Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- From: The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:00:03 GMT
In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:48:36 GMT
<c15tb1tfni9ck8n4davha9fn7n17gq4ev9@xxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:00:10 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
>><H@>
>
>>> Is this what you do in your spare time, Ghost?
>>
>>I used to, in my formative years.
>>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> I include astronomy in physics.
>>>>
>>>>It would be rather hard not to, since the Universe is a grand
>>>>laboratory in some respects. Trucking in 1 * 10^31 kilograms
>>>>of hydrogen (the amount needed for Delta Cephei, give or take)
>>>>would be rather difficult...but observing Delta Cephei is
>>>>pretty simple.
>>>>
>>>>> Why does he ignore ALL the evidence to the contrary? Is he just a
>>>>> troll or is as paranoic as he seems to be?
>>>>
>>>>Not sure about the paranoia but his confusion is quite evident.
>>>
>>> On the contrary.
>>> The confusion and ignorance of anti-BaTists is extremely evident.
>>
>>If you say so. BaT has some big problems, though.
>>
>>[1] SR and GR have one very reasonable premise: that the laws of physics
>> (including lightspeed) are the same for all observers, inertial
>> or no. Pretty darned simple. BaT might also have that property
>> but there are some issues regarding accelerated light that I
>> for one would have to research, and in any event no one's
>> ever detected accelerated light in the lab.
>
> I'm not happy with the theory about light speed in a medium. The
> absorption/re-emission idea just doesn't seem right.
>
>>[2] If a star can eject light at c' = c+v, so can we.
>
>
> Ghost the star DOES NOT eject light at c+v. It emits light at c wrt itself.
Bear in mind what's actually emitting. A star is primarily hot
gas; these gas molecules have thermal motion. It is indeed true
that the hot gas is emitting c relative to *itself*, but the
molecule is moving relative to the *star*. Therefore, BaT
predicts that the star emits at c+v.
One cen also estimate v. The root mean square velocity depends
on the temperature and the mass of the molecule; both are known.
>
>> Particles
>> are easily accelerated to close to c. So far we've yet to
>> observe one going faster than c, despite putting many times
>> the Newtonian light-limit (3/2 m c^2) into a particle.
>> This doesn't mean they don't exist, of course -- just that
>> it shouldn't be the first hypothesis.
>
> The HST detects >c light continuously.
Where from?
http://www.astrosurf.com/miroir_grav/einstein_e.htm
does suggest that M100 is emitting at 312000 km/s (c + 12000 km/s).
However, the reasoning is insufficient; presumably, were there
an instrument to measure lightspeed on the Hubble, we'd have
seen this from more reputable sources.
Also, the logic is slightly suspect; however, I lack the training
to indicate the flaws. Note that they're already wrong; MMX
proves *nothing* here as it used a light source stationary with
respect to the mirror matrix. Both BaT and SR agree on this point.
>
>>
>>[3] Various effects such as magnatars, neutron stars, and black holes
>> require relativity to explain properly. While black holes have
>> not been proven (though there's good evidence), and magnatars are
>> rare, neutron stars are fairly common; some of them show
>> evidence of "tampering" by "tick fairies", the amount of
>> which is consistent with GR.
>
> Did you learn all that in your 'formative years' too, Ghost?
Some. I include college.
>
>>
>>[4] The light curves for binaries would look rather
>> different under BaT. Of course one can make
>> adjustments in many star systems by fiddling with the
>> parameters -- but in some cases we can also directly
>> measure the distance, which is one of the parameters,
>> using Earth-orbit parallax.
>
> yes, the close ones can be accurately measured with parallax.
Exactly. And therefore we know that Delta Cephei is a binary
with a small, hot, bright emitting star, and a small neutron star
with gravitational anomalies.
Not.
>
>>
>>[5] An eclipsing binary would show a symmetric waveform. Delta
>> Cephei does not have a symmetric brightness waveform,
>> when viewed over time; it looks a bit like a worn sawtooth.
>
> Forget the eclipsing binary idea please Ghost. You really havent
> gotten the right picture yet. The only binaries that are likely
> to produce symmetrical curves are those in circular orbits.
> The sawtooth appearance is the result of eccentricity and yaw
> angle...quite predictable.
So what are the orbital parameters, then? I *do* see your point now,
at least -- but that just means that we have many Cepheid variables
with interesting orientations that are just perfect to show the
effect.
How many, I don't know. Frankly, the helium idea is much simpler... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- From: Aristotle
- Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- From: Aristotle
- Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- From: Aristotle
- Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- Prev by Date: Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- Next by Date: Re: Photons and reference
- Previous by thread: Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- Next by thread: Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
