Closing Speed of Light? What about 'Departing Speed'?
Henri Wilson
at speeds other than c.
What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
If a photon leaves source at c relative to the source, what departing speed
does a third observer ascribe to it?
If two relatively moving sources emit photons in a particular direction, what
departing speeds does the third observer assign to them....wrt either source?
____________
No silly answers please.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Bill Hobba
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:d16hi1hqdj633fshj...@4ax.com...
> Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light approaching
> objects
> at speeds other than c.
>
It is purely a definitional thing.
> What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
>
> If a photon leaves source at c relative to the source, what departing
> speed
> does a third observer ascribe to it?
The speed relative to the source obviously depends on the speed of the
source.
>
> If two relatively moving sources emit photons in a particular direction,
> what
> departing speeds does the third observer assign to them....wrt either
> source?
>
That depends on the speed of the sources - obviously.
Bill
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:d16hi1hqdj633fshj...@4ax.com...
> at speeds other than c.
With a few notable exceptions everyone in the world agrees
that a third party observer can perceive the distance between
light signals and/or objects to shrink or grow at time-rates
between 0 and 2c.
Usually this is called
- closing speed between... , or
- relative speed between... as seen by a third party.
> What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
One could decide to reseve "closing speed" for the time rate
of shrinking of the distance between light signals and/or objects,
and "opening speed" for the time rate of growing of the distance
>
> If a photon
forget photons. Take light signals - photons are more complicated.
> leaves source at c relative to the source, what departing speed
> does a third observer ascribe to it?
As you well know, c+v or c-v, depending on the directions.
>
> If two relatively moving sources emit photons in a particular direction, what
> departing speeds does the third observer assign to them....wrt either source?
Everyone, including the third observer, would agree that
an observer riding with the source, measures every signal
to have speed c w.r.t. himself.
As ssen by the thitd party, depending on what you mean
with "a particular direction", the "closing" or "opening"
speeds between either source and either signal could be
c+v, c-v, c+u or c-u. Between the sources u+v or |u-v|.
Between the signals 0 or 2c.
> ____________
>
> No silly answers please.
I'm sure you will find them utterly silly.
But that is your problem.
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:d16hi1hqdj633fshj...@4ax.com...
>> Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light approaching
>> objects
>> at speeds other than c.
>>
>
>It is purely a definitional thing.
>
>> What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
>>
>> If a photon leaves source at c relative to the source, what departing
>> speed
>> does a third observer ascribe to it?
>
>The speed relative to the source obviously depends on the speed of the
>source.
>
>>
>> If two relatively moving sources emit photons in a particular direction,
>> what
>> departing speeds does the third observer assign to them....wrt either
>> source?
>>
>
>That depends on the speed of the sources - obviously.
>
>Bill
Look folks!
Bill has finally taken up LET.
Henri Wilson
Thank you Dinky.
You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the main cause of star
brightness variation.
You aren't totally useless after all!
YBM
> Thank you Dinky.
>
> You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the main cause of star
> brightness variation.
> You aren't totally useless after all!
You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry, algebra
and physics (not speaking about common sense).
How do you feel now ?
The Ghost In The Machine
<H@>
wrote
on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:43:32 GMT
<d16hi1hqdj633fshj...@4ax.com>:
> Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light approaching objects
> at speeds other than c.
> What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
temperature is at absolute zero.
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Dirk Van de moortel
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message news:432a312e$0$14358$636a...@news.free.fr...
Most Village Idiots feel fine - whatever you throw at them.
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
><H@>
> wrote
>on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:43:32 GMT
><d16hi1hqdj633fshj...@4ax.com>:
>> Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light approaching objects
>> at speeds other than c.
>> What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
>
>SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
>lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
>temperature is at absolute zero.
You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
>
>[rest snipped]
Henri Wilson
Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not c.
Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that are also not c.
Even Dinky seems to agree.
The Ghost In The Machine
<H@>
wrote
<qqkmi11oknpog8l34...@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
>><H@>
>> wrote
>>on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:43:32 GMT
>><d16hi1hqdj633fshj...@4ax.com>:
>>> Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light approaching objects
>>> at speeds other than c.
>>> What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
>>
>>SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
>>lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
>>temperature is at absolute zero.
>
> You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
> Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
And you are slightly clueless. Has it occurred to you *why* I
state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?
The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
of kinetic molecular theory.
As for sci-fi, I've written some. I can't say it's good and it's
certainly unpublished, but it's on my Website. :-P
The Ghost In The Machine
<H@>
wrote
<kvkmi19gflc4gqli3...@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote :
>>> Thank you Dinky.
>>>
>>> You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the main cause of star
>>> brightness variation.
>>> You aren't totally useless after all!
>>
>>You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry, algebra
>>and physics (not speaking about common sense).
>>
>>How do you feel now ?
>
> Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not c.
>
> Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that are also not c.
Entirely possible and easy, in fact.
C
<==v A*---------> c B
O
Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.
A stationary lightsource right next to C of a different color
is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed. Since
none of the equipment is moving O can easily calibrate
his equipment.
What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:h4esv2-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| <H@>
| wrote
| on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:21:44 GMT
| <qqkmi11oknpog8l34...@4ax.com>:
| > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
| > <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
| >
| >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| >><H@>
| >> wrote
| >>on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:43:32 GMT
| >><d16hi1hqdj633fshj...@4ax.com>:
| >>> Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light
approaching objects
| >>> at speeds other than c.
| >>> What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
| >>
| >>SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
| >>lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
| >>temperature is at absolute zero.
| >
| > You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
| > Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
|
| And you are slightly clueless.
LOL! Coming from you that's a laugh.
| Has it occurred to you *why* I
| state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
| from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?
Who can fathom how someone else's mind works? Why WOULD you state
something so stupid?
| The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| of kinetic molecular theory.
Oh, we are supposed to guess now, it being "obvious"...
My guess would be that you are phuckwit.
Androcles.
Androcles
Stationary with respect to what?
| A stationary lightsource
Stationary with respect to what?
right next to C of a different color
| is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
| both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
|
| O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
| from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
| the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.
lightspeed with respect to what?
Since
| none of the equipment is moving
Moving with respect to what?
|O can easily calibrate
| his equipment.
|
| What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
| lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.
Yep. Quite right. So how come you are an atheist SRian?
Is it because you believe in an absolutely stationary space
for your mirrors B and C to be stationary in?
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote
on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:32:55 GMT
<HEPWe.39095$k22....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
I would have thought it was. Perhaps I thought wrong.
An atom or perhaps a molecule (if the star is cool enough)
emits a light photon. Coming from the atom, it's obviously
coming out at speed c. The problem is that the atom or
molecule is also moving.
>
> My guess would be that you are phuckwit.
> Androcles.
>
I do have a question for you regarding lightemission from a star.
What is the speed of light from the star? What, precisely,
is emitting the light?
The Ghost In The Machine
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote
<KOPWe.39096$k22....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
O.
>
>
>
> | A stationary lightsource
>
> Stationary with respect to what?
>
>
> right next to C of a different color
> | is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
> | both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
> |
> | O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
> | from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
> | the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.
>
> lightspeed with respect to what?
O.
>
>
> Since
> | none of the equipment is moving
>
> Moving with respect to what?
O.
>
>
> |O can easily calibrate
> | his equipment.
> |
> | What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
> | lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.
>
> Yep. Quite right. So how come you are an atheist SRian?
> Is it because you believe in an absolutely stationary space
> for your mirrors B and C to be stationary in?
Correct, as far as this problem is concerned. If O is moving
with respect to the luminiferous aether the results would
be quite different.
>
> Androcles.
Androcles
That's not a problem, that's a continous spectrum. Gases
emit discrete frequencies in the lab.
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/spectroscope/amici.html
There is some overexposure in the images, I asked Ioannis
about that.
|
| >
| > My guess would be that you are phuckwit.
| > Androcles.
| >
|
| I do have a question for you regarding lightemission from a star.
|
| What is the speed of light from the star? What, precisely,
| is emitting the light?
The atoms or ions, even some molecules. Each atom will emit
light at c relative to itself, c+v relative to you,
a lot of randomly moving atoms will produce a lot of random shift,
that will produce a continuous spectrum, the cooler outer layers
that are moving more slowly will absorb at a characteristic wavelength,
that will be shifted by the motion of the star as a whole.
You can see the slower moving atoms in a cooler star, it has less
spread of the shift.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html
Androcles
Androcles
with him? Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to O
and everything else, or if A jumped off the paper and got
left behind at the bus stop.
| > | A stationary lightsource
| >
| > Stationary with respect to what?
NO ANSWER?
| >
| > right next to C of a different color
| > | is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
| > | both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
| > |
| > | O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
| > | from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
| > | the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.
| >
| > lightspeed with respect to what?
|
| O.
Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to lightspeed
and everything else, or if lightspeed jumped off the paper and got
left behind at the bus stop.
|
| >
| >
| > Since
| > | none of the equipment is moving
| >
| > Moving with respect to what?
|
| O.
Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
now all the equipment is moving. Does it still work?
| >
| >
| > |O can easily calibrate
| > | his equipment.
| > |
| > | What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
| > | lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.
| >
| > Yep. Quite right. So how come you are an atheist SRian?
| > Is it because you believe in an absolutely stationary space
| > for your mirrors B and C to be stationary in?
|
| Correct, as far as this problem is concerned. If O is moving
| with respect to the luminiferous aether the results would
| be quite different.
Let me know when all your markings jump off the
diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
different result.
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote
<Y66Xe.1302$Rv1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
O is moving on a bus somewhere in Europe, running round a traffic
circle. The traffic circle is securely attached to a point on
the Earth. The Earth is rotating at a speed of approximately
72.722 microradians/second. The Earth is also revolving around
the Sun at a speed of about 199.1 nanoradians per second. The
Sun's velocity around the galactic Core is unknown; the
galactic velocity relative to the Local Group is unknown; the
Local Group is moving with respect to... somebody.
Yet the light source is also rigidly attached to the bus, and
is therefore stationary with respect to O.
>
> | > | A stationary lightsource
> | >
> | > Stationary with respect to what?
>
> NO ANSWER?
O, of course, given the conditions above.
>
>
>
> | >
> | > right next to C of a different color
> | > | is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
> | > | both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
> | > |
> | > | O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
> | > | from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
> | > | the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.
> | >
> | > lightspeed with respect to what?
> |
> | O.
>
> Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
> let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to lightspeed
> and everything else, or if lightspeed jumped off the paper and got
> left behind at the bus stop.
>
>
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > Since
> | > | none of the equipment is moving
> | >
> | > Moving with respect to what?
> |
> | O.
>
>
> Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
> now all the equipment is moving. Does it still work?
No, it does not. (Sagnac's Effect.)
>
> | >
> | >
> | > |O can easily calibrate
> | > | his equipment.
> | > |
> | > | What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
> | > | lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.
> | >
> | > Yep. Quite right. So how come you are an atheist SRian?
> | > Is it because you believe in an absolutely stationary space
> | > for your mirrors B and C to be stationary in?
> |
> | Correct, as far as this problem is concerned. If O is moving
> | with respect to the luminiferous aether the results would
> | be quite different.
>
> Let me know when all your markings jump off the
> diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
> different result.
> Androcles.
>
Henri Wilson
Very good Ghost.......
..and that is the REAL speed between the light pulse and A.
.....but this is still 'closing speed', Ghost.
Modify your experiment a little. Make A the source.
Question: what is the 'departing speed' of A's pulse wrt C?
>
>[rest snipped]
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
><H@>
> wrote
>on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:21:44 GMT
><qqkmi11oknpog8l34...@4ax.com>:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light approaching objects
>>>> at speeds other than c.
>>>> What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
>>>
>>>SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
>>>lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
>>>temperature is at absolute zero.
>>
>> You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
>> Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
>
>And you are slightly clueless. Has it occurred to you *why* I
>state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
>from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?
Sorry, Ghost, I underestimated your intentions there.
The ballistic theory basically says that light is emitted at c from each moving
molecule.
As you know, starlight emission spectral lines are broadened because of thermal
speeds. That also fits the theory. THe R$MS speeds of H in O type stars is
around 10000 m/sec which is unimaginably fast...0.000033c in fact.
I have already provided an example of this in my variable star program. The
user can plug in an approximate random distribution of molecular speeds and see
how a brightness curve might be affected. I have used only one value for the
mean... about 900m/sec (in the observer direction).
Its inclusion makes a considerable difference to brightness curves, in
particular to the distances at which a certain change will occur.
I haven't looked closely at this but it is important.
One must consider the possibility that the speeds of different photons are
somehow unified by gases surrounding the star. ...so it all ends up leaving at
around c wrt the star centre.
>The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
>of kinetic molecular theory.
Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this before.
>As for sci-fi, I've written some. I can't say it's good and it's
>certainly unpublished, but it's on my Website. :-P
There's an awful lot on this NG. Not necessarily yours.
Henri Wilson
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>message news:h4esv2-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
>| <H@>
>| > You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
>| > Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
>|
>| And you are slightly clueless.
>
>LOL! Coming from you that's a laugh.
>
>
>| Has it occurred to you *why* I
>| state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
>| from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?
>
>Who can fathom how someone else's mind works? Why WOULD you state
>something so stupid?
>
>| The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
>| of kinetic molecular theory.
>
>Oh, we are supposed to guess now, it being "obvious"...
>
>My guess would be that you are phuckwit.
don't be too hard on him A. His question was quite legitimate and important..
I think we both misunderestood what he was getting at.
>Androcles.
Androcles
Ok.
|
| >
| > | > | A stationary lightsource
| > | >
| > | > Stationary with respect to what?
| >
| > NO ANSWER?
|
| O, of course, given the conditions above.
Thank you.
| > | > right next to C of a different color
| > | > | is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
| > | > | both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
| > | > |
| > | > | O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
| > | > | from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
| > | > | the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.
| > | >
| > | > lightspeed with respect to what?
| > |
| > | O.
| >
| > Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| > let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to lightspeed
| > and everything else, or if lightspeed jumped off the paper and got
| > left behind at the bus stop.
| >
NO ANSWER?
O, of course, given the conditions above.
Thank you. The speed of light is therefore proven source
dependent, in contradiction to the phuckwit Einstein's second
postulate, "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body".
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Since
| > | > | none of the equipment is moving
| > | >
| > | > Moving with respect to what?
| > |
| > | O.
| >
| >
| > Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| > now all the equipment is moving. Does it still work?
|
| No, it does not. (Sagnac's Effect.)
Sagnac makes the marks on your diagram leap off?
Ride a carousel and look at the diagram as you bounce up
and down on a wooden horse. Are you sure your diagram
is no longer valid?
Try this experiment:
Sit on the wooden horse, face straight forward. Do not turn
your head. Hold a toilet roll core to your eye, close the other eye.
Look through the toilet roll core. Does the world move?
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws
a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the
other of these bodies is in motion."--Albert's opening paragraph that he
quickly forgot about.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
What is the CUSTOMARY view, and what is the observable phenomena?
You can do this without a carousel, assuming you have normal vision
while sitting at home in a comfy armchair.
Place your forefinger against the lid of your eye and keeping both eyes
open, gently push your eyeball to the side. You will see two worlds.
It's called seeing double. Don't worry about it, you are fucking
with your own brain and it needs a jolt in the gedanken department,
there are not two worlds.
The *customary* view of Sagnac is to watch the carousel rotate.
Relativity of the REAL kind, Galilean, is to view the phenomenon
while riding the carousel. Your MMX experiment on board the
carousel will not produce a fringe shift for you, but it will (and DOES)
produce a fringe shift for me standing off and watching you ride
your wooden horse, becasue that IS the Sagnac effect.
According to the phuckwit Einstein this will make MY watch
slow down, so if you want to outlive your friends go and watch
a carousel, my atheist SRian and phuckwit friend, I'm doing you
a favour and helping you live longer by giving you phuckwit
advice.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
Look closely then. I have.
|
| >The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| >of kinetic molecular theory.
|
| Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this before.
The answer IS obvious.
1) A cool gas will produce spectral emission lines.
2) A hot gas will produce shifted spectral emission lines.
3) Shifted lines (both blue and red-shifted) lay side-by-side.
4) Lines side-by-side produce a continuous spectrum.
5) Ghost is a nitwit, but seems to be educable up to dimwit.
6) Henri is a dimwit, but seems to be educable up to halfwit.
7) Andersen and moortel are phuckwits, will never make it to nitwit
but Andersen is a self-confessed tusselad (Norwegian troll) and
it is clear moortel is also.
8) Alan Schwartz is an ineducable double-phuckwit troll.
|
| >As for sci-fi, I've written some. I can't say it's good and it's
| >certainly unpublished, but it's on my Website. :-P
|
| There's an awful lot on this NG. Not necessarily yours.
There is an awful lot throughout the world and history, starting with
earth, air, fire and water as elements, proceeding to Ptolemy's
epicycles, then John Goodricke's binary eclipses, Maxwell's aether,
Einstein's cuckoo time, all of which were believed by phuckwits,
nitwits, dimwits and halfwits. The father of science was Galileo,
the mathematician Euclid and the true Naturalist was Newton,
contributions gratefully accepted from Copernicus, Kepler,
Michelson et al., da Vinci was an engineer and artist.
Phuckwits and trolls outnumber the halfwit "I have a theory,
I want you to accept it" brigade of Gaasenbeek and Wilson
types who wouldn't know what a Seyfert galaxy or dwarf
cepheid was, one inventing helical waves and the other fairy dust.
I don't advance any theories, only suggestions based on the
proven worth of the real genii on whose shoulders I stand
to see as far as I can, and I've seen planets that no other
has seen before me. I do not call them Wilson cool heavies
or Gaasenbeek waves, I call them planets, and neither do
I call the vector addition of velocities a bat, I am not an
egotistical halfwit looking for praise.
Climb on my shoulders instead of my knees, look out
and gaze with wonder at the universe as it really is, not
at the universe you would invent.
Androcles.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:32:55 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
wrote:
|
| >
| >"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
| >message news:h4esv2-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| >| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| >| <H@>
|
| >| > You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
| >| > Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
| >|
| >| And you are slightly clueless.
| >
| >LOL! Coming from you that's a laugh.
| >
| >
| >| Has it occurred to you *why* I
| >| state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
| >| from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?
| >
| >Who can fathom how someone else's mind works? Why WOULD you state
| >something so stupid?
| >
| >| The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| >| of kinetic molecular theory.
| >
| >Oh, we are supposed to guess now, it being "obvious"...
| >
| >My guess would be that you are phuckwit.
|
| don't be too hard on him A. His question was quite legitimate and
important..
|
| I think we both misunderestood what he was getting at.
Ok, so he's not a phuckwit, he's nitwit. He might make it to dimwit or
even halfwit in 20 years or so. If we haven't taught him to think by
then
it's too late, we'll be dead or senile and who will carry on the
teaching?
The world is already plunged into the black hole of ignorance,
there is not enough time left to dig it all out ourselves, better to say
fuck it, cave the sides in and bury it whole rather than be hard on
poor Ghost.
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote
<ALcXe.41604$k22....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Yes, the light describes a curve in the accelerated reference frame.
SR is no longer valid in this frame.
> Try this experiment:
> Sit on the wooden horse, face straight forward. Do not turn
> your head. Hold a toilet roll core to your eye, close the other eye.
> Look through the toilet roll core. Does the world move?
Depends on how the carousel is moving relative to the world (or,
if you prefer, how the world is moving relative to the carousel).
>
> "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
> a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
> motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws
> a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the
> other of these bodies is in motion."--Albert's opening paragraph that he
> quickly forgot about.
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Totally wrong, it turns out. If the magnet is moving in an inertial
reference frame, that's one thing, but a spinning magnet introduces
additional effects.
It is also not clear whether the velocity of A relative to B (as
measured by A) is the same as the velocity of B relative to A
(as measured by B). This is a fundamental flaw of SRian relativity,
which is fixable but requires quite a bit of work to express properly.
>
>
> What is the CUSTOMARY view, and what is the observable phenomena?
The customary view is the view according to custom. Earth is
treated as an inertial reference frame; a ball thrown from a
carousel is observed *from the carousel* as traversing a curved
path -- but that's because the carousel itself is rotating. (Of
course it describes a curved path even in the Earth rest frame,
but that's because of gravity. Nothing horribly mysterious
about that.)
>
> You can do this without a carousel, assuming you have normal vision
> while sitting at home in a comfy armchair.
> Place your forefinger against the lid of your eye and keeping both eyes
> open, gently push your eyeball to the side. You will see two worlds.
> It's called seeing double. Don't worry about it, you are fucking
> with your own brain and it needs a jolt in the gedanken department,
> there are not two worlds.
> The *customary* view of Sagnac is to watch the carousel rotate.
> Relativity of the REAL kind, Galilean, is to view the phenomenon
> while riding the carousel. Your MMX experiment on board the
> carousel will not produce a fringe shift for you, but it will (and DOES)
> produce a fringe shift for me standing off and watching you ride
> your wooden horse, becasue that IS the Sagnac effect.
Actually, it should produce a fringe shift for me as well.
> According to the phuckwit Einstein this will make MY watch
> slow down, so if you want to outlive your friends go and watch
> a carousel, my atheist SRian and phuckwit friend, I'm doing you
> a favour and helping you live longer by giving you phuckwit
> advice.
The main problem with this advice is that in order for me to
gain any significant time savings on a carousel I'd have to
be squished by centripetal force to a bloody pulp.
>
>
> Let me know when all your markings jump off the
> diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
> different result.
The markings went to Venice for vacation a long time ago.
The bus is stopped somewhere in the yard for maintenance.
The Ghost In The Machine
<H@>
wrote
<vkcqi1p2lcva2rrft...@4ax.com>:
No, it's real speed. You just said so.
>
> Modify your experiment a little. Make A the source.
If A is the source, then the speed of light becomes c-v+adj,
where adj is a temperature-dependent randomization factor.
>
> Question: what is the 'departing speed' of A's pulse wrt C?
I'm not sure this question makes sense as stated; are you asking:
[1] what C measures as the departing speed of the lightpulse
originating at A, and A?
[2] what C measures as the departing speed of the lightpulse
originating at A, and C?
>
>>
>>[rest snipped]
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles
SR isn't valid in ANY frame on earth, we are all accelerated by gravity.
Call CERN and let them know they have the wrong frequency,
it is now YOUR responsibility, my atheist SRian chum(p).
| > Try this experiment:
| > Sit on the wooden horse, face straight forward. Do not turn
| > your head. Hold a toilet roll core to your eye, close the other eye.
| > Look through the toilet roll core. Does the world move?
|
| Depends on how the carousel is moving relative to the world (or,
| if you prefer, how the world is moving relative to the carousel).
I'm asking you what you see. It's no good guessing, this is a real
experiment, not an armchair experiment.
| > "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and
| > a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative
| > motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view
draws
| > a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or
the
| > other of these bodies is in motion."--Albert's opening paragraph
that he
| > quickly forgot about.
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| Totally wrong, it turns out. If the magnet is moving in an inertial
| reference frame, that's one thing, but a spinning magnet introduces
| additional effects.
Call Westinghouse, Mather & Platt, General Electric.
Tell them their generators and motors are totally wrong.
Do not use an electric motor at home, do not charge the battery
in your car as you drive it.
Better yet, here's a more comphensive list.
http://www.thomasnet.com/products/generators-34475004-1.html
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Electric+Motor+Manufacturers&spell=1
Call them all and save the world.
|
| It is also not clear whether the velocity of A relative to B (as
| measured by A) is the same as the velocity of B relative to A
| (as measured by B). This is a fundamental flaw of SRian relativity,
| which is fixable but requires quite a bit of work to express properly.
|
| >
| >
| > What is the CUSTOMARY view, and what is the observable phenomena?
|
| The customary view is the view according to custom. Earth is
| treated as an inertial reference frame;
It can't be, it's a carousel and we should all fly off.
Or maybe you belong to the Flat Earth Society, you
seem to be that kind of phuckwit.
a ball thrown from a
| carousel is observed *from the carousel* as traversing a curved
| path -- but that's because the carousel itself is rotating. (Of
| course it describes a curved path even in the Earth rest frame,
| but that's because of gravity. Nothing horribly mysterious
| about that.)
Nonsense, I can throw a ball high in the air across the carousel,
ride round to the other side and catch it, the ball went straight up
and down.
A ball thrown from a carousel is observed *from the carousel*
as traversing a STRAIGHT path. Nothing horribly mysterious
about that.
|
| >
| > You can do this without a carousel, assuming you have normal vision
| > while sitting at home in a comfy armchair.
| > Place your forefinger against the lid of your eye and keeping both
eyes
| > open, gently push your eyeball to the side. You will see two worlds.
| > It's called seeing double. Don't worry about it, you are fucking
| > with your own brain and it needs a jolt in the gedanken department,
| > there are not two worlds.
| > The *customary* view of Sagnac is to watch the carousel rotate.
| > Relativity of the REAL kind, Galilean, is to view the phenomenon
| > while riding the carousel. Your MMX experiment on board the
| > carousel will not produce a fringe shift for you, but it will (and
DOES)
| > produce a fringe shift for me standing off and watching you ride
| > your wooden horse, becasue that IS the Sagnac effect.
|
| Actually, it should produce a fringe shift for me as well.
Ok, so you've found aether on carousels. Well done.
Don't call Stockholm, they'll call you.
|
| > According to the phuckwit Einstein this will make MY watch
| > slow down, so if you want to outlive your friends go and watch
| > a carousel, my atheist SRian and phuckwit friend, I'm doing you
| > a favour and helping you live longer by giving you phuckwit
| > advice.
|
| The main problem with this advice is that in order for me to
| gain any significant time savings on a carousel I'd have to
| be squished by centripetal force to a bloody pulp.
I never said it would be significant. This is YOUR belief, atheist
SRian, YOUR religion. Newton and I don't think you can affect
time, but you and Einstein do. I'm giving a phuckwit some
phuckwit advice. If that crushes you to a bloody pulp, it's one
less phuckwit to care about.
| >
| > Let me know when all your markings jump off the
| > diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
| > different result.
|
| The markings went to Venice for vacation a long time ago.
| The bus is stopped somewhere in the yard for maintenance.
Venice Italy or Venice Florida?
I've been to one but not the other, I didn't see the marks
from your diagram.
Androcles.
Paul B. Andersen
Of course a bright guy like you will immediately realize that:
"Everyone, including the third observer, would agree that
an observer riding with the source, measures every signal
to have speed c w.r.t. himself."
supports the ballistic theory. :-)
Well done.
Paul
Henri Wilson
Actually, A, it produces broadened lines.
>3) Shifted lines (both blue and red-shifted) lay side-by-side.
>4) Lines side-by-side produce a continuous spectrum.
>5) Ghost is a nitwit, but seems to be educable up to dimwit.
Ghost is one of the more amenable contributors here. Sometimes I think he is
wavering. It wouldn't require much to bring him come across to our side.
>6) Henri is a dimwit, but seems to be educable up to halfwit.
Androcles is a radio engineer who missed out on basic physics training.
>7) Andersen and moortel are phuckwits, will never make it to nitwit
>but Andersen is a self-confessed tusselad (Norwegian troll) and
>it is clear moortel is also.
>8) Alan Schwartz is an ineducable double-phuckwit troll.
....or even worse....
...what is it this time, A? ....Vodka, beer, whisky...?
>Androcles.
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
Neither.
What O measures as the departing speed of A's pulse wrt C?
The Ghost In The Machine
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote
<dPiXe.1963$Rv1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Well, if I really wanted to I could probably apply a GR
correction, but it's a puny correction.
Exactly. But I think you should do so, first. I'm no leader.
>
>
> |
> | It is also not clear whether the velocity of A relative to B (as
> | measured by A) is the same as the velocity of B relative to A
> | (as measured by B). This is a fundamental flaw of SRian relativity,
> | which is fixable but requires quite a bit of work to express properly.
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > What is the CUSTOMARY view, and what is the observable phenomena?
> |
> | The customary view is the view according to custom. Earth is
> | treated as an inertial reference frame;
>
> It can't be, it's a carousel and we should all fly off.
Try standing on a moving carousel without holding onto the horsey.
> Or maybe you belong to the Flat Earth Society, you
> seem to be that kind of phuckwit.
>
>
> a ball thrown from a
> | carousel is observed *from the carousel* as traversing a curved
> | path -- but that's because the carousel itself is rotating. (Of
> | course it describes a curved path even in the Earth rest frame,
> | but that's because of gravity. Nothing horribly mysterious
> | about that.)
>
> Nonsense, I can throw a ball high in the air across the carousel,
> ride round to the other side and catch it, the ball went straight up
> and down.
> A ball thrown from a carousel is observed *from the carousel*
> as traversing a STRAIGHT path. Nothing horribly mysterious
> about that.
Ah. So therefore rides such as the Roundup won't work, eh?
Or how about the SideWinder? (That one's a little more
complicated as it has two motions.)
>
>
> |
> | >
> | > You can do this without a carousel, assuming you have normal vision
> | > while sitting at home in a comfy armchair.
> | > Place your forefinger against the lid of your eye and keeping both
> eyes
> | > open, gently push your eyeball to the side. You will see two worlds.
> | > It's called seeing double. Don't worry about it, you are fucking
> | > with your own brain and it needs a jolt in the gedanken department,
> | > there are not two worlds.
> | > The *customary* view of Sagnac is to watch the carousel rotate.
> | > Relativity of the REAL kind, Galilean, is to view the phenomenon
> | > while riding the carousel. Your MMX experiment on board the
> | > carousel will not produce a fringe shift for you, but it will (and
> DOES)
> | > produce a fringe shift for me standing off and watching you ride
> | > your wooden horse, becasue that IS the Sagnac effect.
> |
> | Actually, it should produce a fringe shift for me as well.
>
> Ok, so you've found aether on carousels. Well done.
> Don't call Stockholm, they'll call you.
They don't know my phone number anyway. :-)
>
> |
> | > According to the phuckwit Einstein this will make MY watch
> | > slow down, so if you want to outlive your friends go and watch
> | > a carousel, my atheist SRian and phuckwit friend, I'm doing you
> | > a favour and helping you live longer by giving you phuckwit
> | > advice.
> |
> | The main problem with this advice is that in order for me to
> | gain any significant time savings on a carousel I'd have to
> | be squished by centripetal force to a bloody pulp.
>
> I never said it would be significant. This is YOUR belief, atheist
> SRian, YOUR religion. Newton and I don't think you can affect
> time, but you and Einstein do. I'm giving a phuckwit some
> phuckwit advice. If that crushes you to a bloody pulp, it's one
> less phuckwit to care about.
>
> | >
> | > Let me know when all your markings jump off the
> | > diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
> | > different result.
> |
> | The markings went to Venice for vacation a long time ago.
> | The bus is stopped somewhere in the yard for maintenance.
>
>
> Venice Italy or Venice Florida?
Either one. The former is the traditional location for European
vacationeers, as it's nearer. Me, I'm more likely to vacation
at home, which is on the Left Coast.
> I've been to one but not the other, I didn't see the marks
> from your diagram.
You only thought you didn't. It's a thought experiment, remember? :-)
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
Each ATOM emits only ONE line. The GAS emits a continuous spectrum.
I suppose you could call a continuous spectrum a VERY broad line.
It's a broadened spectral line that covers the entire spectrum,
but you missed out on basic reasoning.
Androcles
NO ANSWER?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Since
| > | > | > | > | none of the equipment is moving
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Moving with respect to what?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | O.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| > | > | > now all the equipment is moving. Does it still work?
| > | > |
| > | > | No, it does not. (Sagnac's Effect.)
| > | >
| > | > Sagnac makes the marks on your diagram leap off?
| > | > Ride a carousel and look at the diagram as you bounce up
| > | > and down on a wooden horse. Are you sure your diagram
| > | > is no longer valid?
| > |
| > | Yes, the light describes a curve in the accelerated reference
frame.
| > | SR is no longer valid in this frame
| >
| > SR isn't valid in ANY frame on earth, we are all accelerated by
gravity.
| > Call CERN and let them know they have the wrong frequency,
| > it is now YOUR responsibility, my atheist SRian chum(p).
|
| Well, if I really wanted to I could probably apply a GR
| correction, but it's a puny correction.
"Insignificant" is the correct term, as of course GR is.
Me? Why should I tell them you have no idea what you are babbling about,
they can tell you themselves.
If you say so, but usually rides are powered by electric motors
and since you claim they don't work I guess you are right.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > You can do this without a carousel, assuming you have normal
vision
| > | > while sitting at home in a comfy armchair.
| > | > Place your forefinger against the lid of your eye and keeping
both
| > eyes
| > | > open, gently push your eyeball to the side. You will see two
worlds.
| > | > It's called seeing double. Don't worry about it, you are fucking
| > | > with your own brain and it needs a jolt in the gedanken
department,
| > | > there are not two worlds.
| > | > The *customary* view of Sagnac is to watch the carousel rotate.
| > | > Relativity of the REAL kind, Galilean, is to view the phenomenon
| > | > while riding the carousel. Your MMX experiment on board the
| > | > carousel will not produce a fringe shift for you, but it will
(and
| > DOES)
| > | > produce a fringe shift for me standing off and watching you ride
| > | > your wooden horse, becasue that IS the Sagnac effect.
| > |
| > | Actually, it should produce a fringe shift for me as well.
| >
| > Ok, so you've found aether on carousels. Well done.
| > Don't call Stockholm, they'll call you.
|
| They don't know my phone number anyway. :-)
How sad for you. Print it on the paper you are going to submit
the physics journal explaining how you found aether.
Aha... I think you are a phuckwit, let's try a real experiment.
Henri Wilson
I was refering to the second part of that paragraph.
>
>Well done.
desperately done, on your part.
>
>Paul
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:24nri1lkiap6me0bq...@4ax.com...
>| On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:58:14 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:
>| >|
>| >| Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this
>before.
>| >
>| >The answer IS obvious.
>| >1) A cool gas will produce spectral emission lines.
>| >2) A hot gas will produce shifted spectral emission lines.
>|
>| Actually, A, it produces broadened lines.
>
>Each ATOM emits only ONE line. The GAS emits a continuous spectrum.
>I suppose you could call a continuous spectrum a VERY broad line.
No A. Forget about continuous spectra.
Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened due to molecular
speeds. The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure doppler
effect.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:46:04 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| >news:24nri1lkiap6me0bq...@4ax.com...
| >| On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:58:14 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org>
| >wrote:
|
| >| >|
| >| >| Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this
| >before.
| >| >
| >| >The answer IS obvious.
| >| >1) A cool gas will produce spectral emission lines.
| >| >2) A hot gas will produce shifted spectral emission lines.
| >|
| >| Actually, A, it produces broadened lines.
| >
| >Each ATOM emits only ONE line. The GAS emits a continuous spectrum.
| >I suppose you could call a continuous spectrum a VERY broad line.
|
| No A. Forget about continuous spectra.
I can't ignore empirical data. You can, I know.
| Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened due to
molecular
| speeds.
No, no, NO! Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened due
to molecular speeds.
The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure doppler
| effect.
No H! The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure doppler
effect. Right up until the lines meet and overlap, producing a
continuous spectrum,
but forget about the continuous spectra, it doesn't exist.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
OK you are talking about thermal radiation in general, with lots of different
atoms and energy levels involved.
In the case of a reasonably cool star, there is usually enough H to create a
number of distinguishable emission lines. Their broadening is dependent on
temperature. That's the point I was trying to make. A cool gas discharge tube
at 40C will produce much finer lines than an arc discharge at 4000C.
I gather that doppler shifts are measured principally with the aid of
absorption lines. The same broadening applies to them. The hotter the star, the
broader the lines.
So it is not surprising that there is a great deal of difficulty in
establishing radial velocities of distant stars.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
That's what happens in a star <shrug>.
| In the case of a reasonably cool star, there is usually enough H to
create a
| number of distinguishable emission lines.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html
Temperature is on the right.
Hot star is O.
Cool star is M.
I can't see any distinguishable emissions lines in M, but I'm sure you
can,
you have a good imagination.
I can't ignore empirical data. You can, I know.
| Their broadening is dependent on
| temperature. That's the point I was trying to make. A cool gas
discharge tube
| at 40C will produce much finer lines than an arc discharge at 4000C.
I haven't seen you make a point beyond what I already know, but keep
trying.
| I gather that doppler shifts are measured principally with the aid of
| absorption lines.
Correct.
| The same broadening applies to them. The hotter the star, the
| broader the lines.
Sure. So how fast are the stars O, B, A, F,G, K moving?
What about M?
A has a broader H-alpha line than K. (H_alpha is the dark line in the
red)
What doppler shift would you give to A?
I'd give it zero.
| So it is not surprising that there is a great deal of difficulty in
| establishing radial velocities of distant stars.
Well.... This is the principle:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/binary/binary.htmAs I look at this page tonight, I'm not seeing the spectrum.It is gray,with black lines, but I have seen it in full colour and athin blackline where the red and blue dots are moving, so there is bug somewhere.I've now closed the window and reloaded and its fine.Hopefully it works for you.What I will say is this. I have seen the spectrum of Algol, years ago.I did not see the kind of spread that this simulation demonstrates,and my own program (of which you have a copy) deliberatelyexaggerates the shift to make it apparent, but the exaggeration is user selectable.So let us write a simple program that will simulate the shiftand the velocity. I'll use a spreadsheet.f' = f(c+v)/clambda' = c/f'The range of the visible spectrum is 740 nm red to 380 nm violet.740-380 = 360 so you can easily afford 1 pixel per nanometer.H-alpha is at 656 nanometersThat corresponds to a frequency of 4.57317E+14 Hz.Now.... let v = 450 km/secand you should get a 1 pixel shift.Check it out, that's a lot of velocity, 0.0015c, I'm tired tonightand hate pissing about with lots of zeros.Androcles.
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:6nv0j1dindjludar3...@4ax.com...
>| On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:51:46 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:
>| >| speeds.
They are faint and diffuse but a sensitive photo detector would pick them up.
>
>I can't ignore empirical data. You can, I know.
Never.
>| Their broadening is dependent on
>| temperature. That's the point I was trying to make. A cool gas
>discharge tube
>| at 40C will produce much finer lines than an arc discharge at 4000C.
>
>I haven't seen you make a point beyond what I already know, but keep
>trying.
>
>
>| I gather that doppler shifts are measured principally with the aid of
>| absorption lines.
>
>Correct.
>
>| The same broadening applies to them. The hotter the star, the
>| broader the lines.
>
>Sure. So how fast are the stars O, B, A, F,G, K moving?
>What about M?
>
>A has a broader H-alpha line than K. (H_alpha is the dark line in the
>red)
>What doppler shift would you give to A?
>I'd give it zero.
>
>| So it is not surprising that there is a great deal of difficulty in
>| establishing radial velocities of distant stars.
>
>Well.... This is the principle:
> http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/binary/binary.htmAs I look at this page tonight, I'm not seeing the spectrum.It is gray,with black lines, but I have seen it in full colour and athin blackline where the red and blue dots are moving, so there is bug somewhere.I've now closed the window and reloaded and its fine.Hopefully it works for you.What I will say is this. I have seen the spectrum of Algol, years ago.I did not see the kind of spread that this simulation demonstrates,and my own program (of which you have a copy) deliberatelyexaggerates the shift to make it apparent, but the exaggeration is user selectable.So let us write a simple program that will simulate the shiftand the velocity. I'll use a spreadsheet.f' = f(c+v)/clambda' = c/f'The range of the visible spectrum is 740 nm red to 380 nm violet.740-380 = 360 so you can easily afford 1 pixel per nanometer.H-alpha is at 656 nanometersThat corresponds to a frequency of 4.57317E+14 Hz.Now.... let v = 450
>km/secand you should get a 1 pixel shift.Check it out, that's a lot of velocity, 0.0015c, I'm tired tonightand hate pissing about with lots of zeros.Androcles.
Mind the ankle....
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
Yes, I have two of those. I call it my "eye". The problem is my eye
doesn't
detect any distinguishable emissions lines in M. Your imagination does.
You
are confusing your imagination with a sensitive photo detector.
|
| >
| >I can't ignore empirical data. You can, I know.
|
| Never.
You do, because you confuse your imagination with a sensitive
photo detector, your eye.
Hmm... I could be wrong. This opens up a new line of research.
Are Henri Wilson's sensitive photo detectors more sensitive than
Androcles' sensitive photo detectors?
We are disqualified from judging that, of course. Let's ask someone else
if they can see any distinguishable emissions lines in M, shall we?
Perhaps Andersen can see them, or Uncle Al. Neither one would be
prejudiced in favour of you or I.
I'm more worred about my eyes than my ankle. I can't see any faint and
diffuse distinguishable emissions lines in M but a sensitive photo
detector would pick them up.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:m7k6j1hveknnr8962...@4ax.com...
>| On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:02:20 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:
>| >
I once helped make and operate a pretty good solar telescope. We photographed
the surface through a narrow red filter (H). This brought out the granulation
of the surface beneath the outer gases.
Have you ever seen the color of the sun's corona...with a disk covering the
main sphere? It is predominantly red.
>| >| So it is not surprising that there is a great deal of difficulty in
>| >| establishing radial velocities of distant stars.
>| >
>| >Well.... This is the principle:
>| >
>http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/binary/binary.htmAs I
>look at this page tonight, I'm not seeing the spectrum.It is gray,with
>black lines, but I have seen it in full colour and athin blackline where
>the red and blue dots are moving, so there is bug somewhere.I've now
>closed the window and reloaded and its fine.Hopefully it works for
>you.What I will say is this. I have seen the spectrum of Algol, years
>ago.I did not see the kind of spread that this simulation
>demonstrates,and my own program (of which you have a copy)
>deliberatelyexaggerates the shift to make it apparent, but the
>exaggeration is user selectable.
What I want to know is whether absorption lines or the main spectrum is used in
the measurement of doppler shift. Either way, there are problems.
If the peak of the thermal distribution curve is used, it could be confused
with varying day/night tempertaure if the pair was in tidal lock...do you see
what I mean.
>So let us write a simple program that
>will simulate the shiftand the velocity. I'll use a spreadsheet.f' =
>f(c+v)/clambda' = c/f'The range of the visible spectrum is 740 nm red to
>380 nm violet.740-380 = 360 so you can easily afford 1 pixel per
>nanometer.H-alpha is at 656 nanometersThat corresponds to a frequency of
>4.57317E+14 Hz.Now.... let v = 450
>| >km/secand you should get a 1 pixel shift.Check it out, that's a lot
>of velocity, 0.0015c, I'm tired tonightand hate pissing about with lots
>of zeros.Androcles.
>|
>| Mind the ankle....
>
>I'm more worred about my eyes than my ankle. I can't see any faint and
>diffuse distinguishable emissions lines in M but a sensitive photo
>detector would pick them up.
>
>Androcles.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
NO, I do not see what you mean.
What "PAIR" are you going on about? What tidal lock are you on about?
Pittsburgh Observatory operates all day and all night in the infrared,
so what day/night are talking about? (How would I know that?)
If you want to know what IR looks like, use a web cam in the dark, aimed
at
something hot.
Androcles
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>|
>| What I want to know is whether absorption lines or the main spectrum
>is used in
>| the measurement of doppler shift. Either way, there are problems.
>|
>| If the peak of the thermal distribution curve is used, it could be
>confused
>| with varying day/night tempertaure if the pair was in tidal lock...do
>you see
>| what I mean.
>
>NO, I do not see what you mean.
>What "PAIR" are you going on about? What tidal lock are you on about?
>Pittsburgh Observatory operates all day and all night in the infrared,
>so what day/night are talking about? (How would I know that?)
>If you want to know what IR looks like, use a web cam in the dark, aimed
>at
>something hot.
>
>Androcles
>
I didn't think you would. I dindn't explain myself well.
I was referring to the 'day/night' of the stars, not ours.
If binary star pairs DO exist then the sides facing each other are the
'daytime' ones. The rear sides are in darkness. If they are reasonably close
and in or near tidal lock, then one side will be considerably hotter than the
other....somewhat like our moon.
c(S)hot------|----h(S)cooler O
Now, consider what happens if the two stars are very different in size and/or
temperature. For a near edge-on orbit, a distant observer will see a varying
brightness as the hot face of one star and the cold face of the other
periodically swap positions.
The effect might be fairly small... or it could be quite large, depending on
the separation and individual luminosities.
...but you don't think binaries exixst so I know what you will say.