Re: Time Dilation disappears

On Dec 3, 3:29 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 04:21:46 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Dec 2, 2:59 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 03:02:54 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<snip>

There are obviously many stars that DO vary intrinsically. There are many stars
that are believed to vary but do not.

Which stars?

No answer? You can't tell which are which?

<snip>

None of your handwaving intuitions about the nature of light are
supported by any experimental or observational evidence.

No real observational evidence reaches the minds of blind people.

Look in the mirror.

<snip>

Listen you silly girl, the whole universe is filled with very low pressure
matter and low intensity fields. It behaves essentially like a gigantic
turbulent gas. The conditions through which starlight travels will vary from
day to day. Its attenuation will vary accordingly.

If you would care to take a genuine interest in BaTh, you would probably find
answers to your persistently naive questions.

A truly foolish, desperate "explanation" for period/amplitude
noise.

Eclipsing binary light curves do not "twinkle". Pulsator light
curves all "twinkle", whether they be light curves of Miras,
Cepheids, RR Lyrae stars, etc.

Why does light from eclipsing binaries always seem to avoid the
turbulent regions of space?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'twinkle' but if you are refering to long term
and fairly random magnitude variations then each case probably has a different
answer. Screaming and shouting wont get you anywhere.

Making up new imaginary physics rules every time you encounter a
situation that BaTh can't answer (which is ALL THE TIME) won't
get you anywhere.


<snip>

If you are so clever, please design for us a lab experiment that can measure
OWLS from a moving source.

Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters
12, 260 (1964). Arkiv foer Fysik, Vol 31, pg 145 (1965).

Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), pg 271.

Bab*** and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147
(1964).

Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.

Beckmann and Mandics, Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965).

Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser,http://vuv-fel.desy.de/.
For explanations as to why FLASH disproves BaTh, see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4184b659577...

yes we've heard all this before. None is conclusive.

Also, there is the observational evidence:

Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), pg 267.
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2,
pg 1297-1298 (1913).
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1,
pg 395-396 (1913).
DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 429, (1913)
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm.
DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 1267, (1913)
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm.
Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), pg 1.
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of
the Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
Heckmann, Ann. d. Astrophys. 23 (1960), pg 410.

Observations of Supernovae
"A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with
speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of
spectral lines). If the speed of light depended on the source
velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out in time due
to the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not
observed, and observations of distant supernovae give k < 5×10-9.
These observations could be subject to criticism due to Optical
Extinction, but some observations are for supernovas considerably
closer than the extinction length of the X-ray wavelengths used."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

<snip>

Uh, Henri...

The x-ray source, being associated with the extended corona of
the secondary star of this system, is not motionless with respect
to the Earth, but displays back and forth motions consistent with
its association with the secondary. Orbiting satellites such as
Chandra have resolved discrete lines in the x-ray spectrum and
have measured the Doppler shifts of the secondary, which are over
four times as large as the Doppler shifts of the primary spectrum
and in opposite phase to those of the primary.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...606.1184C

BaTh would predict that the x-ray emissions should periodically
bunch up and disperse on their way to Earth. Yet there is
practically no periodic variability in the x-ray emissions.

Everything you are telling me comes from theories that are based on the
assumption that all light moves towards Earth at precisely c.
Astonomers see a Willusion. The problem is to establish reality from that
distorted information. I would say that 99% of astrophysics is wrong because
it assumes what is observed is real..

What is YOUR explanation for the observed Doppler shifts in the
x-ray spectrum of Algol? Are they or are they not indicative of
back-and-forth motions of the x-ray source?

<snip>

When sudden changes occur in any stellar phenomena one would naturally suspect
either a collision, a capture or a near miss.

Catastrophic explanations are ruled out.

RU Cam showed a gradual decrease in the amplitude of its light
curve from 1.4 mag in 1962 to 0.7 mag in 1964, followed by a
rapid drop-off in the 1964-1965 period.
http://www.weblore.com/richard/ru_cam_ex_cepheid_star.htm

If it retained the original shape, then its mean velocity towards Earth
probably changed considerably. it is possibly in some kind of larger orbit
around a large mass centre.

It did NOT retain the original shape.

How do YOU explain the changes in DV Uma curve between 2005 and 2007?
http://www.britastro.org/vss/ (ccd light curves)

DV Uma is a cataclysmic eclipsing binary at high inclination,
which results in deep eclipses. One of the binary components is
a dwarf nova that is stealing mass from the other. This mass
transfer results in a large accretion disk that contributes
significantly to the light curve, resulting in its complex shape.
The accretion disk undergoes precession, so superimposed on the
basic shape of the light curve is a periodic "superhump". The
light curve appears quite different at different times depending
on the precession angle of the accretion disk. Every few years,
enough mass accretes onto the dwarf nova that it flares up. After
a flare-up, the accretion disk is, for a while, highly distorted
from its usual flat circular shape, so the light curve is
variable for several cycles until it settles down to a more
normal shape.

In accordance with conventional Cepheid theory, which relates the
period of Cepheid oscillations to the time it takes sound to
traverse the diameter of the star, the drop-off in amplitude from
1962 to 1964 was not accompanied by any change in period.

Which almost certainly means it is associated with a stable orbit preriod..
In fact the general stability of the periods of variables is strong supporting
evidence for BaTh.

There is far too much period noise to be accommodated by any
sort of stable orbit.

High precision photometric measurements of RU Cam taken by the
Hipparcos satellite show that RU Cam remains variable with an
amplitude of 0.20 mag, and its current period is UNCHANGED FROM
THE PRE-1962 VALUE, i.e. about 22-24 days.
http://www.aavso.org/observing/programs/pep/pepnewsletter/may1998/mai...

Good. Now you might accept that it is in an orbit with that period. How else
would its oscillation remain so constant?

It ISN'T that constant. Look at the historical data. RU Cam shows
pronounced period noise. Orbits are ruled out.

Collisions, captures and near misses are all clearly ruled out.

A near miss, for instance, would have changed the period of an
orbiting "planet", and as stated above, there is no evidence for
any period change for RU Cam despite the current greatly
decreased amplitude of its variable light curve.

The amplitude of any variation is very dependent on both observer distance and
radial velocity. Maybe the orbit plane is precessing, resulting in a cosine
correction.

What is causing the orbital plane to precess? Are you going to
start postulating a third body again?

<snip>

Near-perfect blackbody radiators are near-perfect blackbody
absorbers. That is, they are opaque.

Hahahaha! So how do you explain all those absorption lines?

Continuum spectrum light from the opaque photosphere passes
through the transparent solar atmosphere, which imposes discrete
lines upon the continuum spectrum.

If it is opaque enough to absorb certain wavelengths, it is also dense enough
to emit others.
Do I have to explain everything about radiation to you?

You are not competent to do so.

Your claim, "different wavelengths tend to come from different
layers at slightly different times and radial velocities", is
hence extreme nonsense.

Do you have any particular reason to believe that cepheids are all exactly like
our sun?

Cepheids display a continuum spectrum with superimposed
absorption lines. The continuum spectrum indicates an opaque
photosphere.

According to confused astronomers who don't know what a Willusion is.

Ah, yes. Your standard answer. All observations that disprove
BaTh are willusions.

I should imagine that a pulstating star would feature all kinds of surface
movements and gaseous emissions that are quite unlike ours.

As a matter of fact, careful analysis of Cepheid spectra does
indeed show periodic turbulence of a sort not seen in our Sun.

According to confused astronomers who don't know what a Willusion is.

Again, your standard answer. All observations that disprove BaTh
are willusions.

The devil is in the details in this description, and the modeling
of Cepheid oscillations constitutes one of the most difficult
problems in astrophysics, comparable in difficulty to the
modeling of supernova explosions. Still, great progress has been
made in recent years, and most of the gross features of Cepheid
light curves, spectra, radius changes, etc. have successfully
been reproduced in computer simulations.
http://www.lesia.obspm.fr/astro/cepheids/program.html

The papers I have read all stress that NO decent theory is yet available.

You are hopelessly out of date in your reading. That is the sort
of statement that might have been made in 2000. Since then,
advances in computer power have made it possible to include
factors which needed to be dropped or ignored in earlier
simulations, such as turbulent convection.

I have a better explanation.

Since when?

Jerry
.

Quantcast