I understand that even SRians have doubts about relativistic mass increase.
>....
>>>> Obviously, my change in speed can have no effect on the mass itself.
>>>What makes that seem obvious? How do you measure mass? You compare the
>>>force it exerts upon other masses to what a known mass would exert when
>>>accelerated. Right?
>> It isn't a question of measurement.
>> A lump of matter doesn't change mass every time one of the infinite
>> number of potential observers in the universe changes speed.
>It only 'changes mass' when it is observed by one of the observers. The
>potential observers have to stop being 'potential' and become actual.
No you have it all wrong.
Observer movement cannot affect anything.
>>>So, as you go faster, your mass and the mass of your test equipment all
>>>increase. When you go to measure the mass of the mass itself, you will
>>>measure a smaller value for its mass.
>> That's aether theory.
>SR/GR, not aether.
Your expression 'as you go faster' is meaningless.
Speed is always relative to something.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>....
>>>>>>>An optical illusion.
>>>>>> More evidence of your indoctrination.
>>>>>I have an open mind. I do NOT have an emotional investment in SR. If
>>>>>it falls, it falls. I will not be unhappy either way. That is not
>>>>>indoctrination.
>>>> You seem to have been blinded by the propaganda of hthe inbred physics
>>>> establishment.
>>>Show me facts. Show me data. Show me something that SR does not explain.
>>>Then show me a theory that does explain those facts and all other
>>>observations and I will bow down before you and your theory.
>> Variable star brightness curves.
>> Look up the www.britastro.com website.
>> See the 'long term pixel curves'.
>No such link on that website. I eventually found
>http://www.britastro.org/vss/baalc.html
>but not sure if that is what you are talking about.
>I don't see any of those 'curves' that PROVE anything about BaT vs SR.
Most of the long term 'pixel' light curves match the kind of thing the BaT
predicts.
A circular orbit produces a sinelike curve that develops peaks at critical
observer distances. The curves are skewed according to amount of orbit
eccentricity.
For instance R Andromedae has eccentricity about 0.2 and leans to the left.
T Cas leans to the right showing it spins the opposite way. Its dimmer
companion also contributes to the total brightness curve.
These curves are so obviously the result of faster light catching the slower
light that only a fool would want to explain them some other way.
The other point is that the constancy of the brightness curve period is
obviously matched to orbit period. How else could it remain constant for 100
years or more?
>> Many are just as the BaT predicts.
>Which ones?
>Does BaT predict based on known orbital parameters of the star in question or
>do you mean that BaT can generate similar looking curves?
Run my program and see for yourself.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
It is very comprehensive and might take days to understand properly.
Try eccentricity 0.5, yaw angle -90. That produces what are categorized as
'eclipsing binaries' like Algol. Most of them aren't eclipsing at all. The same
eccentricities and +90 yaw produces 'flare stars'. They aren't really flaring!
Low eccentricities produce the very comon curves like R And.
I recently included a rough indication of the way the thermal molecular speeds
would affect the brightness curves. As you know, these speeds are very high in
stars.
If you run the program with 'scan on' it will take quite a few seconds to
produce the results, depending on your computer speed.
One of these runs would probably be equivalent to a lifetime's work by
DeSitter.
>If the latter, do you know for a fact that SR models can NOT generate similar
>curves?
Definitely not.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> ..and in case you don't know, I'm not the only person who has drawn
>> attention to this fact.
>I am not surprised.
>>>I think that if you stop running down SR and insulting those that
>>>believe in it, show them its good points and bad points, you will have a
>>>much better chance of getting someone to seriously consider your
>>>viewpoint.
>> SR doesn't have any good points.
>Then you don't know your competition well enough. And you seem to have a 'bad
>attitude' toward it.
>A really good salesman doesn't run down the competition, he can explain it
>and make it sound good. He can make that his product it better.
>When you say SR doesn't have any good points, you make a serious error. If SR
>didn't have any good points, it would never have been accepted by anyone. You
>must understand it better than they did if you are going to convince them
>that yours is better.
SR is accepted because it is just a disguised form of standard aether theory.
It has the same maths.
LET has merit because if an absolute light carrying medium DID exist, it would
be a perfectly sound theory. Even if a local EM reference frame existed around
planet Earth, LET would work.
SR is superfluous.
>> Even if SDR DID predict any truths,
>> this would merely indicate that there is a local aether.
>I think you make an overgeneralization.
>> I have gone to a lot of trouble to write a program that calculates
>> expected variable star brightness curves.
>I have seen your program and played with it a little.
>Generate SR curves for comparison and I may believe it a bit better.
SR doesn't produce any variation in brightness.
>> These clearly show that the
>> second postulate is wrong.
>No. It shows you can generate curves but it doesn't make clear how they are
>generated and it doesn't give a comparison to SR curves.
The program first shows how light from each orbit will move away from it
source. You can see graphically how and at what distances the faster light
eventually catches the slower.
You can then use the program to generate the matching brightness variations an
observer at those distances can expect.
You can see the effects of one or two stars of a binary pair.
>> Light travels across vast regions ogf space
>> at c wrt its source. What would make it do otherwise?
>And at c wrt every bit of matter in those vast regions of space.
That's a perfect example of indoctrination.
>> It also reveals that much of modern astronomy is also totally wrong.
>Show me.
My program shows and says it all.
>>>Those that call anyone that doesn't agree with them 'idiots and morons'
>>>can NOT do a good idea of presenting their ideas in a logical manner.
>> For every insult made by a non-Srian, you will see a hundred from the
>> true believers.
>I don't care who started the name calling. It reflects poorly on both.
Well I consider myself as one of the more polite contributors here.
...but I find it hard to tolerate the persistent difficiency in logical ability
exhibited by all SRians.
>>>> I can honestly say th I have never seen one original contribution from
>>>> an SRian supporter here. All the controlled discussion and creative
>>>> stuff comes from those of us who can see what is wrong with the theory
>>>I have yet to see much constructive from EITHER side.
>> What could be more constructive than the establishment of virtual proof
>> that light travels through space at c wrt its source?
>A clear comparison.
>Take some of the data like http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00058-di.gif
That is not a particularly good example because much of the data is missing
(this happens due largely to weather).
see its other curve: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00058.gif
However it is indicative of a star orbiting very rapidly around another dark
heavy mass, maybe a neutron star.
Ecc ~0.2, yaw around 45.
I would need to know how doppler shift changes each cycle to give you an
estimate of Z Cam's distance form Earth.
>and show the orbital parameters of the stars needed to fit the curve.
>Do this under SR and under BaT. ]]
SR doesn't predict anything. It assumes all light travels from the star to
planet Earth at c, no matter how the star is moving in its orbit.
>Show why BaT gives a more likely set of
>stars.
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Maybe you have the wrong idea entirely.
>> there are plenty of other sound contributions here that make a mockery
>> of SR.
>Mocking something is not the point. It proves nothing.
Tell that to Dinky van de Morbid.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>>>I don't see how you You have challenged my 'IF...THEN'. Please explain
>>>it to me like you would to an 8th grader.
>> To put it briefly, not everything in physics behaves linearly.
>> In fact very few processes do.
>That is how you would explain it to an 8th grader?
>Absorbtion is linear for most compounds at low concentrations. The
...
read more »
From: Henri Wilson - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 11:42 am
Email: H@..(Henri Wilson)
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
On Thu, 5 May 2005 20:01:03 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:
>Henri,
>If BaT were correct, then photons emitted from a source that was going away
>would move at a speed c'=c-v. Right?
>But, isn't it impossible for a photon to exist unless it is moving at the
>speed of light[in the media]?
There is no 'medium' in remote space.
>There are some pretty big problems with high velocity sources.
>Let us assume a source that is going away at .99 c
>The photons it emits must (from BaT) be moving at 0.01 c.
You are correct.
>One could almost reach out and grab such a photon as it went by. Do you
>really think photons can move at 0.01c and still be photons? That would
>really be absurd, wouldn't it?
No. Not at all.
But it is a fact that hardly anything in the universe is traveling at anywhere
c relative to anything else, for the same reason that molecules in a gas at 3K
don't.
>Let us assume a source that is approaching at .99 c
No star could ever get there.
>The photons it emits must (from BaT) be moving at 1.99 c
>Almost 2 times the speed of light.
There ain't no such animal as 'speed of light'.
>Gosh just imagine what happens to one
>of those photons when it hits the earths atmosphere. The 'oh my god
>particle' would be small potatoes compared to these photons.
Are you plain stupid. All you would get would be a doppler shift around 2.
>Some of the solar flares are energetic enough to emit some rather high
>speed photons, but we don't see any sudden influx of high speed photons 4
>minutes before the main wave of solar photons reaches us from the solar
>flares.
>If BaT were true, then the universe would be much different than it is.
On the contrary. It would be explainable in more simple terms. Light travels
through space at different relative speeds. Why shouldn't it?
Whatever would cause it to all travel together in any direction? An aether?
>Perhaps BaT is only true for SMALL values of delta v?
>Perhaps c'=c+(v)^(1/n) where n is some large number?
>Or perhaps c is independent of the velocity of the source.
Perhaps fairyland exists.
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.
From: The Ghost In The Machine - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 1:00 pm
Email: The Ghost In The Machine
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
In sci.physics, bz
wrote
on Thu, 5 May 2005 20:01:03 +0000 (UTC)
:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Henri,
> If BaT were correct, then photons emitted from a source that was going away
> would move at a speed c'=c-v. Right?
> But, isn't it impossible for a photon to exist unless it is moving at the
> speed of light[in the media]?
> There are some pretty big problems with high velocity sources.
> Let us assume a source that is going away at .99 c
> The photons it emits must (from BaT) be moving at 0.01 c.
> One could almost reach out and grab such a photon as it went by. Do you
> really think photons can move at 0.01c and still be photons? That would
> really be absurd, wouldn't it?
Depends on how one defines the term. Personally, I would think
it's absurd anyway, since SR doesn't predict photons moving
at 0.01 c. Instead, one gets photons whose wavelength is
sqrt(.0199) / (0.01) = 14.11 x the input wavelength.
In other words, a 500 nm photon will get stretched to 7.053 microns.
> Let us assume a source that is approaching at .99 c
This gets one photons whose wavelength is 14.11 x *shorter* than
the input wavelength. That 500 nm photon will shrink to a
wavelength of 35.44 nm. Bring sunscreen. :-)
(Yes, there's a duality here.)
> The photons it emits must (from BaT) be moving at 1.99 c
> Almost 2 times the speed of light. Gosh just imagine what happens to one
> of those photons when it hits the earths atmosphere. The 'oh my god
> particle' would be small potatoes compared to these photons.
No, the 1.99c would merely be just a tad shy of 4x more energetic,
in BaTWorld(tm). In SRWorld, it would be 14x more energetic --
an easily detectable amount if we can be assured of a decaying
particle moving at .99c. (AIUI we've done the experiment with
a pi meson moving at .2c. The results were consistent with SR.)
> Some of the solar flares are energetic enough to emit some rather high
> speed photons,
Photons or protons? Actually, we'd probably see both, as the
protons interact with each other while moving towards us.
Or something. :-)
> but we don't see any sudden influx of high speed photons 4
> minutes before the main wave of solar photons reaches us from the solar
> flares.
> If BaT were true, then the universe would be much different than it is.
No doubt SOHO would see many interesting effects.
> Perhaps BaT is only true for SMALL values of delta v?
> Perhaps c'=c+(v)^(1/n) where n is some large number?
> Or perhaps c is independent of the velocity of the source.
And normalcy reigns once again.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 2:14 pm
Email: bz
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in
news:vopqk2-953.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> In sci.physics, bz
>
> wrote
> on Thu, 5 May 2005 20:01:03 +0000 (UTC)
> :
>> Henri,
>> If BaT were correct, then photons emitted from a source that was going
>> away would move at a speed c'=c-v. Right?
>> But, isn't it impossible for a photon to exist unless it is moving at
>> the speed of light[in the media]?
>> There are some pretty big problems with high velocity sources.
>> Let us assume a source that is going away at .99 c
>> The photons it emits must (from BaT) be moving at 0.01 c.
>> One could almost reach out and grab such a photon as it went by. Do you
>> really think photons can move at 0.01c and still be photons? That would
>> really be absurd, wouldn't it?
> Depends on how one defines the term. Personally, I would think
> it's absurd anyway, since SR doesn't predict photons moving
> at 0.01 c. Instead, one gets photons whose wavelength is
> sqrt(.0199) / (0.01) = 14.11 x the input wavelength.
> In other words, a 500 nm photon will get stretched to 7.053 microns.
>> Let us assume a source that is approaching at .99 c
> This gets one photons whose wavelength is 14.11 x *shorter* than
> the input wavelength. That 500 nm photon will shrink to a
> wavelength of 35.44 nm. Bring sunscreen. :-)
> (Yes, there's a duality here.)
>> The photons it emits must (from BaT) be moving at 1.99 c
>> Almost 2 times the speed of light. Gosh just imagine what happens to
>> one of those photons when it hits the earths atmosphere. The 'oh my god
>> particle' would be small potatoes compared to these photons.
> No, the 1.99c would merely be just a tad shy of 4x more energetic,
> in BaTWorld(tm). In SRWorld, it would be 14x more energetic --
> an easily detectable amount if we can be assured of a decaying
> particle moving at .99c. (AIUI we've done the experiment with
> a pi meson moving at .2c. The results were consistent with SR.)
>> Some of the solar flares are energetic enough to emit some rather high
>> speed photons,
> Photons or protons? Actually, we'd probably see both, as the
> protons interact with each other while moving towards us.
> Or something. :-)
>> but we don't see any sudden influx of high speed photons 4
>> minutes before the main wave of solar photons reaches us from the solar
>> flares.
>> If BaT were true, then the universe would be much different than it is.
> No doubt SOHO would see many interesting effects.
>> Perhaps BaT is only true for SMALL values of delta v?
>> Perhaps c'=c+(v)^(1/n) where n is some large number?
>> Or perhaps c is independent of the velocity of the source.
> And normalcy reigns once again.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
b...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 3:26 pm
Email: bz
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:9dbl71lt151vn5h8qc3tl3c5ei4saiiemu@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 5 May 2005 20:01:03 +0000 (UTC), bz
> wrote:
>>Henri,
>>If BaT were correct, then photons emitted from a source that was going
>>away would move at a speed c'=c-v. Right?
>>But, isn't it impossible for a photon to exist unless it is moving at
>>the speed of light[in the media]?
> There is no 'medium' in remote space.
The qualification was meant to shortstop the objection 'light travels
slower in glass and other media', not to indicate there is media in
interstellar space.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>>There are some pretty big problems with high velocity sources.
>>Let us assume a source that is going away at .99 c
>>The photons it emits must (from BaT) be moving at 0.01 c.
> You are correct.
>>One could almost reach out and grab such a photon as it went by. Do you
>>really think photons can move at 0.01c and still be photons? That would
>>really be absurd, wouldn't it?
> No. Not at all.
> But it is a fact that hardly anything in the universe is traveling at
> anywhere c relative to anything else, for the same reason that molecules
> in a gas at 3K don't.
Photons are one of the most common particles in the universe and they
travel at c relative to everything.
>>Let us assume a source that is approaching at .99 c
> No star could ever get there.
But ions in the atmosphere of a star can do so.
>>The photons it emits must (from BaT) be moving at 1.99 c
>>Almost 2 times the speed of light.
> There ain't no such animal as 'speed of light'.
2 c.
>>Gosh just imagine what happens to one
>>of those photons when it hits the earths atmosphere. The 'oh my god
>>particle' would be small potatoes compared to these photons.
> Are you plain stupid. All you would get would be a doppler shift around
> 2.
You need to spend a few days working at a particle accelerator.
>>Some of the solar flares are energetic enough to emit some rather high
>>speed photons, but we don't see any sudden influx of high speed photons
>>4 minutes before the main wave of solar photons reaches us from the
>>solar flares.
>>If BaT were true, then the universe would be much different than it is.
> On the contrary. It would be explainable in more simple terms. Light
> travels through space at different relative speeds. Why shouldn't it?
No one knows why, but we observe that it does.
> Whatever would cause it to all travel together in any direction?
No one knows why, but we observe that it does.
An aether?
Fixed aether has been falsifed.
>>Perhaps BaT is only true for SMALL values of delta v?
>>Perhaps c'=c+(v)^(1/n) where n is some large number?
>>Or perhaps c is independent of the velocity of the source.
> Perhaps fairyland exists.
Perhaps fairlyland exists.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
b...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
b...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 4:37 pm
Email: bz
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:6r5l71tcsg364evj46ig87di6ve52se98p@4ax.com:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Thu, 5 May 2005 12:20:50 +0000 (UTC), bz
> wrote:
>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>>news:4pej71lcp6r8tqrijcc05ibi6rv3b7dure@4ax.com:
>>> On Wed, 4 May 2005 23:36:02 +0000 (UTC), bz
>>> wrote:
>>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>>>>news:8qei71lfgseh3fcdn2i7ultddn5v05glcf@4ax.com:
....
>>>>>>No. SR says that if you accelerate it[enough] wrt your frame of
>>>>>>reference, from rest wrt your frame of reference, you will observe
>>>>>>an increase in mass.
>>>>> 'observe?'
>>>>See, measure.
>>> Nobody has measured a fast moving mass. Its energy has been measured
>>> though. I say tat energy is bound in the reverse field bubble. It's a
>>> bit like the back emf in a choke or motor.
>>Does it act differently than Einstein's relativistic mass?
> I understand that even SRians have doubts about relativistic mass
> increase.
Scientists have their doubts about everything.
....
>>> It isn't a question of measurement.
>>> A lump of matter doesn't change mass every time one of the infinite
>>> number of potential observers in the universe changes speed.
>>It only 'changes mass' when it is observed by one of the observers. The
>>potential observers have to stop being 'potential' and become actual.
> No you have it all wrong.
> Observer movement cannot affect anything.
Observer movement affects many things.
>>>>So, as you go faster, your mass and the mass of your test equipment
>>>>all increase. When you go to measure the mass of the mass itself, you
>>>>will measure a smaller value for its mass.
>>> That's aether theory.
>>SR/GR, not aether.
> Your expression 'as you go faster' is meaningless.
> Speed is always relative to something.
We started by talking about a photon and someone at rest, measuring the
mass of the photon. Then we accelerated the observer and his test equipment
in the direction that the photon was moving and I was explaining why the
photons appear to lose mass/energy as the observer moves faster (wrt the
source of the photons). So, in the context of our discussion, the
expression was not meaningless.
....
....
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>>I don't see any of those 'curves' that PROVE anything about BaT vs SR.
> Most of the long term 'pixel' light curves match the kind of thing the
> BaT predicts.
> A circular orbit produces a sinelike curve that develops peaks at
> critical observer distances. The curves are skewed according to amount
> of orbit eccentricity.
> For instance R Andromedae has eccentricity about 0.2 and leans to the
> left. T Cas leans to the right showing it spins the opposite way. Its
> dimmer companion also contributes to the total brightness curve.
> These curves are so obviously the result of faster light catching the
> slower light that only a fool would want to explain them some other way.
Even if the speed of light we constant, there will be variations in
brightness unless we are looking exactly down on the plane of the orbit of
the two stars.
> The other point is that the constancy of the brightness curve period is
> obviously matched to orbit period. How else could it remain constant for
> 100 years or more?
As above.
>>> Many are just as the BaT predicts.
>>Which ones?
>>Does BaT predict based on known orbital parameters of the star in
>>question or do you mean that BaT can generate similar looking curves?
> Run my program and see for yourself.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
> It is very comprehensive and might take days to understand properly.
It would help if some of the colors were different. Some of the text is
very hard to read. Black on dark blue is impossible to read and black on
dark green is difficult.
> Try eccentricity 0.5, yaw angle -90. That produces what are categorized
> as 'eclipsing binaries' like Algol. Most of them aren't eclipsing at
> all. The same eccentricities and +90 yaw produces 'flare stars'. They
> aren't really flaring!
> Low eccentricities produce the very comon curves like R And.
> I recently included a rough indication of the way the thermal molecular
> speeds would affect the brightness curves. As you know, these speeds are
> very high in stars.
yes.
> If you run the program with 'scan on' it will take quite a few seconds
> to produce the results, depending on your computer speed.
> One of these runs would probably be equivalent to a lifetime's work by
> DeSitter.
How do I know when it has finished?
>>If the latter, do you know for a fact that SR models can NOT generate
>>similar curves?
> Definitely not.
I think that there MUST be variation in brightness, even if the stars move
so slowly that there is no doppler shift, so I don't believe that there
would be no variation in brightness for dual starts in a SRian universe.
....
>>When you say SR doesn't have any good points, you make a serious error.
>>If SR didn't have any good points, it would never have been accepted by
>>anyone. You must understand it better than they did if you are going to
>>convince them that yours is better.
> SR is accepted because it is just a disguised form of standard aether
> theory. It has the same maths.
> LET has merit because if an absolute light carrying medium DID exist, it
> would be a perfectly sound theory. Even if a local EM reference frame
> existed around planet Earth, LET would work.
> SR is superfluous.
So, if LET produces the same predictions that SR does, have your program
generate and compare LET to BaT.
....
>>> I have gone to a lot of trouble to write a program that calculates
>>> expected variable star brightness curves.
>>I have seen your program and played with it a little.
>>Generate SR curves for comparison and I may believe it a bit better.
> SR doesn't produce any variation in brightness.
I doubt that in a SRian universe there would be no variation in brightness
for double stars. Is that really what you want to say?
....
>>> These clearly show that the
>>> second postulate is wrong.
>>No. It shows you can generate curves but it doesn't make clear how they
>>are generated and it doesn't give a comparison to SR curves.
> The program first shows how light from each orbit will move away from it
> source. You can see graphically how and at what distances the faster
> light eventually catches the slower.
> You can then use the program to generate the matching brightness
> variations an observer at those distances can expect.
> You can see the effects of one or two stars of a binary pair.
But I can't compare to SRian/LET results. And I don't know the math used by
your program so I can't independently check it in another program (such as
mathcad).
>>> Light travels across vast regions ogf space
>>> at c wrt its source. What would make it do otherwise?
>>And at c wrt every bit of matter in those vast regions of space.
> That's a perfect example of indoctrination.
No it is an example of consitancy. Do you expect me to take your word for
'BaT being better than SR' without strong evidence?
Do you expect my answers to be inconsistent with SR?
It is NOT indoctrination, it is 'Henri has not given sufficient evidence.
>>> It also reveals that much of modern astronomy is also totally wrong.
>>Show me.
> My program shows and says it all.
NO. It does not allow me to compare results for SRian and BaT universes.
....
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Well I consider myself as one of the more polite contributors here.
> ...but I find it hard to tolerate the persistent difficiency in logical
> ability exhibited by all SRians.
....
>>>>I have yet to see much constructive from EITHER side.
>>> What could be more constructive than the establishment of virtual
>>> proof that light travels through space at c wrt its source?
>>A clear comparison.
>>Take some of the data like
>>http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00058-di.gif
> That is not a particularly good example because much of the data is
> missing (this happens due largely to weather).
> see its other curve: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00058.gif
> However it is indicative of a star orbiting very rapidly around another
> dark heavy mass, maybe a neutron star.
> Ecc ~0.2, yaw around 45.
> I would need to know how doppler shift changes each cycle to give you an
> estimate of Z Cam's distance form Earth.
And I need to compare BaT and SRian predictions.
>>and show the orbital parameters of the stars needed to fit the curve.
>>Do this under SR and under BaT. ]]
> SR doesn't predict anything. It assumes all light travels from the star
> to planet Earth at c, no matter how the star is moving in its orbit.
There will still be variations in brightness.
>>Show why BaT gives a more likely set of
>>stars.
> I don't understand what you mean by that.
> Maybe you have the wrong idea entirely.
Perhaps. I know that two stars rotating around each other will produce
variations in brightness even if the stars are identical in size and
brightness. This will happen in SRian and BaT universes.
I want to see the difference between the predictions.
>>> there are plenty of other sound contributions here that make a mockery
>>> of SR.
>>Mocking something is not the point. It proves nothing.
> Tell that to Dinky van de Morbid.
Sounds like someone I have killfiled. No I don't see that name in my
killfile.
I will not bother to read those who don't respect others enough to treat
them with respect.
....
>>Absorbtion is linear for most compounds at low concentrations. The
>>absorbtion of light by hydrogen gas and by water vapor are linear at low
>>concentrations up to and including 1 atm.
>>It is called the Beer-Lambert law.
>>http://elchem.kaist.ac.kr/vt/chem-ed/spec/beerslaw.htm
> There is no reason to believe that it holds at typical interstellar
> densities...any more than Ohm's law holds at -272K.
You must mean ...
read more »
From: G - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 6:49 pm
Email: "G"
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Bz
" Let us assume a source that is going away at .99 c
The photons it emits must (from BaT) be moving at 0.01 c.
One could almost reach out and grab such a photon as it went by. Do you
really think photons can move at 0.01c and still be photons? That would
really be absurd, wouldn't it? "
Spaceship A passes an asteroid a at a relative speed of 0.98c
Spaceship A then passes asteroid b at a realtive speed of 0.98c
Spaceship B passes Asteroid A at 0.99c at exact time as spaceship A in
same direction
Spaceship B passes an asteroid a at a relative speed of 0.99c
Spaceship B then passes asreoid b at a realtive speed of 0.99c
The times of passing the asteroids are measured at the asteroid and
relayed to
spaceship A and B , which now has slowed down to 0.1 c wrt a ( to make
things simple)
My question is, at what speed does spaceship A see spaceship B racing
ahead of it?
At 0.1c?
What if spaceship B is a replaced by a beam of light?
G
From: G - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 7:42 pm
Email: "G"
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Photons are one of the most common particles in the universe and they
travel at c relative to everything.
** Except each other **
From: bz - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 9:04 pm
Email: bz
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
"G" wrote in news:1115365351.143276.185890
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Photons are one of the most common particles in the universe and they
> travel at c relative to everything.
> ** Except each other **
I sit corrected.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
b...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 9:15 pm
Email: bz
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
"G" wrote in news:1115362193.296716.63170
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Bz
> " Let us assume a source that is going away at .99 c
> The photons it emits must (from BaT) be moving at 0.01 c.
> One could almost reach out and grab such a photon as it went by. Do you
> really think photons can move at 0.01c and still be photons? That would
> really be absurd, wouldn't it? "
> Spaceship A passes an asteroid a at a relative speed of 0.98c
> Spaceship A then passes asteroid b at a realtive speed of 0.98c
> Spaceship B passes Asteroid A at 0.99c at exact time as spaceship A in
> same direction
> Spaceship B passes an asteroid a at a relative speed of 0.99c
> Spaceship B then passes asreoid b at a realtive speed of 0.99c
> The times of passing the asteroids are measured at the asteroid and
> relayed to
> spaceship A and B , which now has slowed down to 0.1 c wrt a ( to make
> things simple)
one heck of a deceleration unless you mean wrt spaceship A!!
I fear that the word 'which' is ambiguous. It would normally be taken to
refer to 'spaceship B', the last noun encountered. The ambiguity is that
which' could refer to 'spaceship A and B'.
> My question is, at what speed does spaceship A see spaceship B racing
> ahead of it?
> At 0.1c?
I would say that is a good bet [before one or both ships decelerate].
> What if spaceship B is a replaced by a beam of light?
Spaceship A sees the beam of light moving at c if I understand things
correctly.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
b...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: G - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 9:38 pm
Email: "G"
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Bz
That complicates everything, upsets and confuses me and makes me
suspect SRT is nonsense, however I need the proof.
Maybe 100 years from now we will realize Henri was right.
G
From: G - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 5 2005 9:44 pm
Email: "G"
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
So ... a beam of light is different from a spaceship.. from photons..
but photons
are real solid objects ...I don't understand
Henri can help. Henri could you please explain what is going on here.
Seems like nonsense but of course it cannot be. Remmeber
"greater minds than ours have grappled with this problem- how can we
solve it"
From: bz - view profile
Date: Fri, May 6 2005 1:20 am
Email: bz
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
"G" wrote in news:1115372297.922210.36730
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[context recovered]
bz wrote in
news:Xns964E29882CF76WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139:
> "G" wrote in news:1115365351.143276.185890
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> Photons are one of the most common particles in the universe and they
>> travel at c relative to everything.
>> ** Except each other **
> I sit corrected.
[end of recovered context]
> That complicates everything, upsets and confuses me and makes me
> suspect SRT is nonsense, however I need the proof.
photons traveling at c relative to each other presents logical
contradictions:
Photon pulse emitted by isotropic source.
We look at photons moving to our right from the source.
We look at photons moving to our left from the source.
Both are moving at c wrt source, us and any other particles in the universe
[excluding photons] because the photons moving to the right see the photons
moving to the left as moving at 2c.
> Maybe 100 years from now we will realize Henri was right.
Unlikely. If it were to happen, it would be much sooner than that, but I
consider it very unlikely!
> G
Gee!
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
b...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz - view profile
Date: Fri, May 6 2005 1:36 am
Email: bz
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
"G" wrote in news:1115372660.800943.226010
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[note, when you drop the context, your post makes no sense to those who
read only your post. You need to know that your post may well arrive before
the post to which you are responding. In fact, the post to which you are
responding may never be seen by other readers.]
> So ... a beam of light is different from a spaceship..
Yes. A beam of light travels at c. Space ship can never reach c.
Beam of light is NOT different
> from photons..
> but photons
> are real solid objects ...I don't understand
depends on your idea of solid. My idea of solid doesn't allow solid objects
to pass through each other.
Two beams of photons can pass through each other.
So, in my mind, they are not the same kind of 'real solid objects' that
other objects are.
> Henri can help. Henri could you please explain what is going on here.
> Seems like nonsense but of course it cannot be. Remmeber
> "greater minds than ours have grappled with this problem- how can we
> solve it"
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
b...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson - view profile
Date: Fri, May 6 2005 9:08 am
Email: H@..(Henri Wilson)
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
On Fri, 6 May 2005 04:37:57 +0000 (UTC), bz wrote:
>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>news:6r5l71tcsg364evj46ig87di6ve52se98p@4ax.com:
>> On Thu, 5 May 2005 12:20:50 +0000 (UTC), bz
>> wrote:
>> No you have it all wrong.
>> Observer movement cannot affect anything.
>Observer movement affects many things.
...but not physical propeties of objects 1 billion LYs away. :)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>>>>>So, as you go faster, your mass and the mass of your test equipment
>>>>>all increase. When you go to measure the mass of the mass itself, you
>>>>>will measure a smaller value for its mass.
>>>> That's aether theory.
>> A circular orbit produces a sinelike curve that develops peaks at
>> critical observer distances. The curves are skewed according to amount
>> of orbit eccentricity.
>> For instance R Andromedae has eccentricity about 0.2 and leans to the
>> left. T Cas leans to the right showing it spins the opposite way. Its
>> dimmer companion also contributes to the total brightness curve.
>> These curves are so obviously the result of faster light catching the
>> slower light that only a fool would want to explain them some other way.
>Even if the speed of light were constant, there will be variations in
>brightness unless we are looking exactly down on the plane of the orbit of
>the two stars.
If the plane is tilted, a cosine factor is applied. The critical distance is
increased.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> The other point is that the constancy of the brightness curve period is
>> obviously matched to orbit period. How else could it remain constant for
>> 100 years or more?
>As above.
>>>> Many are just as the BaT predicts.
>>>Which ones?
>>>Does BaT predict based on known orbital parameters of the star in
>>>question or do you mean that BaT can generate similar looking curves?
>> Run my program and see for yourself.
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>> It is very comprehensive and might take days to understand properly.
>It would help if some of the colors were different. Some of the text is
>very hard to read. Black on dark blue is impossible to read and black on
>dark green is difficult.
I have had the same trouble. There is a compatibility problem with the program.
Colours vary according to individual computer settings. I have changed the
colours a few times but hte problem persists.
I am eventually going to have to persevere with Java, which I hate.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> Try eccentricity 0.5, yaw angle -90. That produces what are categorized
>> as 'eclipsing binaries' like Algol. Most of them aren't eclipsing at
>> all. The same eccentricities and +90 yaw produces 'flare stars'. They
>> aren't really flaring!
>> Low eccentricities produce the very comon curves like R And.
>> I recently included a rough indication of the way the thermal molecular
>> speeds would affect the brightness curves. As you know, these speeds are
>> very high in stars.
>yes.
>> If you run the program with 'scan on' it will take quite a few seconds
>> to produce the results, depending on your computer speed.
>> One of these runs would probably be equivalent to a lifetime's work by
>> DeSitter.
>How do I know when it has finished?
A whole page of curves appears. White lines on a black window.
>>>If the latter, do you know for a fact that SR models can NOT generate
>>>similar curves?
>> Definitely not.
>I think that there MUST be variation in brightness, even if the stars move
>so slowly that there is no doppler shift, so I don't believe that there
>would be no variation in brightness for dual starts in a SRian universe.
The standard explanation is that the stars are varying intrinsically, due to
some kind of cyclical internal process.
I think this is absolutely impossible, given the constancy of virtually all the
observed brightness variations.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>....
>>>When you say SR doesn't have any good points, you make a serious error.
>>>If SR didn't have any good points, it would never have been accepted by
>>>anyone. You must understand it better than they did if you are going to
>>>convince them that yours is better.
>> SR is accepted because it is just a disguised form of standard aether
>> theory. It has the same maths.
>> LET has merit because if an absolute light carrying medium DID exist, it
>> would be a perfectly sound theory. Even if a local EM reference frame
>> existed around planet Earth, LET would work.
>> SR is superfluous.
>So, if LET produces the same predictions that SR does, have your program
>generate and compare LET to BaT.
There is NO comparison at all.
The effect simply doesn't exist is the speed of all light in the universe is c
relative to planet Earth.
>....
>>>> I have gone to a lot of trouble to write a program that calculates
>>>> expected variable star brightness curves.
>>>I have seen your program and played with it a little.
>>>Generate SR curves for comparison and I may believe it a bit better.
>> SR doesn't produce any variation in brightness.
>I doubt that in a SRian universe there would be no variation in brightness
>for double stars. Is that really what you want to say?
You should learn something about the subject before you comment.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>....
>>>> These clearly show that the
>>>> second postulate is wrong.
>>>No. It shows you can generate curves but it doesn't make clear how they
>>>are generated and it doesn't give a comparison to SR curves.
>> The program first shows how light from each orbit will move away from it
>> source. You can see graphically how and at what distances the faster
>> light eventually catches the slower.
>> You can then use the program to generate the matching brightness
>> variations an observer at those distances can expect.
>> You can see the effects of one or two stars of a binary pair.
>But I can't compare to SRian/LET results. And I don't know the math used by
>your program so I can't independently check it in another program (such as
>mathcad).
SR says NO brightness variation unless intrinsic.
If you run the introduction of my program you will see thhe effect of 'light
bunching' due to the c+v factor as the star orbits.
>>>> Light travels across vast regions ogf space
>>>> at c wrt its source. What would make it do otherwise?
>>>And at c wrt every bit of matter in those vast regions of space.
>> That's a perfect example of indoctrination.
>No it is an example of consitancy. Do you expect me to take your word for
>'BaT being better than SR' without strong evidence?
>Do you expect my answers to be inconsistent with SR?
I'm giving you the bloody evidence.
there is NO evidence in favour of SR.
>It is NOT indoctrination, it is 'Henri has not given sufficient evidence.
>>>> It also reveals that much of modern astronomy is also totally wrong.
>>>Show me.
>> My program shows and says it all.
>NO. It does not allow me to compare results for SRian and BaT universes.
..I give up.
The constancy of all brightness variations on it own is surely enough proof .
>> That is not a particularly good example because much of the data is
>> missing (this happens due largely to weather).
>> see its other curve: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00058.gif
>> However it is indicative of a star orbiting very rapidly around another
>> dark heavy mass, maybe a neutron star.
>> Ecc ~0.2, yaw around 45.
>> I would need to know how doppler shift changes each cycle to give you an
>> estimate of Z Cam's distance form Earth.
>And I need to compare BaT and SRian predictions.
I have told you. THere is NO SR prediction at all.
>>>and show the orbital parameters of the stars needed to fit the curve.
>>>Do this under SR and under BaT. ]]
>> SR doesn't predict anything. It assumes all light travels from the star
>> to planet Earth at c, no matter how the star is moving in its orbit.
>There will still be variations in brightness.
If the companion star is large, dark but not cold, there will be a daily
temperature variation in the face of the star whose brightness we are
investigating. That complicates the predicted brightness curves.
I have discussed this at length previously.
>>>Show why BaT gives a more likely set of
>>>stars.
>> I don't understand what you mean by that.
>> Maybe you have the wrong idea entirely.
>Perhaps. I know that two stars rotating around each other will produce
>variations in brightness even if the stars are identical in size and
>brightness. This will happen in SRian and BaT universes.
That is not true.
You are getting confused.
The whole argument against the BaT was based on DeSitter's claims that stars
which SHOULD exhibit brightness variations don't do so.
>I want to see the difference between the predictions.
>>>> there are plenty of other sound contributions here that make a mockery
>>>> of SR.
>>>Mocking something is not the point. It proves nothing.
>> Tell that to Dinky van de Morbid.
>Sounds like someone I have killfiled. No I don't see that name in my
>killfile.
>I will not bother to read those who don't respect others enough to treat
>them with respect.
I have stoped reading most of that nonsense.
Yours is getting pretty hopeless too, but at least not insulting.
>....
>>>Absorbtion is linear for most compounds at low concentrations. The
>>>absorbtion of light by hydrogen gas and by water vapor are linear at low
>>>concentrations up to and including 1 atm.
>>>It is called the Beer-Lambert law.
>>>http://elchem.kaist.ac.kr/vt/chem-ed/spec/beerslaw.htm
>> There is no reason to believe that it holds at typical interstellar
>> densities...any more than Ohm's law holds at -272K.
>You must mean -272C as there are no temperatures below zero in the K scale.
yes.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>Ohms law holds at -272C for many substances.
>It holds for all substances under some circumstances at -272C (such as in
>high magnetic field conditions where
...
read more »
From: Henri Wilson - view profile
Date: Fri, May 6 2005 9:11 am
Email: H@..(Henri Wilson)
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
On 6 May 2005 02:38:17 -0700, "G" wrote:
>Bz
> That complicates everything, upsets and confuses me and makes me
>suspect SRT is nonsense, however I need the proof.
>Maybe 100 years from now we will realize Henri was right.
Plenty of people, past, present and future KNOW Henri is right.
All the evidence point to the BaT being right.
>G
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.
From: Sue... - view profile
Date: Fri, May 6 2005 10:31 am
Email: "Sue..."
Groups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
The fine-structure constant is of dimension 1 (i.e., it is simply a
number) and very nearly equal to 1/137. It is the "coupling constant"
or measure of the strength of the electromagnetic force that governs
how electrically charged elementary particles (e.g., electron, muon)
and light (photons) interact. Currently, the value of having the
smallest uncertainty comes from the comparison of the theoretical
expression ae(theor) and experimental value ae(expt) of the anomalous
magnetic moment of the electron ae. Starting in the 1980's, a new and
wholly different measurement approach using the quantum Hall effect
(QHE) has caused excitement because the value of obtained from it
independently corroborates the value of from the electron magnetic
moment anomaly. The QHE value of does not have as small an uncertainty
as the electron magnetic moment value, but it does provide a
significant independent confirmation of that value.
The quantity was introduced into physics by A. Sommerfeld in 1916 and
in the past has often been referred to as the Sommerfeld fine-structure
constant. In order to explain the observed splitting or fine structure
of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, Sommerfeld extended the Bohr
theory to include elliptical orbits and the relativistic dependence of
mass on velocity. The quantity , which is equal to the ratio v1/c where
v1 is the velocity of the electron in the first circular Bohr orbit and
c is the speed of light in vacuum, appeared naturally in Sommerfeld's
analysis and determined the size of the splitting or fine-structure of
the hydrogenic spectral lines. Sommerfeld's theory had some early
success in explaining experimental observations but could not
accommodate the discovery of electron spin. Although the Dirac
relativistic theory of the electron introduced in 1928 solves the main
aspects of the problem of the hydrogen fine-structure, still
determines its size as in the Sommerfeld theory. Consequently, the name
"fine-structure" constant for the group of constants below has
remained:
,
where e is the elementary charge, = h/2 where h is the Planck
constant, = 1/µ0c2 is the electric constant (permitivity of vacuum)
and µ0 is the magnetic constant (permeability of vacuum). In the
International System of Units (SI), c, , and µ0 are exactly known
constants.
Our view of the fine-structure constant has changed markedly since
Sommerfeld introduced it over 80 years ago. We now consider the
coupling constant for the electromagnetic force and similar to those
for the other three known fundamental forces or interactions of nature:
the gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear
force. Further, since is proportional to e2, it is viewed as the
square of an effective charge "screened by vacuum polarization and seen
from an infinite distance."
According to quantum electrodynamics (QED), the relativistic quantum
field theory of the interaction of charged particles and photons, an
electron can emit virtual photons that can then emit virtual
electron-positron pairs (e+, e-). The virtual positrons are attracted
to the original or "bare" electron while the virtual electrons are
repelled from it. The bare electron is therefore screened due to this
polarization. The usual fine-structure constant is defined as the
square of the completely screened charge, that is, the value observed
at infinite distance or in the limit of zero momentum transfer. At
shorter distances corresponding to higher energy processes or probes
(large momentum transfers), the screen is partially penetrated and the
strength of the electromagnetic interaction increases since the
effective charge increases. Thus depends upon the energy at which it
is measured, increasing with increasing energy, and is considered an
effective or running coupling constant. Indeed, due to e+e- and other
vacuum polarization processes, at an energy corresponding to the mass
of the W boson (approximately 81 GeV, equivalent to a distance of
approximately 2 x 10-18 m), (mW) is approximately 1/128 compared with
its zero-energy value of approximately 1/137. Thus the famous number
1/137 is not unique or especially fundamental.
As indicated above, the value of alpha from the quantum Hall effect
(QHE) has corroborated the value from the electron magnetic moment
anomaly ae. The QHE is characteristic of a completely quantized
two-dimensional electron gas. Such a gas may be realized in a
high-mobility semiconductor device such as a silicon
metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) or
GaAsAlxGa1-x As heterojunction of standard Hall bar geometry in an
applied magnetic flux density B of the order of 10 T and cooled to
about 1 K.
For a fixed current I (typically 10 µA to 50 µA) through the device,
there are regions in the curve of Hall voltage UH versus gate voltage
for a MOSFET, or of UH vs B for a heterojunction, where UH remains
constant as either the gate voltage or B is varied. These regions of
constant UH are termed quantum Hall plateaus. In the limit of zero
dissipation (zero voltage drop) in the direction of current flow, the
Hall voltage-to-current quotient UH(i)/I or Hall resistance RH(i) of
the ith plateau, where i is an integer (we consider only the integral
QHE), is quantized and given by RH(i) = UH(i)/I = RK/i where RK is the
von Klitzing constant (after the discoverer of the QHE).
The theory of the QHE predicts, and the experimentally observed
universality of RH(i) = UH(i)/I = RK/i is consistent with the
prediction, that RK = h/e2= µ0c/2. Since in the SI µ0 = 4 x 10-7 N/A2
exactly, and c = 299 792 458 m/s exactly as a result of the 1983
redefinition of the meter in terms of the speed of light, a measurement
of RK in SI units (i.e., ohms) with a given uncerta