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


"bz" <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns968AD0D201F62WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
> news:WVEye.86670$Vo6.66960
> @fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>>
>> "bz" <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Xns968A9A198DC41WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
>>> news:IEAye.114801$Vj3.65952
>>> @fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are assuming spherical and symetrical stars.
>>
>> No I am not, I'm assuming NOTHING except empirical data and
>> simple trigonometry. I don't give hoot if your stars are tetrahedrons
>> or cubes, the MAXIMUM separation, centre to centre, is 2.28 times
>> the width of the larger star.
>>
>>
>>> These aren't.
>>> That skews the brightness curve.
>>
>> You've been to Algol and looked, have you?
>
> Neither of us have.
>
>> No, of course not. So you are fabricating to defend your faith in
>> a speed of light that you say is the same for every object in the
>> Universe,
>> You are not being rational, simple mathematics and logic cannot
>> overcome
>> faith. Go and pray to your tin god, St. Einstein, in the Holy Church
>> of
>> Relativity.
>
> I have no faith in Einstein nor in BaT.
> I do have a bit of faith in St. Wm of Ockham.
>
> I prayed and asked him if I should believe in sub/superluminal
> photons,
> which have never been demonstrated,
> which many experiments have show must travel very close to c if
> they
> travel at a speed that differs from c at all....
> or should I believe in a star that is shaped like a bubble in a lava
> lamp?
> I have seen masses act somewhat like the astronomers say that Algol
> must act in order for us to see the light curves we see.
>
> I prayed to St. Wm of Ockham and asked which I should believe in.
>
> he said:
> [quote]
> Believe in neither.
> Collect the data.
> Verify the data.
> Have others verify the data.
> Test your theories each day against new data as it comes in.
> Test the simplest theories first.
> Until falsified, let the theory 'stand' but test it every day.
> Leave the testing of equivalent but more complex theories for when
> they are needed to explain new data.
>
> Put your faith in no one who claims to know the truth,
> for all who claim to KNOW are false gurus.
>
> Put your FAITH in no theory,
> for no theory will stand forever.
> All theories will eventually be superceeded, even this one.
>
> [unquote]

VERY good!
We could do with a few more that have that philosophy, you are now
praying
in the same church I go to. There is hope yet. Well done, young man.

So let us kneel in humble reason together before St Wm of Ockham, and
examine the data.

The unexpurgated empirical data, which you can collect for yourself and
verify simply by looking up, is that the intensity of the light from
Algol takes a
dive for 10 hours in every 70 as we see it, and we want to know the
cause.

John Goodricke, at the tender age of 21 some 250 years ago, theorized he
was looking at one star occulting another. Its a nice, simple model and
easily explains the dip in brightness.Since then few have questioned his
assessment and the binary star has now entered our folklore.
New data is now available and

However, more data is available, and the web page YOU cited
(from which I obtained
http://homepage.mac.com/antallan/images/algol/hilla.jpg )
demonstrates a considerable perplexity in fitting the data to the
model, having now added Algol C to Goodricke's model.
We cannot change the data, but the model, the theory that Goodricke
proposed, is open to question, according to Ockham, may his name be
blessed.
Hidden by Goodricke is an assumption that doesn't come into question
until Einstein states it as a postulate. Algol is a long way off and it
takes the light we see it by a finite time to reach us, and Goodricke's
assumption is that the speed of that light is constant.
However, if it is NOT constant, then part of what Goodricke was looking
at
was illusion.
Einstein tells us that the law of the parallellogram of velocities is
only a first approximation. Newton and Galileo would disagree, as do I.
Einstein then USES the law of the parallelogram of velocities to state
t = x'/(c-v) and derive his "Lorentz transforms", thereby propagating
his approximation.

We have data from Algol. albeit incomplete, but what we do have doesn't
fit the complete model.
The solution I propose is that the light from the star travels at c+v,
v being the speed of the source of light in our direction, and v is
approximately V.cos(omega.t / P), P the period of 70 hours, V the
tangential velocity of an orbit, the approximation to be corrected by
the laws of Kepler.
What solution do you offer?
I'm willing to examine it with an open mind, but I'll not accept
your assertion that the speed of light is c for every body having mass,
I consider that to be preposterous nonsense and a mere approximation.
Take the philosophy of our Lord, St. Wm of Ockham, and reason with me.

Androcles.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... >>> the width of the larger star. ... Algol is apparently NOT a stable system. ... >>> cannot overcome faith. ... photons are hiding there. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Can you decrypt this?
    ... Jim's faith investigates in view of our elephant after we educate ... Yesterday Claude will save the star, ... Osama won't learn any convenient librarys. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Christmas Rant (avert your eyes)
    ... bent out of shape about would be a bit inaccurate. ... Faith is the only certainty. ... what utter bullshit can i write about today? ... Was no star. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... >>> The velocity curve of the star ... >>> of the larger star, making the system even more unstable. ... So you are fabricating to defend your faith in ... Have others verify the data. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
    ... >>> It is likely that flares occuring on the main star are reflected from ... Sorry, Henri. ... >>> object does orbit the main Algol star. ... >>The light curve is exactly as it should be if it were ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading