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


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:f21ot2-995.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:46:05 GMT
| <N%aOe.12474$Il.3446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message news:d3int2-6v3.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| > | <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:41:35 GMT
| > | <3E_Ne.12297$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?
| >
| > LOL! *I* am the reference, what are you looking for?
| > Me to put a web page up as a reference?
| > Or empirical data?
| > That's in the sky, you only have to look up at night.
| > Get your telescope and your artificial star out and start observing.
| > These days you can do it from indoors in front of the computer.
| > Just put a cheap CCD at the focus, grab the image, start the clock
| > on your telescope mount and away you go, you can even write
| > your own software and analyze the image any way you like.
| > Why don't you ask Copernicus if he had a reference for his
| > heliocentric theory, or Watson and Crick if they had a reference
| > for their double helix DNA theory?
| > A cepheid is an ordinary star with a planet in orbit about it,
| > as I've told you before. All the crap about knowing its temperature
| > variation is just a shift in the spectrum. Look up Boltzmann,
| > Rayleigh-Jeans, Balmer series, Rydberg constant, black body
radiation.
| >
| > The ONLY thing you have is the spectum and apparent magnitude.
| > All else is deduction, and if we use the hypothesis, which is
consistent
| > with Galilean relativity that c' = c+v, then a cepheid is a very
simple
| > star. The alternative is ludicrous but we've lived with it so long
that
| > people believe in Santa Einstein and puff-puff stars.
|
| Ah. So a Cepheid is proof that c' = c+v?

A cepheid is either
1) A specialized puff-puff star because Einstein decreed
the speed of light invariant.
2) An ordinary star with a planet.
3) Something else.

Heard of Ockham's Razor?


| An interesting
| hypothesis, that -- I'd want a little more specifics on
| exactly how.

You advanced it. You provide the specifics.

| For instance, H. Wilson is of the opinion
| that all Cepheids are actually orbital binaries of some sort.

He thinks stars are in orbit about an object called a "Wilson,
Cool, Heavy", which is phuckwittery, just as his h-aether was
phuckwittery and as Einstein's definition of time is phuckwittery.
That's why I've disassociated myself from him.


|
| Do you share this view?
No.

| If not, what is your view?

An ordinary star with a planet, as I told you.

"The only possible explanation for why the surface
temperature and luminosity changes the way they do
is that the diameter of the star changes." -- Blind Phuckwit.

The only possible explanation for the existence of the
universe is that a bright green flying elephant created it.
[snip]

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

Of course there is a problem setup error - this one.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/



| > |
| > | 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.)
| >
| > You do realize... nah, you wouldn't...
| > Let me explain to you as simply as I know how.
| >
| > Frame K is the stationary frame in which c is to be found.
| > Frame k is the moving frame, but there are two of them.
| > One is a ghost frame, and you know all about ghosts, the other
| > is the real moving frame.
| >
| > The Galilean transform from K to the real moving frame is
| > x' = x-vt
| > y' = y
| > z'= z
| > t' = t
| >
| > The cuckoo transform from the real moving frame to the
| > ghost moving frame, k, is
| >
| > xi = x' /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (remember that x' = x-vt)
| > tau = t' *sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| That is indeed a cuckoo frame. It is not the Lorentz.

Right enough, it's the Einstein. Lorentz had ***-all to do
with Einstein's fuckup.


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

x' = x- vt.
x = x'+vt

tau = (t - v* (x'+vt) /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Hence if we take x' to zero (muons are point particles, no length),

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

t' = t

Hence:
tau = t' *sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as I stated.
xi = x' /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (remember that x' = x-vt)

Einstein's cuckoo transforms! He knows it, so he blames Lorentz.
Andersen's cuckoo transforms are nothing like that, but are still
cuckoo.


| >
| > but there is problem.
| > There is no v between the ghost moving frame and the real
| > moving frame, we already use that going from x to x'.
| >
| > ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system
k
| > must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
| >
| > What does "independent of time" mean?
| > It means your kitchen table will be the same width tomorrow,
| > next week and next year as it is today. Big surprise, huh?
| > In mathematical terms it means there is no function f such that
| > x = f(t) + x.
| > f(t) = 0, or doesn't exist.
| > If it doesn't exist then it cannot have an inverse function
| > t = f^-1(x), or it does and f(t) =0 then t = f^-1(0).
| >
| > Therefore Einstein's function
| > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) does not exist, and there is no v either.
| >
| > He's got everyone hopelessly confused by calling the ghost
| > frame and the real frame the same name, k, but uses
| > x in K,
| > x' in the real k and
| > xi in the ghost frame.
| >
| > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) is nonsense, x' is independent of time.
|
| Depends on how one observes it from K.

Depends on how much of a phuckwit you are.

Ewe and Andersen are part of the same problem.
Ewe are dumb sheep, so ewe go along with all the other dumb sheep.
Ewe all bleat the same tune, none of ewe can think for ewerselves.
But ewe don't know ewe are dumb sheep, ewe think ewe are smart.
Andersen is worse than ewe, he works in an educational environment.

I point out a BLATANTLY OBVIOUS contradiction to Andersen
and he calls me a fool. Do the same to ewe and ewe get sarcastic,
"don't forget to tell the astronomers". Phuckwits, the lot of ewe.


|
| >
| > Then the phuckwit says "Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally
small,"
| > and you cannot do that either, the coordinate x' is already a point.
| > you can do it to the length x', but not the coordinate x'.
| >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | 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.
| >
| > Ghost, as Arthur Dent said about Dinky, if you clipped your toenails
| > you would say you have 9.87654321 toes remaining.
| > The Earth is on the base line, we wait six months to measure again.
|
| Exactly. However, the elliptical orbit does introduce some minor
| complications; presumably these can be compensated for.

There are minor complications you've never dreamed of, the most
obvious being how you will measure 1/100,000,000th of a degree
1) when a train goes by and shakes your telescope
2) when you a peering through a turbulent atmosphere
3) when you've forgotten something!

Why do you suppose telescopes are on the top of hills?



|
| >
|>
| > |
| > | >
| > | > Parallax at 300 parsecs !!
| > | > Too funny, Ghost.
| > |
| > | I'm glad you find it humorous, but I'm disappointed in your
| > | understanding.
| >
| > You come bouncing in telling us you know all about parallax,
| > I doubt you've even spent one night observing, pretend you can
| > measure to one hundredth of a millionth of a degree amd measure
| > the distance to d-Ceph and its 1000 ly, you are a phuckwit.
| > You know ***-all about errors and accuracy, ***-all about
| > astronomy, and you've got the fucking cheek to tell me
| > you are disappointed in my understanding.
| > Get a grip!
|
| Then I bow to your superior knowledge of Cepheids.

Thank you.

Please do give
| us some of your expertise in this matter, as it's clear that we
| are know-nothings that have nary a clue as to precisely what
| a Cepheid is.

Nothing to it. It's an ordinary star with a planet. Both orbit a
barycentre. Figure out c+v for a complete orbit (I use 1,000,000
points around the orbit, c+v for each one) and figure when the
light will arrive and bingo, you have the light curve of a cepheid.
Algol is a cepheid, what makes it different is that we see the orbit
along its major axis.
I started with the back of an envelope, literally.
Set up cartesian axes, distance vertical and time horizontal


| ^
| x
|
|
|_______________t->


Now draw a diagonal line from the origin to the top of the envelope,
like this.
|^ /
|x /
| /
| /
|/ _____________t->


This line represents a photon, which travels a distance x in time t,
t being the horizontal distance at the top of the envelope at x, the
height.
You did that in school as a teenager, of course, it's not a new idea to
you.
The slope is distance/time and represents velocity.

Now send another photon the same distance, but start it a moment later,
and then another, like this.
|^ / / /
|x / / /
| / / /
| / / /
|/ / / __________t->


All the lines are parallel, so the speed of the photons is constant.

Now IMAGINE (hard for some people to do, I know, but give it a try)
that the speed of light was a tiny bit slower for the next line.
It still goes from the bottom to the top, a distance x, but takes a
little
longer to get there. The slope is less. Hard for me to draw in text,
you have to do it yourself on the back of the envelope, but I'll try.
Unfortunately I have to exaggerate, I have fixed spaces, that produce
aliasing.

|^ / / / /
|x / / / /
| / / / /
| / / / /
|/ / / / __________t->


And the next, but the speed is lower still.
|^ / / / / /
|x / / / / /
| / / / / /
| / / / / /
|/ / / / /__________t->

My text sketch is becoming unclear. Your pencil sketch on the back
of the envelope will be better. I'm going to erase some lines, leaving
only the end points to make my sketch better, but you can keep
your pencilled lines.
|^ / / / / /
|x
|
|
|/ / / / /__________t->

Now add even more lines, but IMAGINE the speed is increasing
gradually, and then once again decreasing.

|^ / / / / / / / /// / / / / / / /
|x
|
|
|/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / _t->


You'll see the photons are bunched together and then spread out,
then they'll bunch together again as the source of photons moves
cyclically faster and then slower and then faster again.
Now imagine... I do ask a lot, I know... that an observer at x
really does see this bunching and spreading. Let's make it easy.
Suppose we are looking at pulses from a pulsar.
Now let's put back the constant speed of light we so dearly believe in.
All the lines have to be parallel again,but we still retain the bunching
and spreading, so the sketch looks like this.
|^ / / / / / / / /// / / / / / / /
|x
|
|
|/ / / / / / / /// / / / / / / / ->t

Notice that the pulsar is no longer emitting pulses at regular intervals
of time.
So... something must have happened to time itself at the pulsar, because
lone pulsars are very regular in their frequency. This is not a lone
pulsar,
it is in orbit, periodically approaching and receding from us.
Hulse and Taylor worked it out, using GR, and received a Nobel
prize for their effort. They KNOW the speed of light is constant,
you see, as you do. Einstein said it, so it must be.


| Obviously Delta Cephei is *not* 1000 light-years
| away and expanding and contracting because of ionized helium
| transparency. But what precisely is it doing?
|
| Please tell us, Mr. Master Astronomer.

Sure I'll tell ewe.
The stick in water really is bent because you can see it is.
You are not allowed to move the stick or the telescope
you are looking at it with.
Doing an Andersen/Ghost, OBVIOULY it is bent.
We OBSERVE it.

Doppler shift is a change in light speed. See sketch on back of
envelope. Make your own sketch, make your own computer
model as Henri did. I had to twist his arm not to use a circle,
though, he's stubborn.
I figured out cepheids 18 years ago, even wrote to Reinhardt
(Prof physics) at CMU in Pittsburgh. He wasn't interested, but
steered me onto John Fox, "Evidence against Emission Theories".
There is NO evidence against emission theory, that's what Fox was
saying, there is only prejudice like yours.
To quote Reinhardt, relativity is "nice to think about".
So I thought about it. My conclusion is that relativity is a hoax,
it's disciples are a flock of sheep, each bleating what the other says.
It's not the first time. It happened with Ptolemy until Copernicus
came along, and look at the trouble Galileo had with all the
prejudice, like yours. That's why I consider you a phuckwit.




| >
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | 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.
| >
| > As it turn out? Phuckwit, the Babylonians chose 360 degrees
| > to a circle BECAUSE that's how far the Earth moves in a day.
| > They could have used grads, could have used radians.
|
| They could have used anything at all. They had a fascination
| with the number 60. I for one don't konw why.

It is exactly divisible by 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,15,20,30.
When man invented the wheel he found pi was a pain in the arse
for measurement, so he rolled a hexagon along the ground
instead. A hexagon is 6 equilateral triangles, internal angles 60
degrees, the Earth moves one degree a day in its orbit.
60 was an EXCELLENT choice for an intelligent society
struggling to make sense of Nature, but they were stuck with
phuckwits who had to use fingers and toes to count with and
had no idea how to bisect an angle or evn waht was meant
by angle. Well I remember my own daughter, aged 6, struggling
with angle. She was thinking length, we do at that age.
Stone circles in Britain (there are hundreds, Stonehenge is just
the biggest and most famous) were constructed on the megalithic
"yard", discovered by Alexander Thom and are egg-shaped
to eliminate pi.
I read Thom when I was in my 30s and was fascinated.
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMThom.html


| Of course why the amount the Earth moves in a day is all that
| relevant to parallax (except for the elementary observation that
| 180 degrees = about 1/2 a year) is not clear to me. Perhaps you
| can elaborate?

Errors and accuracy.
The baseline you use is crucial to the distance you find.
Half the base line is half the distance, and you want to measure
1/ 100,000,000th of a degree.
It is theoretically possible to measure distance via parallax,
but in practice it is totally impossible to get anything more 100 ly.
What you need to do is place error bounds on your measurements.
NIST does.

1 AU = 93,000,000 miles +/- 3,000,000 miles
Measured angle is 0.001 seconds +/- 0.5... Oops, error larger than
the measurement!

and what do you compare to? A "fixed" star. How do you know it
didn't move as well? So you have to measure to many fixed stars
and get a statistical value.


Then calculate the upper and lower bounds of the distance,
and you'll find d-Ceph is somewhere between 20 ly and infinity.

Astronomers know this, so they switch over to intrinsic magnitude
vs apparent magnitude using the inverse square law. It's brighter,
it must be closer. But what is the intrinsic magnitude? A guess,
based on the star's temperature, which we get from it's colour.
With a cepheid you are fucked on that, so you guess a mean
value. You estimate the distance to the Megallanic clouds,
Henrietta Swan Leavitt used ... oh read up on it, its in the literature.
The error bounds are enormous. Astronomical, even.
It's all guess work, hopefully intelligent guesswork.


| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > 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.
| >
| > You cheeky ***, you have no concept of measuring parallax.
| > It takes six months to get 2AU as a baseline.
| > Now is that from May to October or February to July?
| > Minor axis or Major? Which is which? Google for it, dissappointed.
|
| Depends on the star position.

The *** it does! I can go from Polaris to Vega to Betelgeuse to the
Southern Cross and still use the same baseline. I don't know the
names of the stars in the souther hemisphere, I can't observe them.



| >
| > 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.
| >
| > Yeah, that's why we call them "fixed".
| >
| >
| > |
| > | 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.)
| >
| >
| > d-Ceph is a "fixed" star, in excess of 100 light years away, we can
| > only use parallax for the nearest. You have no idea just how
difficult
| > it
| > it is even then. You wouldn't get Proxima Centauri, epsilon-Eridani,
| > Sirius or Barnard's star to within 50%.
| > I doubt I could either, even if I had control of a major telescope,
and
| > I know a hell of lot more about than you.
|
| That you do, and one of the things you do know is the many proofs
| that c' = c+v. So far, not one of them has held up to scrutiny.
|
| >
| > | >
| > | > 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.
| >
| > Phuckwit, it's all we've got. When we have a base on a moon of
| > Saturn things will be marginally better, but that's not in your
| > lifetime.
|
| Ah, so Cepheids cannot be used as a measurement basis, then.
|
| Thank you. Your opinion is noted.


Your ignorance and blustering phuckwittery noted.

Fucking cheek, telling me I don't understand parallax.
You are like a little kid. My grandson tells me what he's learned
in school and says "Bet you didn't know that, Pop!" and I smile.
His schoolteacher is just a kid, wet behind the ears, to me anyway.
In your case I expect a little sense.

| >
| > |
| > | 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?
| > |
| > I have a reference for a dissappointed moron...
| > Would you like a reference?
|
| I'm assuming you're referring to me, but I was hoping for
| an explanation of exactly what Delta Cephei is.

You have it, an ordinary star with a planet.
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
What is Ockham's Razor?
Yet, even when the unfit hypotheses are discarded, several options may
remain, in some cases making the exact same predictions, but having very
different underlying assumptions. In order to choose among these
possible theories a very useful tool is what is called Ockham's razor.

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the
fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'',
which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

You say one speed of light, a complex puff-puff star.

I say c+v, an ordinary star with a planet.

You say one speed of light, a complex binary system (Algol)

I say c+v, an ordinary star with a planet.

You say one speed of light, an exploding star that repeats itself.
(V1493 Aql)

I say c+v, an ordinary star orbiting another ordinary star with a period
of 200 years, like Pluto.

Wait 200 years and watch again, you didn't have a telescope good enough
200 years ago.

All your explanations are different, all mine are the same.

"In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality
the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning. Suppose that you
have two competing theories which describe the same system, if these
theories have different predictions than it is a relatively simple
matter to find which one is better: one does experiments with the
required sensitivity and determines which one give the most accurate
predictions. For example, in Copernicus' theory of the solar system the
planets move in circles around the sun, in Kepler's theory they move in
ellipses. By measuring carefully the path of the planets it was
determined that they move on ellipses, and Copernicus' theory was then
replaced by Kepler's. "

Ockham's razor is MINE!

Androcles.





.

Quantcast