Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:41:35 GMT
<3E_Ne.12297$Il.10056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:qr7lt2-5jj.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > The only possible explanation for why the surface
> | > temperature and luminosity changes the way they do
> | > is that the diameter of the star changes.
> | >
> | > The diameter is even measured with interferometry
> | > for some Cepheids. The pulsation is observed.
>
> Has Andersen offered so much as one reference in support of his
> ranting? Of course not.

Therefore, it doesn't exist. OK. Do you have a reference for
your theories regarding Cepheids?

> God created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days, I've got a book that
> says so.

A valid reference, if a bit ridiculous in modern astronomy/cosmology.
Of course, there are *two* creation myths therein, and they're
not quite consistent.

>
> |
> | Not enough to convince Androcles, I'm afraid.
>
> Andersen convince me? The same Andersen that claims
>
> "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
> which is the same as interchanging the frames,
> which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
> OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
> t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> or:
> tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
>
> yet still believes
>
> tau = (t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> xi = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> and cannot see a contradition?
>
> That convincing Andersen?
>
> ROFLMAO!!
>
> How gullible can you be?

That is indeed a contradiction. However, I suspect a
problem setup error.

Briefly, if one a priori assumes

tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

then with a little algebraic manipulation,

xi+tau*v = (x-vt+vt-xv^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= x(1-v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= x*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

and therefore

x = (xi+tau*v)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

and

tau+v*xi/c^2 = (t-vx/c^2 + vx/c^2 - v^2t/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= t(1-v^2/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

and therefore

t = (tau+xi*v/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Of course such mathematical mumbo-jumbo proves little more
than that the Lorentz is self-consistent; the same techniques
prove that, if

xi = x-vt
tau= t

then

x = xi+vt
t = tau

which also proves that the Galilean is self-consistent.

The Galilean is admittedly far simpler. (Wrong, but simpler.)

>
>
> | He doesn't seem to understand parallax.
>
>
> LOL!
>
> What's the baseline of the triangle at
>
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Parsec.html
>
> for
> 1) Cepheus constellation.
> http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/java/Cepheus.html
> 2) Leo constellation.
> http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/java/Leo.html

I have no idea what you're on about here, since you've apparently
reversed the triangle. The origin point of the triangle is at
the *nearby star*, not the Earth. (The nearby star will appear
to move against a backdrop of more distant stars.)
>
> Hint: The Earth's orbit is elliptical, ratio of major axis to minor axis

....is about 1.033875.

>
> Parallax at 300 parsecs !!
> Too funny, Ghost.

I'm glad you find it humorous, but I'm disappointed in your
understanding.

>
>
> |
> | Me, I'd have to work it out, but 1,000 lightyears
> | is about 9.46 * 10^18 m, and 2 AU (the diameter of the
> | Earth's orbit) is about 3 * 10^11 m. This translates
> | into 1.82 millionths of a degree,
>
>
> Close enough for government work.
> Who's protractor are you using to measure plus or minus
> 0.0000000005 degrees?
>
> What's a degree, anyway? It wouldn't be the distance the Earth
> moves in a day, would it?
> Think think ... 360 degrees/circle ..... 365 days a year?

Yes it would, as it turns out.

>
> day = 24 hours
> hour = 60 minutes
> minute = 60 seconds.
>
> 86400 seconds a day?
>
> Of course, you can use the cosine of the angle to get the distance
> moved across the orbit...
>
> And you think I don't understand parallax, huh?

You seem to have flipped the problem, but you do seem to understand
basic geometry to some extent. However, we're not all that interested
in how much a star moves from night to night when measured at the
same (synodic) time; that's about a degree, as you've said, but
all stars are subject to that motion.

What we're interested in is how much Delta Cephei moves with respect
to far more distant objects, when observed from two points in
the Earth's orbit roughly in opposition to each other. A
more accurate diagram would show *two* triangles; the Earth's
orbit would be one side of the leftside triangle, the nearby
star would be at the apex of the two triangles, and the
distant stars would form the other side of the rightside triangle.

One could, for example, observe Delta Cephei early in the morning
on Jan 1st, and early in the evening on Jul 1st. (Adjust as required.)

>
> You don't realize just what a phuckwit you are, or just what a
> phuckwit Andersen is. Phuckwits never do.

I take it, then, that parallax is not a valid mesaurement mechanism?

OK.

Just don't tell the astronomers. They'll be very disappointed, and
you'll have to give them a cookie^H^H^H^H^H^^Hn alternative
measurement method using Androcles' Patented Velocity Detector
or some such.

You do have a reference for the 100 lightyear distance for
Delta Cephei, I trust?

[snip]

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We do not know the distance of stars
    ... determination of star distances. ... In land surveying multiple angles are often taken to determine ... "When all angles and distances are measured for each triangle, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Lets do Some Real Physics.
    ... If you paint the inside of sphere with a uniform coat, ... paint, ... The further away you are, the fainter the star will appear, ... from a distant star. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: We do not know the distance of stars
    ... determination of star distances. ... In land surveying multiple angles are often taken to determine ... Generally, an equilateral triangle is considered strong, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We do not know the distance of stars
    ... determination of star distances. ... In land surveying multiple angles are often taken to determine ... Generally, an equilateral triangle is considered strong, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We do not know the distance of stars
    ... determination of star distances. ... In land surveying multiple angles are often taken to determine ... Generally, an equilateral triangle is considered strong, ...
    (talk.origins)