Glass a speed to frequency transformer?
Jan Panteltje
Can we not look upon any piece of glass such as a mirror or a lens
as a speed-to-frequency transformer?
This is why I think that:
When light is emitted as c + v, when it hits glass the following happens:
the atoms in the glass pass through the maxima and minima in the wave at
c + v.
They see a different frequency (higher if v positive).
These atoms then emit new light, with the new frequency, in their reference
frame c + v' (v is the speed of the glass).
So, Doppler to frequency sort of.
I would like to here your views on this, I have heard about C is fixed.
So no need to point that one out.
In my view C is not fixed, and this transformation would explain some
results of other experiments perhaps.
<I also know about 'Uncle Al wrote: You are an idiot here is googled stuff ',
so he is out>
Randy Poe
Jan Panteltje wrote:
> I want to point to some thoughts I have on the matter:
>
> Can we not look upon any piece of glass such as a mirror or a lens
> as a speed-to-frequency transformer?
No.
> This is why I think that:
> When light is emitted as c + v,
What evidence do you have that light is ever emitted at
speed c+v? From what? What is v?
> when it hits glass the following happens:
>
> the atoms in the glass pass through the maxima and minima in the wave at
> c + v.
> They see a different frequency (higher if v positive).
> These atoms then emit new light, with the new frequency, in their reference
> frame c + v' (v is the speed of the glass).
That's not a frequency.
What does "speed of the glass" mean?
> In my view C is not fixed, and this transformation would explain some
> results of other experiments perhaps.
I don't understand any of that. Why don't you explain what
happens when sunlight strikes a prism, for starters?
- Randy
Jan Panteltje
<poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124112203.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> I want to point to some thoughts I have on the matter:
>>
>> Can we not look upon any piece of glass such as a mirror or a lens
>> as a speed-to-frequency transformer?
>
>No.
Prove it?
>> This is why I think that:
>> When light is emitted as c + v,
>
>What evidence do you have that light is ever emitted at
>speed c+v? From what? What is v?
v is the speed of the source of cause.
The test I proposed (see otehr posting) should prove / disprove that).
>> when it hits glass the following happens:
>>
>> the atoms in the glass pass through the maxima and minima in the wave at
>> c + v.
>> They see a different frequency (higher if v positive).
>> These atoms then emit new light, with the new frequency, in their reference
>> frame c + v' (v is the speed of the glass).
>
>That's not a frequency.
Yes it is, say the light has a wavelength of 1000 nm, and is emitted at speed C.
Then, as f = c / wavelength:
f = 3 * 10^8 / 10^-6 = 3 * 10^14 Hz.
So 3 * 10^14 maxima of the signal will hit the glass.
If we move the light source TOWARDS the glass, we hit MORE maxima of the signal,
so the 'hit frequency' is > 3 * 10^14 Hz.
In the glass (I have learned) the atoms re-emit the light, with speed C relative
to the glass itself, but triggered by the incoming maxima!
So now we have > 3 * 10^14 Hz at C, and the wavelength is f / c:
as f is now bigger, the wavelength is shorter, and the light blue shifted.
And it travels at C.
So we have a speed c + v transformation to c.
And we have a frequency transformation too (and thus a wavelength change).
this is similar to Doppler.
Who needs relativity?
The experimenter will think light moves at c, grab the Einstein papers,
and use relativity NOT DOPPLER to explain the shift.
There is a difference.
If Einstein truly based his believe on the fact that the speed of light is
constant on experiments like MM, then as that uses reflected light in mirrors,
lenses, it is in my view possible he based his theory on the wrong facts.
Because how can you teach light is 're-emitted' by atoms locally,
and then explain<------- the frequency shift?
I give an explanation with the above mechanism c + v.
I need that Swedish money, you know ;-)
It seems so much more elegant that bended space time minds whatever.
The Ghost In The Machine
<poespa...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 15 Aug 2005 06:23:23 -0700
<1124112203.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> I want to point to some thoughts I have on the matter:
>>
>> Can we not look upon any piece of glass such as a mirror or a lens
>> as a speed-to-frequency transformer?
>
> No.
>
>> This is why I think that:
>> When light is emitted as c + v,
>
> What evidence do you have that light is ever emitted at
> speed c+v? From what? What is v?
The speed of the observer relative to the lightsource, of course.
>
>> when it hits glass the following happens:
>>
>> the atoms in the glass pass through the maxima and minima in the wave at
>> c + v.
>> They see a different frequency (higher if v positive).
>> These atoms then emit new light, with the new frequency, in their reference
>> frame c + v' (v is the speed of the glass).
>
> That's not a frequency.
>
> What does "speed of the glass" mean?
With respect to the lightsource. However, I'm not sure what v' is.
>
>> In my view C is not fixed, and this transformation would explain some
>> results of other experiments perhaps.
>
> I don't understand any of that. Why don't you explain what
> happens when sunlight strikes a prism, for starters?
Especially a moving one. I doubt this can be done terrestrially, but
observations of moving stellar phenomena are routine. These should
show c' = c universally, with the movement manifesting as a frequency
shift.
Were c' = c+v orbiting binaries such as Algol would look a *lot* different. :-)
>
> - Randy
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Androcles
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124104385.00c7d0d3c971c8d7165a327897a20f5b@teranews...
|I want to point to some thoughts I have on the matter:
|
| Can we not look upon any piece of glass such as a mirror or a lens
| as a speed-to-frequency transformer?
Converter might better term, but yes, in principle.
|
| This is why I think that:
| When light is emitted as c + v, when it hits glass the following
happens:
|
| the atoms in the glass pass through the maxima and minima in the wave
at
| c + v.
| They see a different frequency (higher if v positive).
| These atoms then emit new light, with the new frequency, in their
reference
| frame c + v' (v is the speed of the glass).
|
| So, Doppler to frequency sort of.
|
| I would like to here your views on this, I have heard about C is
fixed.
| So no need to point that one out.
Not a bad analysis.
Matter such as glass, diamond, water etc. have the properties of
permeability and permittivity. The speed of light in those substances
can be written as c_substance = 1/ sqrt( mu_substance *
epsilon_substance)
where mu_substance is the magnetic permeability and epsilon_substance is
the electrical permittivity of the substance, c_substance is the sped of
light
in the substance.
mu and epsilon are measurable quantities.
When man invented aether, he gave it a mu0 and epsilon0 that agreed
with the equation and that becomes the speed of light in vacuum.
The Michelson-Morley experiment deleted the aether, but everyone forgot
to delete the permeability and permittivity as well.
When these go to zero, c = 1/sqrt(0*0) is undefined.
c is the muzzle velocity of a photon from an atom, and the vacuum
doesn't stop a photon anymore that it stops a bullet. Matter will,
though,
if you have enough of it.
| In my view C is not fixed, and this transformation would explain some
| results of other experiments perhaps.
Yes, you are correct.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Comments in square brackets are mine.
"Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and
General Theory. 1920.
The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity.
THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according
to which light is propagated in empty space [except the Principle
of Relativity, a really simple law].
Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this
[Harry Potter] propagation takes place in straight lines with
a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec [relative to the source, but
cosmic muons can win that race by a mile, literally. I seem
to have forgotten I said "we shall, however, find in what follows,
that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically,
of an infinitely great velocity"].
At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity
is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case
[prisms would split white light into different colours and we
never see that, and ] the minimum of emission would not be
observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse
of a fixed star by its dark neighbour [except that Algol has no
dark neighbour, John Goodricke forgot to include the velocity of
light into his calculations and an eclipse means no light at all,
not a reduction in magnitude].
By means of similar considerations based on observations of
double stars [Sirius, 8 light years away with a period of 50
years,
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap001006.html
no other double has ever been seen] the Dutch astronomer
De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation
of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body
emitting the light [oh really? how? I see no significant velocity
v from Sirius to add to c]. The assumption that this velocity
of propagation is dependent on the direction "in space" is in
itself improbable [but factually true. Real scientists don't
deal in assumptions and probables].
In short, let us assume [!!!!] that the simple law [because I
say it is a law] of the constancy of the velocity of light c
(in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school
[who also believes in Santa Claus, but not believed by thinking
rational adults]. Who would imagine that this simple law has
plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist [yes, that's
Androcles] into the greatest intellectual difficulties [and
solved them, not being a peanut brain like me]?
Let us consider how these difficulties arise [because I can
make up stories] ."
[Skip silly train story, or as Alan Schwartz would say,
snip crap. Idiot.]
"At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena.
As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time
and space, [insert the 'analysis' in Einstein's own words] 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 insert. some great analysis, that] it became evident that
[I am lying through my teeth and ] in reality there is not the
least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the
law of propagation of light [because I say so, its a LAW,
stomp foot] and that by systematically holding fast to both
these laws a logically [huh?] rigid theory could be arrived at
[such as the speed of light being infinite].
This theory has been called the special theory of relativity
[or the special theory of the exrement of the male bovine I
produce] to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which
we shall deal later. In the following pages we shall present
the fundamental ideas of the special theory of relativity [but
the conscientiously thoughtful physicist isn't taken in by it]."
Androcles.
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:fhl6t2-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| Were c' = c+v orbiting binaries such as Algol would look a *lot*
different. :-)
Algol is not a binary.
Two stars close enough to have a period of 70 hours would become a
supernova inside 5 minutes.
Sirius is a binary, but it has a 50 year period.
Hint: 88 days for Mercury, 225 days for Venus, 365 days for Earth,
12 years for Jupiter, 208 years for Pluto.
How long would Jupiter last if it orbited the Sun in three days?
Androcles.
At the Ryugyong Hotel
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124104385.00c7d0d3c971c8d7165a327897a20f5b@teranews...
>
> Can we not look upon any piece of glass such as a mirror or a lens
> as a speed-to-frequency transformer?
No, it is a passive device.
>
> This is why I think that:
> When light is emitted as c + v, when it hits glass the following happens:
>
> the atoms in the glass pass through the maxima and minima in the wave at
> c + v.
> They see a different frequency (higher if v positive).
> These atoms then emit new light, with the new frequency, in their
reference
> frame c + v' (v is the speed of the glass).
How is light emitted at c+v ? (it is your first assumption)
>
> So, Doppler to frequency sort of.
>
> I would like to here your views on this, I have heard about C is fixed.
> So no need to point that one out.
>
> In my view C is not fixed, and this transformation would explain some
> results of other experiments perhaps.
It is not a transformation, it is your first assumption.
tj Frazir
Evry photon falls into orbit and exchanges energy with the electron.
If te frequency is identical then not much of an energy exchange will
take place.
The lowest energy point is the oposit point of where the photon fell
into orbit.
The photon never changes speeds , only directions . a brand new photon
will be re-ejected as some of the energy of the electron changes
direction because it cant go faster.
IF THE PHOTON COULD CHANGE SPEED ,,,,,,,,,,IT could NEVER FALL INTO
ORBITS .
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:Ap3Me.541$Wq4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:fhl6t2-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> | Were c' = c+v orbiting binaries such as Algol would look a *lot*
> different. :-)
>
> Algol is not a binary.
> Two stars close enough to have a period of 70 hours would become a
> supernova inside 5 minutes.
Androcles, the Astrophysicist, Has Spoken.
Warning for Ghost: before you talk about Algol with Androcles,
please review some of
http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=UTF-8&q=author%3Aandrocles+algol&qt_s=Search
Look at the dates.
Never argue with Androcles - he will drag you dow to
his level and beat you with experience.
Dirk Vdm
Uncle Al
>
> I want to point to some thoughts I have on the matter:
>
> Can we not look upon any piece of glass such as a mirror or a lens
> as a speed-to-frequency transformer?
No. Refractive index does not affect frequency, only wavlength.
> This is why I think that:
> When light is emitted as c + v, when it hits glass the following happens:
[snip crap]
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4300E164...@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
Phuckwit.
Androcles
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
Androcles!
(my second worst swearword,
only "hanson" is worse)
w.
Androcles
"Helmut Wabnig" <EmailAddress> wrote in message
news:nor1g19pfv72un7t6...@4ax.com...
*plonk*
Androcles.
Uncle Al
>> Refractive index does not affect frequency, only wavlength.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:Cu7Me.5149$0u2....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
With Androcles this means: "There, from now on
I pretend that I cannot read your messages".
It means that he will continue reading them, but now
he cannot reply anymore without losing the last bit
of his face. I may have lost count, but he *plonked*
me at least 5 times ;-)
It makes life easy for you: you can say whatever
you want, and as long as he hasn't forgotten that
he plonked you, he simply can't defend himself.
This is how he creates hell for himself.
In his present state of mind and health in general,
you can expect 5 to 7 weeks before he won't be
able to resist responding again.
Dirk Vdm
hanson
HeilWut Wabnigger aka "Helmut Wabnig" barked in message
news:nor1g19pfv72un7t6...@4ax.com...
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote:
>>"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>>news:4300E164...@hate.spam.net...
>>[snip crap]
>>Phuckwit.
>>Androcles
>
> Androcles!
> (my second worst swearword,
> only "hanson" is worse)
>
.... for/to which.....
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:Cu7Me.5149$0u2....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Try this one on for size, [Wabnigger].
> *plonk*
> Androcles.
>
[hanson]
ahaha... AHAHAHA.... Yo, awe... awe... Wabniggie... awe.
You are really a very unfortunate dude, and so "stooopid"
as your urinAlian icon would call you, becuase you are
so angrily bent outa shape that about me that you have
become hinterfützig.... AHAHAHA.... since ever I have
made you walk into this one here:
> <Helmut Wabnig> bragged big time in his message
> news:gj2oc1lnkl6g6fdro...@4ax.com...
>> I am quite familiar with German obscenities.
>>
[hanson]
> ahahaha... yeah, yeah, yeah... you are one of them.
> Thanks for the laughs, schmuck!
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
[hanson]
... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... and now, poor Wabniggie you
have decided to become "hinterfützig" and elevate me to
the rank of your worst nightmare. But see what it got you:
You promptly walked into Androles' *plonk*... AHAHAHAHA
..... ahahaha... Androcles, thanks for the finesse and timing.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
PS: Wabniggie, hey you down there... is hanson's hook
still in your mouth?... Use it as a grapple hook (Enterbeil)
and try to climb up and out.... Good luck.
hanson
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:Cu7Me.5149$0u2....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Wabnigger who became "hinterfützig" & barked in message
news:nor1g19pfv72un7t6...@4ax.com...
>
[Androcles]
> | >"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> | >news:4300E164...@hate.spam.net...
> | >[snip crap]
> | >Phuckwit.
> | >Androcles
>
> | Androcles!
> | (my second worst swearword,
> | only "hanson" is worse)
> | w.
>
> Try this one on for size.
> *plonk*
> Androcles.
>
ahaha... AHAHAHA.... Yo, awe... awe... Wabniggie... awe.
You are really a very unfortunate dude, and so "stooopid"
so angrily bent outa shape that about me that you have
become hinterfützig.... AHAHAHA.... since ever I have
made you walk into this one here:
> <Helmut Wabnig> bragged big time in his message
> news:gj2oc1lnkl6g6fdro...@4ax.com...
>> I am quite familiar with German obscenities.
>>
[hanson]
> ahahaha... yeah, yeah, yeah... you are one of them.
> Thanks for the laughs, schmuck!
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
[hanson]
... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... and now, poor Wabniggie you
Androcles
[snip ignorance]
Phuckwit.
Androcles
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:KP9Me.6672$WD....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Androcles
The Ghost In The Machine
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:11:10 GMT
<2V4Me.170152$mn5.9...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
I'll note that Algol is actually a *ternary* star system,
with some interesting characteristics -- mostly because
the one star is hungry. I can't say I'm without error --
I once calculated that 1 kg of matter could be lifted into
space with 10 J of energy (though with zero velocity),
so obviously I futzed up there somewhere. But I do know
some algebra. :-)
It is interesting that
<5O587.32251$EP6.8...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
has not been responded to in alt.astronomy, despite it being
posted several weeks ago.
There are even better examples, of course -- though I'm having
a little trouble finding a list of X-ray binary sources
at the moment.
Jan Panteltje
<Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<Ap3Me.541$Wq4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
drocles.
>
I just found this, seems interesting:
http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau/fizeau.stm
No relativity needed.........
Anyways, I am a bit busy now, but have been looking up Algol last night,
but do not have the data I would like.
I am just trying to envision what it would look like in case c + v.
If that does not match that would indeed be a strong case against c + v.
But not until I have that data (one site with simulation was down too),
and do some math (...) here, can I comment on that.
Still the above link is nice.
I have some idea what one could see from 2 fast rotating light emitting
objects in c + v .. but this needs some work.
Actually it is only one thing, I just want to do an experiment to measure
OWLS as described in the other thread.
Problem is the high resolution needed, one could chop light from the sun
in the morning and in the evening, from equator....
Later, I think glass transforms speed c+v to c and then a new f and
wavelength emerge, Doppler!
Anyone know how to chop sunlight into picosecond wide bursts while nothing
in between (no glass etc) when shutter open?
Mechanically 1 ms to 100 us is all I can do I think....
Perhaps need at least a factor 10^9 better..... (100ps).
Please do not kill each other everybody... it is a too interesting subject
and I need that prize money hehe
Uncle Al
Res ipsa loquitur. (Hey stooopid Androcles - you've lost the game
again. Get a Project Head Start slum bunny to explain it to you.
Maybe a Darkie can start you out with doing The Threes.)
Jan Panteltje
<Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<Ap3Me.541$Wq4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
I just worked myself through this:
http://www.astro.uni-jena.de/Teaching/Praktikum/BV.pdf
Now this figures a lot with what I thought it could be, but
I am not convinced yet.
The lightcurves do not convince me at all it is what they say it is.
OK, I knew it was too simple, that pdf, here is more....
http://wonka.physics.ncsu.edu/~blondin/AAS/
click 'next', click 'next', and be amazed.
Simpler:
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/phys2080/binary/binaries.htm
More later...... :-)
What links do you have on that star system (and data) to make you say it
is no binary?
Jan Panteltje
<Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<Ap3Me.541$Wq4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
There are 2, first he shows c+v (he uses c+u) does not match what the expects:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm
Then he wants the error margin, and does some rather free reasoning?
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-2e.htm
I had enough for today ;-)
CU later
Androcles
Hey! Stoopid!
Let's see if you know any high school algebra.
Given:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Need a reference, phuckwit? No need, you've quoted it yourself before,
stoooopid.
Doubling both sides:
tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon:
tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Synchronize clocks at t = 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Taking coordinate x' as infinitessimally small, as he says,
you not quite realizing x' is both a coordinate and a distance,
he does that to differentiate, so we leave the distance alone,
dx/dt = x/t anyway with a constant velocity.
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v))
Removing the superflous coordinates, all zero:
tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x'/(c-v))
Setting the time a = x'/(c-v) and b =x'/(c+v) for clarity
tau(a+b) = 2*tau(a)
Renaming tau as f,
f(a+b) = 2f(a) or
篆(a+b) = f(a)
Now tell me that's a linear function, a > b.
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein.
In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles.
In the third place there are no coordinates to transform.
In the fourth place you've been had! (and not by me either)
Hahahahahahaha!!
Stoopid Schwartz is a phuckwit and she's been had!
Androcles.
tj Frazir
exchange .
But that photon will fall into orbit and exchange energy with the
electron .
The photon is not why light gets strait threw glass. The glass moles
are why they conduct some wavelengths .
Water conducts the wavelength atom to atom wile glass is mole to mole .
Air is clear and air conducts light faster than water but slower than
space.
As air conducts photons atom to atom , a bit of energy is lost evry
time it changed orbits .
Jan Panteltje
Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir) wrote in
<14958-430...@storefull-3217.bay.webtv.net>:
>The same frequancy photon to glass same frquency range ,,not much energy
>exchange .
> But that photon will fall into orbit and exchange energy with the
>electron .
> The photon is not why light gets strait threw glass. The glass moles
>are why they conduct some wavelengths .
> Water conducts the wavelength atom to atom wile glass is mole to mole .
> Air is clear
and shit is not.
Shit is transported as fast as clear text on Usenet.
And both close to C.
Einstein violated ... shit has mass, little energy was put is, Nobel
prize in < a trillion $.
Atlantic is deep, be careful.
pant...@yahoo.com
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> I'll note that Algol is actually a *ternary* star system,
> with some interesting characteristics -- mostly because
> the one star is hungry. I can't say I'm without error --
> I once calculated that 1 kg of matter could be lifted into
> space with 10 J of energy (though with zero velocity),
> so obviously I futzed up there somewhere. But I do know
> some algebra. :-)
>
> It is interesting that
>
> <5O587.32251$EP6.8...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
>
> has not been responded to in alt.astronomy, despite it being
> posted several weeks ago.
>
> There are even better examples, of course -- though I'm having
> a little trouble finding a list of X-ray binary sources
> at the moment.
That reference pops up nothing so I dunno what it is about.
But there is something more interesting going on,
after ready De Sitter's 1913 papers, and actually trying to understand
what
he suggests, I find some strange facts.
Here he uses a simple circle argument to show there will be asymmetry
in the observation I think:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm
Here he dismisses some evidence to the contrary (for c+v)
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-2e.htm
When we look in the consciousness of the times, for sure Einstein C
must be a big topic then, and taking over thinking, 'making it ' with
'proving' c+v is false would be a big thing, and little scrutiny would
be there (or even tolerated).
As for his reasoning: for OPTICAL cases where we can only see the
periodic
darkening by each other of the 2 stars, however obviously the ratio t1
/ t2
(fist half period versus second half period) will NOT change, as during
darkening the velocity of both starts towards us is the same, same 180
degrees later.
No I found in case of Algol we cannot even tell the 2 stars apart with
the best telescopes,
so how he got to see an asymmetry (if that is what he claims) is beyond
me.
It is a spectroscopic binary, and from the first moment somebody here
mentioned Algol as
'proof' c=v is false, I tried to make a picture what one would see +or
rather measure spectroscopically+.
And that is NOT so easy as a simple circle equation as De Sitter uses
(and
then also mentions v << c so throw it out, but OK).
Best modeling in my mind is that time events interchange (think
addition
of 2 sine waves, and you at any point t in time in the sum).
For sure that would require very precise and honest investigation of
the
spectra and precise time measurements (not throwing out things that 'do
not match what we should see).
I could not find this data, and I still have not (not going to spend
$$$$ for access to some catalog).
But then when I actually sort of felt -beyond my capabilities to kill
De Sitters 'proof' I found this (remember I am looking for some
stroboscopic
like double of multiple (I call it here 'mode') effect):
http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/mrichards/research/journey.html
Scroll down and look at the multiple (gas?) derived pictures from the
various binaries.
It seems UNNATURAL for a gas cloud.
It is EXACTLY what I expected to see if c+v
So now to show that the circumferential speed and distance work out to
the same multiple as observed.
Call me wrong, I may well be wrong, I will retract this and admit it,
but for now I killed that fly.
Later (other things need doing) I wil try to do some math on this.
Not a 10 minute job really...
c+v, the old Jew fooled you all.
Androcles
| On a sunny day (Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:29:20 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
| <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
| <Ap3Me.541$Wq4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
|
| >
| >"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
| >message news:fhl6t2-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| >| Were c' = c+v orbiting binaries such as Algol would look a *lot*
| >different. :-)
| >
| >Algol is not a binary.
| >Two stars close enough to have a period of 70 hours would become a
| >supernova inside 5 minutes.
| >
| >Sirius is a binary, but it has a 50 year period.
| >
| >Hint: 88 days for Mercury, 225 days for Venus, 365 days for Earth,
| >12 years for Jupiter, 208 years for Pluto.
| >How long would Jupiter last if it orbited the Sun in three days?
| >
| drocles.
| >
| I just found this, seems interesting:
| http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau/fizeau.stm
| No relativity needed.........
|
| Anyways, I am a bit busy now, but have been looking up Algol last
night,
| but do not have the data I would like.
| I am just trying to envision what it would look like in case c + v.
It looks exactly like it does.
1) a drop in magnitude, not a cutoff as you'd expect from an eclipse.
2) the drop lasts for 10 hours of the 70 hour period, placing an upper
limit on the separation of the supposed two stars of
10/70 * 360 degrees = 52 degrees, half of that is 26 degrees, 2/sin(26)
=
4.56 the maximum separation is 4.56 * the radius of the larger star.
To get an approximate idea of what I saying, place two coins with a
third
larger one between them in a straight lin on your desk or table top,
touching,
and remove the larger coin in the centre.
Lower your head to table top level and sight one coin eclipsing the
other
Determine how far you must move your head to maintain an eclipse.
place a pin midway between the coins representing a point sized star,
and again look.
Remember that these are two balls of gas, and imagine our own moon
being that close, and what it would do to the tides.
The c+v model has been accurately done by computer, by both Henri
Wilson and myself, and reproduces the exact luminosity curve of Algol.
You are welcome to a copy of the programs, Henri's is on his website,
I can email mine.
| If that does not match that would indeed be a strong case against c +
v.
There is no strong case against c+v, the curve matches.
I've even matched this, but Henri has not:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
| But not until I have that data (one site with simulation was down
too),
| and do some math (...) here, can I comment on that.
void Orbit()
{
double time;
double Angle,A = 0;
double x,y,z,old_x,delta_x,v,D,EinsteinTime, GalileoTime,Doppler,line,
c_dash, count;
long i,j,k, step, arrive;
char s[80];
double Frequency;
RECT Rect;
HDC hDC;
BOOL flag;
ClearArrays(); // empty out previous data.
CosPitch = cos(pitch); //precompute to save time
SinPitch = sin(pitch);
CosYaw = cos(yaw);
SinYaw = sin(yaw);
CosRoll = cos(roll);
SinRoll = sin(roll);
SemiMinorAxis = SemiMajorAxis * sqrt(1.0 - eccentricity*eccentricity);
MajorAxis = 2.0*SemiMajorAxis;
interval = Period/iterations;
GetClientRect(hWnd,&Rect);
hDC= GetDC(hWnd);
FillRect(hDC, &Rect, GetStockObject(BLACK_BRUSH));
ReleaseDC(hWnd, hDC);
out_of_range = FALSE;
Angle = 0;
x = SemiMajorAxis;
y = 0;
z = 0;
Rotate(&x,&y,&z);
old_x = x; // initial value
for(k=0;k<2;k++)
{
step = iterations/ARRAYSIZE; // the "distance" between
points saved
for(i = 0,count=0.0;i<iterations; i++, count=i*ARRAYSIZE/iterations) //
set up one period in increments
{
time = Period *(double)i/(double)iterations;
Angle = Kepler((double)i/(double)iterations*2.0*PI); // get one
position of the ellipse
x = SemiMajorAxis*cos(Angle); // compute as x and y.
y = SemiMinorAxis*sin(Angle);
z = 0;
Rotate(&x,&y,&z); // pitch and yaw the ellipse
delta_x = old_x-x; // distance source move toward observer
old_x = x; // save for next computation
v=delta_x/interval; // speed source moves toward observer
if(!out_of_range)
if ((v > 3000) || (v< -3000))
{
sprintf(s,"Parameters give an improbable velocity of%6.0lf
Km/sec. This may result in a long computation time",v);
flag = MessageBox(hWnd,s," Velocity out of range",
MB_OKCANCEL);
if(flag == 1) out_of_range = TRUE;
else return;
}
D = Distance+x; // Distance to observer
EinsteinTime = D/c;
GalileoTime = D/(c+v); // Time it takes light to reach
observer
if(Androcles)
{
Phase = (EinsteinTime-GalileoTime + time)/Period;
}
else Phase = time/Period;
arrive = (int)((Phase)*(double)ARRAYSIZE);
ArrivalTime[(long)count] = arrive+ARRAYSIZE/3;
while (Phase<0.0) Phase+=1.0;
while (Phase>=1.0) Phase-=1.0;
//don't arrive before we leave
arrive = (int)((Phase)*(double)ARRAYSIZE);
LightCurveArray[arrive]++;// Drop a "photon" into the indexed
array, not in any order
if(i%step == 0) // index1 goes from 0 to iterations, count from 0 to
ARRAYSIZE
{
EllipseX[(long)count] = x;
EllipseY[(long)count] = y;
EllipseZ[(long)count] = z;
Velocity[(long)count] = v;
if(MoveSystem(x,y,z)) return; // request to halt processing recieved
}
if(k==0) // only on the first pass
{
if(magnify > 1.0) // artificially make c smaller to
exaggerate Doppler
{
c_dash = c/(magnify); // arbitrary
if(Androcles) Doppler =(c_dash-v)/c_dash;
else if(Einstein) Doppler =
sqrt((1.0+v/c_dash)/(1.0-v/c_dash));
else Doppler = c_dash/(c_dash-v); //Lorentz aether;
}
else
{
if(Androcles) Doppler =(c-v)/c;
else if(Einstein) Doppler = sqrt((1.0+v/c)/(1.0-v/c));
else Doppler = (c)/(c-v); //Lorentz aether;
}
//now populate the visible Spectrum array from 0-255 with bytes
proportional to Doppler shift
for(j=0;j<10;j++)
{
if(arrive/4>ARRAYSIZE/4-10)
{
//line = (246.0 - 10.0)*line/(750.0-400.0)-246.0; //scaled to
pixels,256 to 0
line = (246.0 - 10.0)*line/(750.0-400.0)-246.0; //scaled to
pixels,256 to 0
line = 255.0-line;
}
else
{
Frequency = Doppler * c/series[j]; // series is wavelength
line = c/Frequency; // back to wavelength
line = (246.0 - 10.0)*line/(750.0-400.0)-246.0; //scaled to
pixels,256 to 0
line = 255.0-line;
}
if(line > 0.0 && line <256.0)
Spectrum[arrive/4][(int)line]= (BYTE)TRUE;
}
}// end first pass, k = 0
} //end for(i... loop
} // end for(k.... loop
Magnitude();
FilterCurve();
}
| Still the above link is nice.
| I have some idea what one could see from 2 fast rotating light
emitting
| objects in c + v .. but this needs some work.
| Actually it is only one thing, I just want to do an experiment to
measure
| OWLS as described in the other thread.
| Problem is the high resolution needed, one could chop light from the
sun
| in the morning and in the evening, from equator....
| Later, I think glass transforms speed c+v to c and then a new f and
| wavelength emerge, Doppler!
| Anyone know how to chop sunlight into picosecond wide bursts while
nothing
| in between (no glass etc) when shutter open?
| Mechanically 1 ms to 100 us is all I can do I think....
| Perhaps need at least a factor 10^9 better..... (100ps).
|
| Please do not kill each other everybody... it is a too interesting
subject
| and I need that prize money hehe
Create another program. Find another planet. Those orbiting
delta-Cepheus
and beta-Perseus are mine, I discovered them first. They are both called
"Androcles".
You may get a prize.
Androcles.
Androcles
| On a sunny day (Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:29:20 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
| <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
| <Ap3Me.541$Wq4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
|
| I just worked myself through this:
| http://www.astro.uni-jena.de/Teaching/Praktikum/BV.pdf
|
| Now this figures a lot with what I thought it could be, but
| I am not convinced yet.
| The lightcurves do not convince me at all it is what they say it is.
|
| OK, I knew it was too simple, that pdf, here is more....
| http://wonka.physics.ncsu.edu/~blondin/AAS/
| click 'next', click 'next', and be amazed.
The algol paradox is that two stars instead of a star and planet are
assumed.
|
| Simpler:
| http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/phys2080/binary/binaries.htm
|
| More later...... :-)
| What links do you have on that star system (and data) to make you say
it
| is no binary?
None. It is my own calculation.
Androcles
Jan Panteltje
<Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<20aNe.801$5m3...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>void Orbit()
>{
>}
OK thank you for the source code.
What system (library and header files) where used, I get a lot of unknown
defines and functions).
I think De Sitter's argument is dead on all sides, if not even scientific
fraud, as he throws out evidence to the contrary.
See also my other posting from yesterday about c+v.
It is very possible Einstein just build his whole thing on MM and that
did not show a thing to start with... That would be very funny :-)
Androcles
| On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:49:02 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
| <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
| <20aNe.801$5m3...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
|
| >void Orbit()
| >{
| >}
|
| OK thank you for the source code.
| What system (library and header files) where used, I get a lot of
unknown
| defines and functions).
Unfortunately I've lost them. They may still lurk on an old hard disk I
have,
but I doubt it.
#define c 299.......... whatever the books or NIST say it is,
#define PI 3.14159265
#define ARRAYSIZE 1024 (or whatever screensize you want),
#define AU (however many meters an Astronomical Unit is)
all the usual stuff.
I don't keep much data in my head when I can look it up.
Some people memorize things like the periodic table, then their
thinking is baulked like Alan Schwartz.
| I think De Sitter's argument is dead on all sides, if not even
scientific
| fraud, as he throws out evidence to the contrary.
| See also my other posting from yesterday about c+v.
|
| It is very possible Einstein just build his whole thing on MM and that
| did not show a thing to start with... That would be very funny :-)
He read "Time Machine" by H.G.Wells as a teenager, it was a current best
seller.
He became a clerk in the Swiss Patent office, saw many patent
applications for cuckoo clocks, the main indusrty of Switzerland at the
time.
Not too many patents for chocolate or cheese were needed.
He got a hard-on for time.
This is a copy/paste, don't take my comments personally, they were
intended for another.
On the court docket, Science v Einstein.
Prosecution opens:
Good Afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.
Please reference: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The first transformation we are given is the Galilean,
x' = x-vt
y = y
z = z
t = t
You have to agree with that, Einstein states:
"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."
We have completed the transform from the stationary system, K, to the
moving system
which I'm going to name k' because Einstein doesn't give it a name.
You'll see why shortly.
For all x in K, x' in k', (x',y,z,t) = g(x,y,z,t).
You cannot possible disagree with that, you can only object to my choice
of name.
It is clear, so ist klar, in agreement with experience, and because
Einstein says so, a point at rest in system k' is independent of time.
We have now completed the transformation from K to k', the function g,
and can place K on the back burner.
You cannot possibly disagree with that. (I know of one dumb relativist
that does...he insists the system of coordinates k' doesn't exist. Such
is the mentality I deal with here.)
Now we come to Einstein's transformation.
Not Lorentz's, not Galileo's, but Einstein's.
For all x in k', xi in kappa, (xi, eta,zeta,tau) = cuckoo(x',y,z,t)
You can now begin disagreeing out of pure phuckwittery.
We have a transformation from the moving system k' to the
moving system kappa.
Einstein would have you believe that
tau = cuckoo_tau(g(x,y,z,t))
xi = cuckoo_xi(g(x,y,z,t))
is called the "Lorentz transformation".
I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
the only purpose to the function cuckoo_tau is to satisfy Einstein's
fraudulent whim,
"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."
As Counsel for the Physicists, I rest my case.
As Counsel for the Mathematicians, we have yet to prove that cuckoo_tau
is not a linear function.
But I did that already, so I'll repeat it with additional comment for
the incompetent.
Here it is algebraically:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
(given)
Doubling both sides:
tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon:
tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Synchronize clocks at t = 0, tau(0,0,0,0) = 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Taking coordinate x' as infinitessimally small, as Einstein says,
you not quite realizing x' is both a coordinate and a distance,
he does that to differentiate, so we leave the distance alone,
dx/dt = x/t anyway with a constant velocity.
But wait!
WHY is coordinate x' zero, other than the reason I'd given?
Very simple. There is no relative motion between k' and kappa,
the coordinate x' is independent of time. We do not have
xi = x'-ut or x' = x'+ut or any other function xi = fuckup(x') for
Lorentz's
sake, there is no u, v, w or velocity between system k'
and system kappa. The time at zero is the same time at x', same at
xi; no translation between frames, this is the moving frame only, the
stationary frame K is simmering on the back burner.
Hence:
tau(0,0,0, x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v))
Removing the superfluous coordinates, all zero:
tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x'/(c-v))
Setting the time a = x'/(c-v) and b =x'/(c+v) for clarity:
tau(a+b) = 2*tau(a)
Renaming tau as f,
f(a+b) = 2f(a) or
½f(a+b) = f(a)
Now tell me that's a linear function, a > b, we have
½f(1+0) = f(1)
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein.
In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles.
In the third place there are no coordinates to transform.
In the fourth place you've been had! (and not by me either)
I ask the jury to convict Einstein on the charge of fraud.
Prosecution reserves the right to cross-examine the witnesses.
I now rest my case as a mathematician also.
Androcles whispers to his learned colleague, Jan Panteltje,
"I'd enter him an insanity plea if I were you, he's going down".
Counsel for the defence has the floor.
Androcles.