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

"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
news:ClOye.92253$Vo6.2345@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

>
> "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.

And your point is?

>>>> 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.

What is YOUR data and how do YOU determine this. And what is your point?

Algol is apparently NOT a stable system.
http://homepage.mac.com/antallan/algol3.html


>>>> These aren't.
>>>> That skews the brightness curve.
>>>
>>> You've been to Algol and looked, have you?

>> Neither of us have.

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/binary/binary.htm
w = -75

>>> 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.

Agreed.

>
> 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 )

I think I cited http://homepage.mac.com/antallan/algol1.html

Lets start there, with Stebbins 1910/1920 brightness curve. Figure 2.
We can also download
BinaryStar_LightCurves2.xls
http://observe.phy.sfasu.edu/downloads/StarLight/Excel/BinaryStar_LightCurv
es2.xls [which seems to have some errors in it]


> 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.

Quite right.

> 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.

If...then...quite right.

> 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.

Don't forget the xray and microwave data. Maybe your super/sub luminal
photons are hiding there.

but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The xray and
microwave data LOOK like it is showing matter falling into one star from
another.

> 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.

I will not assert that the speed of light is c for every body having mass.

I will just assert that we have yet to observe any photons traveling at a
velocity that we can definitively say is different from c.

> Take the philosophy of our Lord, St. Wm of Ockham, and reason with me.

Until we have evidence that c'=c+vk photons exist somewhere [and k is close
to 1, rather than less than 10^-9], we should

1) continue to look at our data carefully, just in case we can catchi phast
photons.

2) make our 'best' models using the 'established' [not yet invalidated]
theories which include SR/GR/EEP.

I have no objection to you or Henri putting together well written papers
proposing models based upon other theories.

I suggest you do. Write them and submit them for publication so that some
'real scientists' can review them.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... >> the width of the larger star. ... >> faith. ... > I have seen masses act somewhat like the astronomers say that Algol ... > I prayed to St. Wm of Ockham and asked which I should believe in. ...
    (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)
  • Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
    ... The corona doesn't emit visible and IR BB radiation, ... And of course both Algol A and Algol B have photospheres. ... star irtself, maybe 180 deg. ... Which are the distances that could differ in the following statement of yours? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... Algol is in near circular orbit, ... approach, that is going to be zero for us, the star is moving across our ... >> Einstein tells us that the law of the parallellogram of velocities is ... Where v is the motion of the star through the aether and u is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GPS GR Correction Myth.
    ... |>|>You will definitely not talk about Algol, ... |>| the planet, "Androcles", named after its discoverer. ... it is the curve of a ... |>star wobbling ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading