a "rubber-sheet" Universe. The planets stress this Universe merely by existing (they dimple the Universe); the strain is in the fabric of space-time. This isn't quite right, but one of the results of that strain will be a very very tiny torque on certain orbital gyroscopes.) [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Stretch the rubber band -- apply a force to each endpoint >-- and one is stressing it; the strain is the stretchage. That's high school physics, Ghost. >It's a poor metaphor but one common metaphor is a >"rubber-sheet" Universe. The planets stress this Universe >merely by existing (they dimple the Universe); the strain >is in the fabric of space-time. This isn't quite right, >but one of the results of that strain will be a very very >tiny torque on certain orbital gyroscopes.) There ain't no spacetime, 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. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sun, 29 May 2005 22:27:17 GMT <ccgk91pr61fq6rdlqq0s0jgltfvq9n46on@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > That's high school physics, Ghost. No sh.t! >>It's a poor metaphor but one common metaphor is a >>"rubber-sheet" Universe. The planets stress this Universe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There ain't no spacetime, Ghost. Well, what is, is. What we theorize, we call "spacetime". The Universe laughs at our theories at times (MMX in particular gave the rigid luminiferous aether its comeuppance, for example; Rutherford gave J. J. Thomson's model the boot; I'm not sure who gave Bohr's atom the heave-ho but it might have been a combination of the UV catastrophe and brehmsstralung considerations). But SR/GR has held up fairly well; the only thing that's gotten shot down therein is Einstein's "cosmological constant", and that early on. I did say the rubber sheet was a poor metaphor, though. For starters, the Universe really doesn't have an extra (fifth) dimension with gravity in it dimpling the "rubbersheet". And of course SR is an aether theory, whereas BaT is not, right? But SR's theory is well characterized mathematically. I've not seen much on BaT and have assumed that c'=c+v therein, leading to some interesting but erroneous results. There was one experiment that attempted to measure k in c' = c+kv; the results indicated abs(k) < 10^-9, if memory serves. Presumably that doesn't disprove BaT either. (Even though it sure looks that way to me.) [.signips] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >>>It's a poor metaphor but one common metaphor is a >>>"rubber-sheet" Universe. The planets stress this Universe [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >have been a combination of the UV catastrophe and brehmsstralung >considerations). Could have been Dirac or Schrodinger. >But SR/GR has held up fairly well; the only thing that's gotten >shot down therein is Einstein's "cosmological constant", and >that early on. SR/GR have 'stood up' for the simple reason that they have never been used. The world would run perfectly well if relativity had never rared its ugly head. >I did say the rubber sheet was a poor metaphor, though. >For starters, the Universe really doesn't have an extra [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >memory serves. Presumably that doesn't disprove BaT either. >(Even though it sure looks that way to me.) No Ghost. It strongly support the BaT. >[.signips] 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. > SR/GR have 'stood up' for the simple reason > that they have never been used. Listen to Henri. He knows what he is talking about. :-) Paul In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote on Mon, 30 May 2005 11:45:01 +0200 <d7enau$nbi$1@dolly.uninett.no>: >> SR/GR have 'stood up' for the simple reason > > that they have never been used. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Paul Are you suggesting he's actually on the LHC steering committee? :-) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen > <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Are you suggesting he's actually on the LHC steering committee? :-) Yes. He is in charge of the reverse field bubbles. Paul In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:52:16 +0200 <d7hq6i$a4o$1@dolly.uninett.no>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen >> <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Yes. He is in charge of the reverse field bubbles. *chuckles* It could be worse. He could be in charge of swapping out the defective muons. :-) > Paul Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > But SR/GR has held up fairly well; the only thing that's gotten > shot down therein is Einstein's "cosmological constant", and > that early on. Einstein's "cosmological constant" was never "shot down". Einstein's original motivation for introducing it, was to make a static solution of his field equation possible. He, like everybody else at that time, took it for granted that the universe was static. But when Hubble showed that the universe wasn't static, but was expanding, Einstein found the cosmological constant to be unnecessary, and even called it the greatest blunder of his life. But as you probably know, resent measurements show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. This seems to indicate that the cosmological constant was no blunder after all. So the "cosmological constant" is still living and kicking. It is amazing that Einstein found the solution to a problem he didn't know existed. :-) Paul >> But SR/GR has held up fairly well; the only thing that's gotten >> shot down therein is Einstein's "cosmological constant", and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >It is amazing that Einstein found the solution to >a problem he didn't know existed. :-) But we know that the universe isn't expanding, don't we Paul. We know that the cosmic redshift is partly due to light losing energy as it travels. We also know that there is a net redshift due to the simple fact that Earth lies on the outskirts of the Milky Way and most light reaching us comes from inner regions of galaxies. It is generally travelling at less than c when it arrives here. >Paul 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. >>> But SR/GR has held up fairly well; the only thing that's gotten >>> shot down therein is Einstein's "cosmological constant", and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. No, you are the only one who believes that. Or one of the few. I am amazed that some people so wedded to their theories when they have been shown to be wrong. Is Henri's ego so large, or fragile, that he rejects all arguments that go against his thinking? I feel sorry for him. He must lead a very lonley, tragic life. >>>But SR/GR has held up fairly well; the only thing that's gotten >>>shot down therein is Einstein's "cosmological constant", and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > But we know that the universe isn't expanding, don't we Paul. Of course we do. Henri Wilson doesn't think it is expanding, so how can it be? > We know that the cosmic redshift is partly due to light losing energy as it > travels. Indeed. And as we all know, red shifted light is light going slower than c. | When light is deflected by matter, of any size, that matter is also accelerated | very slightly towards the light. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | how the positron gains kinetic energy, the electron path bends and the electron | slows. So light from a distant star is red shifted because the gas it passes through slows the light down. This also explains why ground telescopes see the galaxies more red shifted than HST. The air will obviously slow the light a lot. But OTOH: | The gas cloud 'tends to' unify the speed of light emitted from | differently moving atomic sources. By how much is anyone's guess at this stage. | The net result is that the mean light speed from a star is 'c', wrt the centre | of that star. There is some kind of random distribution around that mean and | this affects the shape and size of the brightness curves at any distance. The speed of the light from a star is c relative to the star because the gas the light goes through adjusts the speed to c relative to the gas. This also explains why ground telescopes don't see the light from distant galaxies as red shifted. The air adjust the speed of light to c. No red shift. > We also know that there is a net redshift due to the simple fact that Earth > lies on the outskirts of the Milky Way and most light reaching us comes from > inner regions of galaxies. It is generally travelling at less than c when it > arrives here. Gravitational red shift is a well know phenomenon. It is observed to be as predicted by GR. Did you have a point? Paul >>>>But SR/GR has held up fairly well; the only thing that's gotten >>>>shot down therein is Einstein's "cosmological constant", and [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >the galaxies more red shifted than HST. >The air will obviously slow the light a lot. who said they do? >But OTOH: >| The gas cloud 'tends to' unify the speed of light emitted from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >from distant galaxies as red shifted. >The air adjust the speed of light to c. No red shift. speed in a rare medium is not necessarily c/n or (c+v)/n. Light entering a very rarified gas cloud will not immediately change speed. >> We also know that there is a net redshift due to the simple fact that Earth >> lies on the outskirts of the Milky Way and most light reaching us comes from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It is observed to be as predicted by GR. >Did you have a point? Yes. The BaT prediction is the same as that of GR. Happy now. >Paul 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. > There ain't no spacetime, Ghost. Spacetime is, by definition, the set of all points at all times. Of course, it exists ... unless you believe the Universe doesn't exist. In sci.physics.relativity, markwh04@yahoo.com <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote on 5 Jun 2005 05:41:16 -0700 <1117975276.496541.127750@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >> There ain't no spacetime, Ghost. > > Spacetime is, by definition, the set of all points at all times. Of > course, it exists ... unless you believe the Universe doesn't exist. The Universe is; we attempt to measure it. I don't have a major problem with this philosophy. One of the more interesting issues in fact is the evolution of how the meter was defined. At one point it was a platinum-iridium bar; it was then replaced by a certain number (fractional!) of the wavelengths generated by a certain transition of Krypton-86. Once that was found to be not sufficiently accurate, the meter was then *defined* to be the distance light travels in 1/299792458 s. This was back in 1983. I doubt we're due for another replacement, though I for one would hope at some point to replace the meter with another unit such as the nil -- the distance light travels in a nanosecond. (The main motivation is that rather nasty conversion factor; that's about it.) One can then replace miles or km with kilonils, to some extent, and contemplate lenghtening dragstrips slightly (1 kilonil = approximately 0.3 mile), adjusting ruler sticks to display fractions of a nil (1 nil = about an Imperial foot), etc. Of course my hope of such a replacement is -- pardon the pun -- next to nil. Ah well. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, markwh04@yahoo.com ><markwh04@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Of course my hope of such a replacement is -- pardon the >pun -- next to nil. YES >Ah well. 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. >> There ain't no spacetime, Ghost. > >Spacetime is, by definition, the set of all points at all times. Of >course, it exists ... unless you believe the Universe doesn't exist. It exists mathematically. Space and Time are orthogonal and dissimilar dimensions. x,y,z are orthogonal but similar sub-dimensions of space. You can add x and y vectorily to produce a physical entity. You can add x and t vectorily to get a mathematical entity...but not a physical one. 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. > NOW, WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO bz WHAT AN INERTIAL FRAME IS. Since I have been in the subject of this thread, I will venture my definition for critique. I must warn you that Henri doesn't like my definition. Newton: All objects in an inertial frame have a constant velocity wrt all other objects [in that frame]. No accelerations are allowed. Uniform motion only. Inertial frames that are at a constant velocity wrt each other can be considered to be within a single inertial frame. SR extends the definition of inertial frames to allow all objects within a frame to be experiencing a constant acceleration wrt some outside object. GR says that gravity can be treated as a form of acceleration and that it is always possible to define a region of space that is small enough so that all objects in that region constitute an inertial frame. Henri doesn't understand why a falling elevator, or the International space station constitutes an inertial frame but the frame is NOT inertial wrt the earth. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > Henri doesn't understand why a falling elevator, or the International > space station constitutes an inertial frame but the frame is NOT > inertial wrt the earth. he thinks that any inertial frame is inertial wrt any other inertial frame. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > > NOW, WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO bz WHAT AN INERTIAL FRAME IS. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Newton: All objects in an inertial frame have a constant velocity wrt all > other objects [in that frame]. I never saw such a weird statement claimed to come from him. Please provide your source, thanks! Harald >> > NOW, WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO bz WHAT AN INERTIAL FRAME IS. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I never saw such a weird statement claimed to come from him. Please > provide your source, thanks! The "weird statement" you quote above is mine. From: H@..(Henri Wilson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics Subject: Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant? Message-ID: <mi4q81hbukgmpq5m8bmp59s1knmpftcluv@4ax.com> Henri said >bz said >>Henri said >>>bz said >>>>henri said [quote] > .... > It is not 'inertial' when firing its engine. It is in a state of [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > They cannot answer this question. [unquote] Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > >> > NOW, WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO bz WHAT AN INERTIAL FRAME IS. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The "weird statement" you quote above is mine. I referred to the one in front of which you wrote: "Newton:". Are YOU Newton? ;-) Harald "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in news:429f147c$1 @epflnews.epfl.ch: >> >> > NOW, WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO bz WHAT AN INERTIAL FRAME IS. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Harald NO. But I was stating my understanding of a newtonian inertial frame. Yeah, I realize Newton didn't think about intertial FoR, but I was trying to 'translate' into modern terms. So, don't blame Henri for my words. :) He has enough weird ones, on his own, without mine being attributed to him. Now, that we have that out of the way, how about the subject at hand? How would YOU define an inertial frame in newtonian physics, SR and GR? And how would you address Henri's [mis]conception that a body in free fall is inertial in all inertial FoRs? Henri said >bz said >>Henri said >>>bz said >>>>henri said [quote] Henri said: > .... > It is not 'inertial' when firing its engine. It is in a state of > acceleration. It is constantly changing its speed relative to itself an > infinitesimal instant previously. > (That'll make you think!) I said: >>>>an inertial system is >>>>[quote] A reference system in which the Newtonian law of motion is >>>>valid, specifically one in which a mass m subjected to a force F moves >>>>in accordance with the equation F = ma, where a is the >>>>acceleration.[unquote] Henri said: >>> That's wrong. Wherever did you get that? I said: >>http://www.answers.com/topic/inertial-frame-of-reference Henri said: > It is wrong. >>> An object is inertial if no forces are acting on it. It is in uniform >>> motion. A spring accelerometer will tell you if you are in an inertial >>> state or not. >>> >>> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. I said: >>The person in a free falling elevator is in a state that can not be >>distinguished by that person from such a state. >> >>An outside observer CAN distinguish between them. Henri said: > That's the question I often ask SRians. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They cannot answer this question. [unquote] Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in news:429f147c$1 > @epflnews.epfl.ch: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > How would YOU define an inertial frame in newtonian physics, SR and GR? See my reply to Henry (not about GR). > And how would you address Henri's [mis]conception that a body in free fall > is inertial in all inertial FoRs? Sorry, I'm too busy. Harald > Henri said > >bz said [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > They cannot answer this question. > [unquote] > Come on DHRs, please define an inertial frame. Poor Henri. He is deteriorating. Now he don't even know what an inertial frame is. Paul > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Indeed. http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BestSeller.html .. and everybody will know that it was the Great Henri Wilson who well and truly refuted SR. But considering your geniality, Henri, isn't it too modest to use a phoney name? Wouldn't it be better if your merits were recorded under you real name in future history books? Because this reason for using a phoney name surely doesn't apply to you, does it? http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ChangeName.html Paul > Come on DHRs, please define an inertial frame. What are DHR's? And since you apparently developed your own theory in which you, I presume, used inertial frames, I wonder how YOU define it. A practical definition is a coordinate system that is in constant linear motion relative to the "totality of the visible fixed stars". Harald In sci.physics.relativity, Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote on Mon, 30 May 2005 13:19:52 +0200 <429af670$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>: >> Come on DHRs, please define an inertial frame. > > What are DHR's? My guess would be "dumb hick relativists". (A dumb hick is one woh doesn't believe in Henri's BaT, which, according to Henri, has never been falsified. BaT also predicts superluminal muons and close-pair binary cepheids.) > And since you apparently developed your own theory in which you, I presume, > used inertial frames, I wonder how YOU define it. > A practical definition is a coordinate system that is in constant linear > motion relative to the "totality of the visible fixed stars". That would work, yes, to some extent. > Harald Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, Harry ><harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >That would work, yes, to some extent. so what is your definition of an inertial frame ghost? >> Harald 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. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Tue, 31 May 2005 01:31:32 GMT <jjfn91tjjv2pko7mgosta947hg5b583qi9@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, Harry >><harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > so what is your definition of an inertial frame ghost? I gave you one already in another post, but perhaps I need to be more specific. An inertial frame is a frame in a strain-free space with no acceleration. In such a space, the transformation from the frame to an assumed absolute rest frame (defined for the convenience of mathematicians, mostly :-) ) is linear, in the sense that x = (A * x_0 - B * v * t_0) t = (-C * v * x_0 + D * t_0) for some values of A, B, C, and D not depending on x and t (they are allowed to depend on v, since v is unchanging). For SR: A = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) B = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) C = 1/(c^2 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) D = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) For Galileo/Newtonian: A = 1 B = 1 C = 0 or 1/c^2, depending D = 1 Is this sufficient, or did I miss something in your initial requirements list? [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >Is this sufficient, or did I miss something in your >initial requirements list? Come on Ghost, you just copied that from a web page. Tell us, in your own words, what it actually means. What is 'strain-free space'? >[.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. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Tue, 31 May 2005 06:32:45 GMT <e51o91p1f5c2ef8pa2pb6f5b7939f4054n@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > What is 'strain-free space'? I'd love to copy that from my own Web page but I've not authored it yet. :-P As it is, I would think it obvious. Stresses in space are gravitational in nature -- any mass will stress space. Stress causes strain, in this case -- and in relativity, at least, spacetime twists in even weirder ways than SR. I'd have to look up the exact formulae. So if you prefer, we can locate things far away from anything resembling big masses, sans acceleration. Does that satisfy you? Or do we need to throw in an orbital binary pair for a Cepheid as well? ;-) [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >least, spacetime twists in even weirder ways than SR. I'd >have to look up the exact formulae. Do you mean that the speed of light falling down a gravity well can be made to appear constant if one graphs an artificially distorted 'pseudo-space' inside the traditional Euclidean 3 axis at right angles? >So if you prefer, we can locate things far away from anything >resembling big masses, sans acceleration. Does that satisfy you? >Or do we need to throw in an orbital binary pair for a Cepheid >as well? ;-) Cepheid periods are obviously dead constant because they are in synch with star orbit periods. No diffusive or chaotic process could pru\oduce such a result. >[.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. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 01:46:59 GMT <pk4q91lf6kmde1fkqbng8k9n1tg6gmm08n@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > artificially distorted 'pseudo-space' inside > the traditional Euclidean 3 axis at right angles? The speed of light down a gravity well is not constant, mostly because it's not properly measurable. Gravity also distorts the space as well as time. This does not mean we can't predict other things, such as frequency shifts -- and this is a long way from asserting c'=c+v. If one raises a perfectly rigid meter-stick from horizontal to vertical the error is probably on the order of 1.11 * 10^-16, (This error is swamped by compression of the molecules -- Young's Modulus.) >>So if you prefer, we can locate things far away from anything >>resembling big masses, sans acceleration. Does that satisfy you? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > synch with star orbit periods. > No diffusive or chaotic process could pru\oduce such a result. That you know of, that is. Me, I'm not sure what process is causing Cepheid variables to vary (though I suspect a very interesting chaotic process consisting of a collapsing shell of "burning" hydrogen and/or helium) -- but that doesn't mean each and every Cepheid variable ever observed has a dim companion star orbiting it; we'd see different results were that the case, since we already know three are other binaries that are in fact such. How big ... and how cool ... of a companion star are we discussing here? Also, since Delta Cephei is known to be 5 solar masses, 1 AU out the orbit will be about 161 days (365 / sqrt(5)), if my calculations are correct. Since the variability is actually about 6 days we need to move in a bit -- about (6/161)^(3/2) = 0.00719 AU, assuming a relatively small companion star. (Larger stars will require a longer distance -- but they also tend to be rather bigger.) 1AU = 1.501 * 10^11 m. 0.00719 AU = 1.079 * 10^9 m. The Sun's radius is about 6.95 * 10^8 m. We're very close to the surface of a Sun-like star. Since Delta Cephei is probably a fair bit bigger -- I can't say how big offhand but at a minimum it has to be (6.95 * 10^8) * (5^(1/3)) = 1.188 * 10^9 m in radius -- oops, it seems to have swallowed its companion star! (That sound you hear in the background is a star licking its chops and thanking the chef by burping.) [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. In sci.physics.relativity, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 04:00:02 GMT <ntlvm2-n64.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>: > In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) > <H@> > wrote > on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 01:46:59 GMT > <pk4q91lf6kmde1fkqbng8k9n1tg6gmm08n@4ax.com>: [snip] >> Cepheid periods are obviously dead constant because they are in >> synch with star orbit periods. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > since we already know three are other binaries that are in fact > such. Erm...make that "there". There should certainly be more than three! :-) [snip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 01:46:59 GMT >>>As it is, I would think it obvious. Stresses in space are >>>gravitational in nature -- any mass will stress space. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >mostly because it's not properly measurable. Gravity >also distorts the space as well as time. WRT what is space distorted? >This does not mean we can't predict other things, such >as frequency shifts -- and this is a long way from >asserting c'=c+v. The answer is the same. >If one raises a perfectly rigid meter-stick from horizontal >to vertical the error is probably on the order of 1.11 * >10^-16, (This error is swamped by compression of the >molecules -- Young's Modulus.) Andersen and I have discussed this. >> Cepheid periods are obviously dead constant because they are in >> synch with star orbit periods. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >since we already know three are other binaries that are in fact >such. There is no other way to explain the dead constant periods. >How big ... and how cool ... of a companion star are we discussing here? Too cool to significantly contribute to the brightness curve...maybe 800-1000C. >Also, since Delta Cephei is known to be 5 solar masses, >1 AU out the orbit will be about 161 days (365 / sqrt(5)), >if my calculations are correct. Binary pairs revolve around their barycentre. You can't do the calculation like that. >Since the variability is actually about 6 days we need >to move in a bit -- about (6/161)^(3/2) = 0.00719 AU, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >to be (6.95 * 10^8) * (5^(1/3)) = 1.188 * 10^9 m in radius -- oops, >it seems to have swallowed its companion star! You are as silly as Paul Andersen. >(That sound you hear in the background is a star licking its chops >and thanking the chef by burping.) > >[.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. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:53:57 GMT <sn9v91hmvigap5gcl8u9mi9ec2u096fm6a@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > WRT what is space distorted? Not sure how to answer that properly. One can either drag in an unstressed comparative space-time matrix (which would be a little weird) or simply try to do some very very accurate measurements and find that the acceleration/strain of space makes them a little different. The trouble is that I don't know how to precisely specify the measurements without resorting to light quanta, and the acceleration manifests as a force in matter, which will shrink measuring-rods (Young's Modulus) and affect various clock artifacts, even an atomic fountain clock. (The time to do the synchronization measurement of the atoms within the fountain clock has to be non-zero -- so the atoms, while in freefall, are accelerating with respect to the clock casing.) >>This does not mean we can't predict other things, such >>as frequency shifts -- and this is a long way from >>asserting c'=c+v. > > The answer is the same. Depends on the question. :-) >>If one raises a perfectly rigid meter-stick from horizontal >>to vertical the error is probably on the order of 1.11 * >>10^-16, (This error is swamped by compression of the >>molecules -- Young's Modulus.) > > Andersen and I have discussed this. Exactly, and the results are consistent with *both* BaT *and* SR/GR. >>> Cepheid periods are obviously dead constant because they are in >>> synch with star orbit periods. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > There is no other way to explain the dead constant periods. Ever studied flute? The air flow around the business part of a flute (which for the sake of argument can be likened to a pipe held sideways with a number of holes in it, one for the mouth to blow over) vibrates. This vibration is rather complicated but results in a periodic noise -- music. Depending on the strength of the blow one can achieve various effects; the fingers can also adjust the length of the chamber. The blow, of course, imparts energy; no blow, no music. I bring this up because a star is mostly gas. I don't pretend to say stars are musical, of course, but it's clear that a periodic process of some sort is involved here. >>How big ... and how cool ... of a companion star are we discussing here? > > Too cool to significantly contribute to the brightness > curve...maybe 800-1000C. Well, fine as far as that goes. How big? >>Also, since Delta Cephei is known to be 5 solar masses, >>1 AU out the orbit will be about 161 days (365 / sqrt(5)), >>if my calculations are correct. > > Binary pairs revolve around their barycentre. > You can't do the calculation like that. OK. Again. How big? > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You are as silly as Paul Andersen. You do the calculations, then, Mr. Cepheid Expert. I want to see the following: [1] the orbital velocity of both stars relative to the barycenter, given a period of 5.37 days. [2] the mass of both stars. [3] the temperature of both stars. [4] the approximate radius of both stars. I would also be interested in whether it's a circular or elliptical orbit. >>(That sound you hear in the background is a star licking its chops >>and thanking the chef by burping.) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >while in freefall, are accelerating with respect to the clock >casing.) Ghost, with your ability to evade awkward questions, you should take up politics. >>>This does not mean we can't predict other things, such >>>as frequency shifts -- and this is a long way from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Depends on the question. :-) There are not all that many questions that have the same answers. >>>If one raises a perfectly rigid meter-stick from horizontal >>>to vertical the error is probably on the order of 1.11 * [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Exactly, and the results are consistent with *both* BaT *and* SR/GR. It was a bit of a joke actually, Ghost. >>>That you know of, that is. Me, I'm not sure what process is >>>causing Cepheid variables to vary (though I suspect a very [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >length of the chamber. The blow, of course, imparts energy; >no blow, no music. very good, Ghost!! You are starting to excel at physics. However I don't think many stars resemble wind instruments. >I bring this up because a star is mostly gas. I don't pretend >to say stars are musical, of course, but it's clear that a >periodic process of some sort is involved here. The periodoic process is the one involving the star orbiting another object. >>>How big ... and how cool ... of a companion star are we discussing here? >> >> Too cool to significantly contribute to the brightness >> curve...maybe 800-1000C. > >Well, fine as far as that goes. How big? Big or little. Neutron stars are tiny. >>>Also, since Delta Cephei is known to be 5 solar masses, >>>1 AU out the orbit will be about 161 days (365 / sqrt(5)), [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >OK. Again. How big? All information about Delta Cephei is based on Einsteiniana. I say it is a normal small bright star that is rotating around a neutron star or similar and its light is red shifted because it slows down when escaping the huge gravity pull. >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >I would also be interested in whether it's a circular or elliptical >orbit. Most cephids are white dwarfs. How can you tell the difference between a red giant and a white dwarf whose light is redshifted by a large amount as it escapes from a huge gravity well? 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. > Most cephids are white dwarfs. [http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/CepheidVariable.html] A Cepheid variable is a young star of several solar masses and roughly 10^4 solar luminosities whose luminosity changes periodically. As radiation streams out, some He+ in the atmosphere of the star is ionized to He+2, making the atmosphere more opaque. The decreased transparency of the stellar material blocks the energy flux and heats the gas, and the increased pressure pushes the envelope out, thus increasing the star's size and luminosity. As the star expands, it cools and He+2 gains an electron, converting back to He+. The enhanced transparency causes the atmosphere to shrink again. [unquote] > How can you tell the difference between a red giant and a white dwarf > whose light is redshifted by a large amount as it escapes from a huge > gravity well? By the absorbtion lines of the elements present in the star's atmosphere. Each element has a unique set of lines that are recognizable, even when red or blue shifted. The lines do NOT shift in frequency with temperature [they may broaden slightly]. They only shift with motion or gravity. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap >> Most cephids are white dwarfs. >[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/CepheidVariable.html] [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >The lines do NOT shift in frequency with temperature [they may broaden >slightly]. They only shift with motion or gravity. I was afraid you might say that. However in the case of Delta Ceph, Andersen reckons it is a red giant. 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. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:58:37 GMT <9fc4a1p43uuilvjpl985a0jtf268mb5vbs@4ax.com>: >>> Most cephids are white dwarfs. >>[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/CepheidVariable.html] [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > However in the case of Delta Ceph, Andersen reckons it is a red giant. So we have three choices. [1] A red giant. (I suspect someone is misconstruing Paul's position but I would have to check.) [2] A white dwarf with a "black dwarf" companion invisible to Earthly telescopes. [3] bz's explanation, which is quite interesting (and unknown to me personally) but which should be readily visible from various ionization lines in a spectroscopic observation unit. This should be ridiculously easy to verify. http://www.eso.org/outreach/eduoff/edu-prog/catchastar/CAS2002/cas-projects/germ any_cephei_1/haupt.htm contains a very good light curve of a Delta Cepheid-type star (I frankly don't know which one, but it might be Delta Cephei itself). This light curve cannot possibly be that of an eclipsing binary, which would be a single-dip or double-dip pattern, depending on the relative amount of light shown by the two orbiting stars, if one assumes SR. (If one assumes emissive/BaT there are several issues to work out, many of them having to do with light quanta leaving energetic atoms moving at tends of thousands of meters per second. This would tend to, among other things, spread out the "initial flare" of supernovae.) [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >>> Most cephids are white dwarfs. >>[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/CepheidVariable.html] [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > However in the case of Delta Ceph, Andersen reckons it is a red giant. I know nothing about Delta Ceph. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap In sci.physics.relativity, bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Sun, 5 Jun 2005 02:22:46 +0000 (UTC) <Xns966BD97FE981DWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139>: >>>> Most cephids are white dwarfs. >>>[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/CepheidVariable.html] [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I know nothing about Delta Ceph. You should. :-) It's the archetype of all Cepheids (Type 1, anyway) and a very good method of measuring distances between here and distant galaxies. (Or are you being pedantic? A possibility, since the name of the star is actually Delta Cephei.) And yes, H. Wilson seems to think it's something quite different than what it actually is. I'm amazed that there are actually such a large number of eclipsing binaries out there whose stars are actually *within* (or very close to) each other, as required by the orbital parameters of a binary whose one star is about 5 solar masses, and the approximately 5.37-day period. I prefer your explanation regarding ionized helium. :-) It's a heck of a lot more believable, and quite a bit simpler. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, bz > <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > You should. :-) It's the archetype of all Cepheids (Type 1, anyway) Yes, but other than knowing that, I didn't find specific data on that Cepheid. Thank you for the nice reference you gave in your other article. > and a very good method of measuring distances between here and > distant galaxies. (Or are you being pedantic? A possibility, > since the name of the star is actually Delta Cephei.) Perhaps I was taking H too literally. I went looking for "Delta Ceph" with google and could find nada on it. > And yes, H. Wilson seems to think it's something quite > different than what it actually is. I'm amazed that there [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I prefer your explanation regarding ionized helium. :-) It's > a heck of a lot more believable, and quite a bit simpler. Not mine, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/CepheidVariable.html My explaination was a fusion relaxation oscillator at the core of the star, but that had nothing to support it except my intuition which is often wrong. The He+ <--> He+2 cycle seems to be more likely and should be easy to confirm from stellar spectra. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap >> In sci.physics.relativity, bz >> <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote >> on Sun, 5 Jun 2005 02:22:46 +0000 (UTC) >> <Xns966BD97FE981DWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139>: >>>>>By the absorbtion lines of the elements present in the star's >>>>>atmosphere. Each element has a unique set of lines that are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Yes, but other than knowing that, I didn't find specific data on that >Cepheid. Thank you for the nice reference you gave in your other article. Look up "cephids" as well as "cepheids" on google. Some people spell differently. >> and a very good method of measuring distances between here and >> distant galaxies. (Or are you being pedantic? A possibility, >> since the name of the star is actually Delta Cephei.) > >Perhaps I was taking H too literally. I went looking for "Delta Ceph" with >google and could find nada on it. Yeh Try "cephids" >> And yes, H. Wilson seems to think it's something quite >> different than what it actually is. I'm amazed that there [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >often wrong. The He+ <--> He+2 cycle seems to be more likely and should be >easy to confirm from stellar spectra. Dreamer. 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. >In sci.physics.relativity, bz ><bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote >on Sun, 5 Jun 2005 02:22:46 +0000 (UTC) >>>>> Most cephids are white dwarfs. >>>>[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/CepheidVariable.html] [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >And yes, H. Wilson seems to think it's something quite >different than what it actually is. Most cephids are fairly small normal stars. I reackon D Cep could be one of those that is circling a WCH (Wilson cool heavy) such that lioght's escape from the gravity well makes it appear like a red giant. bz was probably partially correct about the absorption line spectra. It might not change as much as the thermal radiation distribution. >I'm amazed that there >are actually such a large number of eclipsing binaries out >there whose stars are actually *within* (or very close to) >each other, as required by the orbital parameters of a >binary whose one star is about 5 solar masses, and the >approximately 5.37-day period. >I prefer your explanation regarding ionized helium. :-) It's >a heck of a lot more believable, and quite a bit simpler. Ghost, you are very confused. Have you been drinking again? The helium fusion 'puff and blow' idea is not connected to the eclipsing binary phenomenon at all. 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. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:33:39 GMT <ej27a1d04jekem0ttoehr9los0qqh9r1hl@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, bz >><bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > (Wilson cool heavy) such that lioght's escape from the gravity > well makes it appear like a red giant. An interesting hypothesis. How big and heavy is this giant? Also, what spectral class? O? B? A? F? G? K? M? > bz was probably partially correct about the absorption line > spectra. It might not change as much as the thermal radiation > distribution. I'll have to look. I'd guess that light quanta escaping from a gravity well would do so via ratio: l = l0/F, where F might be construed as the depth of the well. (I'd surmise F is proportional to M/d^2, where M is the mass of the companion star and d is the distance therefrom.) >>I'm amazed that there >>are actually such a large number of eclipsing binaries out [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The helium fusion 'puff and blow' idea is not connected to the > eclipsing binary phenomenon at all. Ah, but it is. Delta Cepheid variables, after all, have two competing explanations: bz's and your orbiting star idea. Which one works better? Bear in mind one has to take into account: [1] the size of the stars in the alleged pair [2] the closeness of the stars to the barycenter (each other) [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:33:39 GMT ><ej27a1d04jekem0ttoehr9los0qqh9r1hl@4ax.com>: >>>>>>The lines do NOT shift in frequency with temperature [they may broaden >>>>>>slightly]. They only shift with motion or gravity. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >An interesting hypothesis. How big and heavy is this giant? >Also, what spectral class? O? B? A? F? G? K? M? I think Paul said it was a ref giant, 40 x our sun's diameter. It is officially classed as a yellow-white supergiant. Class F/G. >> bz was probably partially correct about the absorption line >> spectra. It might not change as much as the thermal radiation [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >(I'd surmise F is proportional to M/d^2, where M is the >mass of the companion star and d is the distance therefrom.) An integration is involved. My program www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe does all the calculations for you. >>>I'm amazed that there >>>are actually such a large number of eclipsing binaries out [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Ah, but it is. Delta Cepheid variables, after all, have two >competing explanations: bz's and your orbiting star idea. >Which one works better? Bear in mind one has to take into account: > >[1] the size of the stars in the alleged pair Andersen thinks the small heavy star would have to lie inside Delta Cep. That's why I reckon it could be a redshifted small white star. >[2] the closeness of the stars to the barycenter (each other) If they are very close, they would experience more eclipses than average. This quote should be of interest: "Delta Cep is one of the few easily-visible variables, its magnitude changing from 3.5 to 4.3 and back over an amazingly regular period of 5 days 8 hours 47 minutes and 32 seconds, the star acting like a natural clock". I cannot see any puffing and blowing star maintaining such a constant period. It MUST BE in synch with orbit period. >[.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. > I cannot see any puffing and blowing star maintaining such a constant > period. It MUST BE in synch with orbit period. "cyclic chemical reactions" They run in chaotic systems and can be quite regular. http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~sontag/FTP_DIR/02cdc-papers-refs-eds/776_FrM09- 4.pdf Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap >> I cannot see any puffing and blowing star maintaining such a constant >> period. It MUST BE in synch with orbit period. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~sontag/FTP_DIR/02cdc-papers-refs-eds/776_FrM09- >4.pdf Bob, This quote should be of interest: "Delta Cep is one of the few easily-visible variables, its magnitude changing from 3.5 to 4.3 and back over an amazingly regular period of 5 days 8 hours 47 minutes and 32 seconds, the star acting like a natural clock". I cannot see any puffing and blowing star maintaining such a constant period. It MUST BE in synch with orbit period. The period is constant within seconds. This star is a huge accumulation of gases. You cannot seriously believe that any fusion or acoustic process could be that constant in a chaotic system. 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. >>> I cannot see any puffing and blowing star maintaining such a constant >>> period. It MUST BE in synch with orbit period. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You cannot seriously believe that any fusion or acoustic process could > be that constant in a chaotic system. But I do. Many physical processes exhibit extraordinary regularity even though they depend on basically chaotic processes. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap .... > I cannot see any puffing and blowing star maintaining such a constant > period. It MUST BE in synch with orbit period. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You cannot seriously believe that any fusion or acoustic process could > be that constant in a chaotic system. But I do. Many physical processes exhibit extraordinary regularity even though they depend on basically chaotic processes. I just remembered a similar process from when I was a child. We lived in a 36 ft Spartan Mobile home. The 'trailer' had a heater that was fed by Kerosene. In order to light the heater, father would first start the Kerosene flow into the fire box. A piece of rag or paper would soak up some of the fuel. He would light the paper and quckly close the door to the fire box. The heater, being cold and Kerosene having a rather high flash point, would not burn properly. It would go wooooof....woooofff.....woooofff....woooofff. over and over, as the vapor was consumed, and the fire would almost go out. Sometimes it would go out and father would have to put in more paper and light it again. Those wooooffs would take place at a rate of about once per second until the firebox warmed up enough to keep enough vaporized kerosene in the air for stable burning to take place. It would take several minutes for this to occur. Once it did, father would adjust the fuel oil flow rate to the minimum needed to keep the fire going. The huffing and puffing was very regular and sustained. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap >.... >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >The huffing and puffing was very regular and sustained. Yes I've seen that type of thing. But bz, in all reality, you cannot compare what a kerosene heater does in a few minutes with the seemingly perpetual constant regularity of the brightness variation in a huge star. Its period has remained constant to within seconds over tens of years. There is only one process that can account for that consistancy. ORBIT PERIOD. 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. >>.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > There is only one process that can account for that consistancy. > ORBIT PERIOD. Then 'old faithful' must have a moon orbiting around it every hour. There are many things that happen regualarly that do not depend on an orbital period. Did you go through that power point presentation on variable stars? Or did your faith keep you from looking at it closely? Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap >>>.... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >There are many things that happen regualarly that do not depend on an >orbital period. Not to that kind of consistency. >Did you go through that power point presentation on variable stars? Or did >your faith keep you from looking at it closely? I have read lots of articles about variable stars. They sicken me because I know they are all clutching at straws in the dark. I know the real facts. If you have any sense you will take note of what I have demonstrated and maybe make a name for yourself one day. Incidentally, accepting that the BaT explains most variable star data does not necessarily rule out the possibility that a local aether frame exists around the Earth and the predictions of LET might be correct. I still see no convincing evidence that this is true, however. 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. >>>>.... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Not to that kind of consistency. So the quartz crystal in your wrist watch does not have a consistent period because it does not depend on an orbital period? :-) In a Cepheid there is a standing acoustic wave. It is an acoustic resonator, just like a quartz crystal is. The period of this resonance is obviously consistent. But stars evolve, and Cepheids are pulsating with consistent periods only for as long as their sizes are the same. And they are pulsating only while they are in the instability strip of the HR-diagram, where the physical conditions for sustaining the oscillations are fulfilled. One star which is on its way out of the instability strip is Polaris. Around 1900, the brightness variation was 0.15 magnitudes. Now the star has grown a bit brighter (and bigger), and the period has consequently increased by 8 seconds. The brightness variation is now a mere 0.08 magnitudes. It's hardly pulsating any more. >>Did you go through that power point presentation on variable stars? Or did >>your faith keep you from looking at it closely? > > I have read lots of articles about variable stars. > They sicken me because I know they are all clutching at straws in the dark. > I know the real facts. And they are: | "The truth is, cepheids are mainly small white stars orbiting neutron stars and | other 'Wilsonian cool heavies' (WCH). The occasional red giant that you mention [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | the more light energy escapes. Note the plane of the orbit wrt the observer is | a factor here." Isn't nature fantastic? Red shifted "small white stars" orbiting WCHs can actually emit 100 000 times as much light as the Sun, and the absorption lines aren't even red shifted! And the brightest stars with the longest periods are actually less red shifted despite the fact that they are redder than the more red shifted stars with shorter periods! But weird as it may seem, it MUST be the truth. How could it not be? You have to be a brain washed astronomer not to realize that! Paul >>>>>The huffing and puffing was very regular and sustained. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >have a consistent period because it does not depend >on an orbital period? :-) HoHohojaja! >In a Cepheid there is a standing acoustic wave. >It is an acoustic resonator, just like a quartz crystal is. >The period of this resonance is obviously consistent. bz reckons it is an on/ioff fusion reaction. So which is it? Neither could possibly result in such a precise period. ..and how would an acoustic wave cause such a brightness variation? I think you are dreaminig again, Paul. >But stars evolve, and Cepheids are pulsating with >consistent periods only for as long as their sizes are the same. >And they are pulsating only while they are in the instability >strip of the HR-diagram, where the physical conditions for >sustaining the oscillations are fulfilled. HoHohahahah! >One star which is on its way out of the instability strip >is Polaris. Around 1900, the brightness variation was 0.15 magnitudes. >Now the star has grown a bit brighter (and bigger), and the period >has consequently increased by 8 seconds. The brightness variation >is now a mere 0.08 magnitudes. It's hardly pulsating any more. It has obviously moved away from the critical distance. It is in a very large orbit around something else. This has resulted in a small omount of Sekerin/Wilson time compression. >>>Did you go through that power point presentation on variable stars? Or did >>>your faith keep you from looking at it closely? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >100 000 times as much light as the Sun, and the absorption lines >aren't even red shifted! My error. They are mainly large yellow stars. I have already corrected that elsewhere. >And the brightest stars with the longest periods are >actually less red shifted despite the fact that they are redder >than the more red shifted stars with shorter periods! I think you omitted a comma there. >But weird as it may seem, it MUST be the truth. >How could it not be? >You have to be a brain washed astronomer not to realize that! they cannot realize much at all when tied down with Einsteiniana Do they really think that all light moves through the universe at c wrt little planet Earth? >Paul 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. H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:js7ca15d0ieh9kk2jkcd3rpg5epcfa9mk1@ 4ax.com: >>In a Cepheid there is a standing acoustic wave. >>It is an acoustic resonator, just like a quartz crystal is. >>The period of this resonance is obviously consistent. > > bz reckons it is an on/ioff fusion reaction. that was my initial guess, I later found that the He+ <---> He+2 cycle was the accepted explanation. I accept it too. > So which is it? > > Neither could possibly result in such a precise period. > ..and how would an acoustic wave cause such a brightness variation? > I think you are dreaminig again, Paul. I agree with Paul and with the literature on the subject. I don't see any data to reject the accepted explanation. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message