Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.


"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42cb1664$0$18645$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
> news:M3Eye.86042$Vo6.10633@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:42cadd93$0$18642$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
>> > news:IEAye.114801$Vj3.65952@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >> "Aristotle" <wandering_philosopher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> >> in
>> >> message news:t5skc1p1q6ov7iu8265b1jg7g4edn2d31r@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>I have a dumb question. In light of the notions expressed
>> >> >>heretofore,
>> >> >>how long would it take for two stars of, say, 5 times Sun mass
>> >> >>and distance between mass-centers twice the star radius (which
>> >> >>means
>> >> >>that were they rigid spheres they'd be rolling/touching one
>> >> >>another)
>> >> >>before they fuse to become a single star?
>> >> >
>> >> > They would have fused long before they would have ottten that
>> >> > close. I
>> >> > am not sure off hand at what distance that would occur.
>> >>
>> >> Paul Andersen referred me to this site:
>> >> http://www.manybody.org/cgi-bin/starlab/binary_demo.pl
>> >>
>> >> Incidentally, Algol supposedly eclipses for 10 hours every 70
>> >> hours.
>> >> That means one star is occulted by the other for 52 = 360 * 10/70
>> >> degrees
>> >> and that the smaller can be no further away than 2/sin(26) = 4.56
>> >> times
>> >> the radius of the larger star.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The velocity curve of the star
>> >> http://homepage.mac.com/antallan/images/algol/hilla.jpg
>> >> shows max and min velocities at phases 0.06 and 0.7, or 144
>> >> degrees
>> >> apart, not 180 degrees, so it would not be possible to claim a
>> >> circular
>> >> orbit with a c-constant model, meaning that the orbit would have
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >> elliptical and periastron considerably closer than 4.56 times the
>> >> radius
>> >> of the larger star, making the system even more unstable.
>> >>
>> >> I think you guys that believe c is constant in all frames of
>> >> reference
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Einsten, if he did nothing else right, dispelled the creationist
>> > notion
>> > of a Cartesian framework to support the universe.
>>
>> Huh? What ARE you talking about?
>>
>>
>> Now that the
>> > evil aether is banished to the deepest neural folds of only the
>> > most
>> > faithful...
>> > it is safe to utter material points of reference whenever possible.
>> >
>> > If you are hiding the entities that establish the speed of light
>> > with mathematical abstractions like frames of reference, then
>> > your fidelity to clarity may be as questionable as many accuse AE
>> > of... with good reason IMHO.
>>
>> Again, I'm lost... try a little fidelity to clarity yourself, I have
>> no
>> idea what you are trying to communicate.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > If yooze guyze are going to dispute FSC please be up front about
>> > it.
>> > :o)
>>
>> What the heck is FSC? It's hard to dispute what I haven't heard of.
>>
>> > << Consequently, the name "fine-structure" constant for the group
>> > of constants below has remained:
>> > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif >>
>> > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
>> >
>> " is the electric constant (permitivity of vacuum) and µ0 is the
>> magnetic constant (permeability of vacuum)."
>>
>> I've already told you ages ago that I consider those mathematical
>> abstractions to be the properties of aether, so I've not been hiding
>> anything. Tain't my fault you don't listen.
>
> Indeed... You seem to view electorns as only mathematical
> points in space that do nothing, have no properties and go
> where you say they should be.
>
> At least you are consistant. :o)

I was discussing empirical data from Algol, and you've switched the
subject
to what you imagine I view electrons to be.
At least you are consistently inconsistent.
Does remaining on the topic ever cross your mind, or are you just
naturally doing a Dinky on us, playing "ignore" and talk about the
individual instead,
with your smart-arse remarks about consistency?
If you want to discuss FSCs (whatever they are), why not start a thread
and say something about them instead of shoving your way into something
someone else, not me, raised as the topic?

Androcles.


> Sue...
>
>>
>> Androcles.
>>
>> > Sue...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> have some explaining to do, observation shows your numbers don't
>> >> add
>> >> up,
>> >> we've been looking at Algol for well over 1000 years and it hasn't
>> >> blown
>> >> up yet; you have a mystery on your hands.
>> >>
>> >> Fortunately for those of us that think Einstein's first postulate
>> >> is
>> >> exact and his second only a first approximation, in not sharing
>> >> his
>> >> view
>> >> that the second postulate is exact and the first postulate is only
>> >> a
>> >> first approximation do not share your mystery.
>> >>
>> >> Androcles.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>


.