Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
Henri Wilson
galaxy and every object must be in orbit around a mass centre of some kind.
Most do not appear to have moved much in thousands of years.
Should we not expect to see more movement than we do?
...my question may be naive and the answer trivial... so please enlighten me.
George Dishman
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:563as29ihj6ro2a41...@4ax.com...
> Sure, they're a long way from us...but there are a great many out there in
> our
> galaxy and every object must be in orbit around a mass centre of some
> kind.
>
> Most do not appear to have moved much in thousands of years.
http://schmidling.com/barnard.htm
> Should we not expect to see more movement than we do?
How would you go about calculating what to expect? Until
you do that, you can't say whether they move more or less
than expected.
> ...my question may be naive and the answer trivial... so please enlighten
> me.
Bear in mind nearby stars are roughly in the same part of
the galactic disk so tend to share a similar mean motion.
However, your first point is the key one, they really are
a very long way away by everyday standards.
George
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
on Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:38:56 GMT
<563as29ihj6ro2a41...@4ax.com>:
If one assumes that a star 50 light-years away is moving
at a speed of 2 * 10^-3 c [*], that means it will move
2 light years per millennium. Assuming that it is moving
sideways to us that resolves to about 1/25th of a radian
per millennium, or 2.30 degrees per millennium, or 8.05
arcseconds per year. Even were the star 10x closer (or
5 l-y) one only gets 80.5 arcseconds per year -- or 1'20.5".
Contrast this to Pluto's distance of 39.481 AU or 5.9 * 10^12 m
(semimajor axis), an average orbital speed of 4.666 * 10^3 m/s,
and an orbital period of 248.09 years; this translates into
1.45 degrees per year, despite the fact that Pluto is moving more
slowly (about 1.5 * 10^-4 c) in an absolute sense.
Hence the term applied to the 8 planetei -- Greek for "wanderer".
(Pluto got demoted. :-) )
[*] this is double the estimated speed at which the Sun
is swinging around the Galactic core. It is theoretically
possible for a star to be retrograde.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dumbledore_
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:563as29ihj6ro2a41...@4ax.com...
http://reductionism.net.seanic.net/Astrophotos/barnard/BarnardStar_3.GIF
Barnard's Star was at coordinates 17:57:48.23, +04:42:33.3 (equinox 2000.0) on June 27, 2005.
http://schmidling.com/barnard.htm
Take a long hard look and do the numbers, stop muttering unifuckation, you won't live long enough to see one of them move with binoculars.
Paul Schlyter
Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
> Sure, they're a long way from us...
That's the answer to your question; the so-called "fixed" stars appear
relatively fixed because of their vast distances to us. While light
takes one second to travel to the Moon, 8 minutes to the Sun, one and
a half hour to Saturn and some 5 hours to Neptune, light takes more
than 4 years to travel to the *nearest* star, and hundreds of years or
more to travel to the average star visible to the naked eye in our
skies. That's a big difference!
> but there are a great many out there in our galaxy and every object
> must be in orbit around a mass centre of some kind.
Indeed true: all the stars we see with the naked eye in our skies
belong to our galaxy, and they are all orbiting the center of our
galaxy with an orbital speed of some 200 to 300 km/s. That's some six
to ten times faster than the orbital speed of the Earth around the
Sun, but the stars are vastly more distant than just some six to ten
times the distance to the Sun. Therefore they appear to move much much
slower.
> Most do not appear to have moved much in thousands of years.
> Should we not expect to see more movement than we do?
Why should we expect what does not happen?
Mankind saw for many thousands of years that the stars didn't appear
to move much relative to one another, with the exception of 7 bodies
which were called planets (= "wandering stars"): Sun, Moon, Mercury,
Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. The weekdays were named after the
planets and that's why we have a 7-day week. Now, since mankind had
known for a very long time that this was the case, why should we
"expect" anything different? The reason for this (i.e. the vast
distances to the stars) was found out much later though - ancient man
believed the "fixed" stars were just a little farther away than
Saturn.
> ...my question may be naive and the answer trivial... so please
> enlighten me.
Hopefully done....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
> wrote
>on Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:38:56 GMT
><563as29ihj6ro2a41...@4ax.com>:
>> Sure, they're a long way from us...but there are a great many out there in our
>> galaxy and every object must be in orbit around a mass centre of some kind.
>>
>> Most do not appear to have moved much in thousands of years.
>> Should we not expect to see more movement than we do?
>>
>> ...my question may be naive and the answer trivial... so please enlighten me.
>
>If one assumes that a star 50 light-years away is moving
>at a speed of 2 * 10^-3 c [*], that means it will move
>2 light years per millennium. Assuming that it is moving
>sideways to us that resolves to about 1/25th of a radian
>per millennium, or 2.30 degrees per millennium, or 8.05
>arcseconds per year. Even were the star 10x closer (or
>5 l-y) one only gets 80.5 arcseconds per year -- or 1'20.5".
Yes, thanks for that Ghost. More or less what I thought.
I was wondering why more stars were not seen changing places as they orbit
each other reasonably closely.
I suppose the answer is that all objects in optically resolvable orbits are
always moving very slowly around that orbit.
No large object in our galaxy appears to be moving at anything like c wrt
anything else.....something I find interesting.
Dumbledore_
"Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> wrote in message news:eq5ml1$2mgp$1...@merope.saaf.se...
Henri thinks stars are 0.3 LY from us to fit his theory.
Henri Wilson
Yes, I should have worded my question differently.
I was really wondering about well separated binary pairs...why they weren't
seen to be changing places more frequently...but again 'distance' probably
provides the answer.
I know some such binaries are recorded, but generally, those in resolvable
orbits will be moving very slowly around their orbits.
However, for very heavy stars, the orbit period at say 0.01 LY radius could
conceivably be less than one hundred years....and movement should be
observable.
Tom Roberts
> Indeed true: all the stars we see with the naked eye in our skies
> belong to our galaxy, and they are all orbiting the center of our
And equally importantly, the galaxy is rotating as an approximately
rigid assembly of stars. This makes them appear to move even less.
Tom Roberts
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Listen you stupid old dope, stop misrepresenting me or you will end up in
court.
I said that to generate the magnitude changes associated with published
brightness curves, the distance parameter value that has to be fed in is always
less than the hipparcos one. For short period binaries - or whatever they are -
the required distances can be less than 1 LY.
AT NO TIME HAVE I CLAIMED THAT THESE STARS ARE ONLY 0.3 LYS FROM THE FUCKING
EARTH.
SO SHOVE IT UP YOUR GLENLIVET BOTTLE.
Dumbledore_
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:0upcs2hgg78g43mtf...@4ax.com...
Sirius is a binary with a 50 year period. That's less than our own outer planets.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001006.html
Stick around for 25 years, you'll have half an orbit. It won't be edge on, though.
http://www.lazaris.com/Images/SiriusOrbitL1.jpg
> I know some such binaries are recorded, but generally, those in resolvable
> orbits will be moving very slowly around their orbits.
>
> However, for very heavy stars, the orbit period at say 0.01 LY radius could
> conceivably be less than one hundred years....and movement should be
> observable.
The orbit period at say 0.01 LY radius could conceivably be less than
one hundred years only in the mind of a psychomaniac.
Dumbledore_
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:s7dds25jojsudebar...@4ax.com...
It's your data I quoted, psycho. See me in court all you want to.
> I said that to generate the magnitude changes associated with published
> brightness curves, the distance parameter value that has to be fed in is always
> less than the hipparcos one. For short period binaries - or whatever they are -
> the required distances can be less than 1 LY.
You raving mad, Proxima Centauri is further than that by parallax.
Take me to court, you'll get yourself committed to an asylum.
>
> AT NO TIME HAVE I CLAIMED THAT THESE STARS ARE ONLY 0.3 LYS FROM THE FUCKING
> EARTH.
Yes you did, you published it. I've got the proof, crackpot.
Take me to court, get yourself committed. Is this your code, Wilson?
Dim c, G, LU, D, pi, v, K1, K2, redblue As Double
Dim n, m As Integer
Dim core As Double
Dim X, Y, Z, R1, R2, Vsquared, vescape As Double
Dim Density1, Density2, decel, accel, deltae As Double
Dim shiftratio As Double
Private Sub Command1_Click()
Spaceslice.Show
End Sub
Private Sub Command2_Click()
End
End Sub
Private Sub Command3_Click()
Form2.Cls
Form2.Top = 10
Form2.Label1.Visible = False
Form2.Label2.Visible = False
Form2.Show
Form2.Label3.Visible = True
Form2.Label4.Visible = True
Form2.Label5.Visible = True
End Sub
Private Sub Command4_Click()
secondCalc.Hide
FirstCalc.Show
End Sub
Private Sub Form_Load()
Combo1.AddItem 0.01
Combo1.AddItem 0.03
Combo1.AddItem 0.05
Combo1.AddItem 0.1
Combo1.AddItem 0.2
Combo1.AddItem 0.4 'R1 Million Lightyears
Combo1.AddItem 1
Combo2.AddItem 0.01
Combo2.AddItem 0.03
Combo2.AddItem 0.05
Combo2.AddItem 0.1
Combo2.AddItem 0.2
Combo2.AddItem 0.4 'R2 Million Lightyears
Combo2.AddItem 1
Combo3.AddItem 0
Combo3.AddItem 0.01
Combo3.AddItem 0.03
Combo3.AddItem 0.05
Combo3.AddItem 0.1
Combo3.AddItem 0.2
Combo3.AddItem 0.4 'Y Million Lightyears
Combo3.AddItem 1
Combo4.AddItem 0
Combo4.AddItem 0.01
Combo4.AddItem 0.03
Combo4.AddItem 0.05
Combo4.AddItem 0.1
Combo4.AddItem 0.2
Combo4.AddItem 0.4 'Z Million Lightyears
Combo4.AddItem 1
Combo5.AddItem 1
Combo5.AddItem 3
Combo5.AddItem 10 'X distance between source and observer
Combo5.AddItem 50
Combo5.AddItem 200
Combo5.AddItem 1000
Combo6.AddItem -12
Combo6.AddItem -13
Combo6.AddItem -14
Combo6.AddItem -15
Combo6.AddItem -16
Combo6.AddItem -17
Combo6.AddItem -18
Combo6.AddItem -19 ' Density D1
Combo6.AddItem -20
Combo7.AddItem 1 ' Density D2/D1
Combo7.AddItem 0.97
Combo7.AddItem 0.9
Combo7.AddItem 0.8
Combo7.AddItem 0.6
Combo7.AddItem 0.3
Combo7.AddItem 0
Combo8.AddItem 1 ' Blue thickness/diameter
Combo8.AddItem 0.4
Combo8.AddItem 0.2
Combo8.AddItem 0.1
Combo8.AddItem 0.04
Combo8.AddItem 0.02
Combo8.AddItem 0.01
Combo9.AddItem 1 ' red thickness/diameter
Combo9.AddItem 0.4
Combo9.AddItem 0.2
Combo9.AddItem 0.1
Combo9.AddItem 0.04
Combo9.AddItem 0.02
Combo9.AddItem 0.01
G = 6.67 * 10 ^ -11
LU = 9.46021 * 10 ^ 21 'has been x 10^6 to convert to millions of LY
c = 2.99776 * 10 ^ 8
pi = 3.14159
End Sub
Private Sub Form_click()
Form2.Cls
Form2.Label6.Visible = False
If Combo1.Text = Empty Or Combo2.Text = Empty Or Combo3.Text = Empty Or
Combo4.Text = Empty Or Combo5.Text = Empty Or Combo6.Text = Empty Or
Combo7.Text = Empty Or Combo8.Text = Empty Then GoTo emty
Form2.Top = 5120
Form2.Show
Form2.Label1.Visible = False
Form2.Label2.Visible = False
Form2.Label3.Visible = False
Form2.Label4.Visible = False
Form2.Label5.Visible = False
Form2.Label6.Visible = False
R1 = Combo1.Text * LU
R2 = Combo2.Text * LU
Y = Combo3.Text * LU
Z = Combo4.Text * LU
X = Combo5.Text * LU
If X = 0 Then GoTo Xnort
If R1 = 0 Or R2 = 0 Then
Form2.Print "Reset values. Neither R1 nor R2 should be zero."
GoTo skip
End If
If Y > R1 Then GoTo changeyz
If Z > R2 And Combo7.Text > 0 Then GoTo changeyz
core = (10 ^ Combo6.Text)
Density1 = core * Combo8.Text
Density2 = core * Combo7.Text * Combo9.Text
K1 = 4.18879 * G * Density1
K2 = 4.18879 * G * Density2
vescape = ((K1 * ((R1 ^ 2) - ((Y ^ 2) * (1 - (Y / 2 / R1))))) ^ 0.5) / c
decel = K1 * ((R1 ^ 2) / 2 * (1 - (R1 / (X + Y) / 2)) - ((Y ^ 2) / 2 * (1 - (Y
/ 2 / R1)))) 'left to right
accel = K2 * ((R2 ^ 2) / 2 * (1 - (R2 / (X + Z) / 2)) - ((Z ^ 2) / 2 * (1 - (Z
/ R2 / 2)))) 'right to left
deltae = decel - accel 'total energy lost
Vsquared = (c ^ 2) - (2 * deltae)
If Vsquared < 0 Then GoTo escape
v = (Vsquared ^ 0.5) / c 'final velocity/c
shiftratio = 1 - v 'fractional velocity change
' User-defined formats.
shiftratio = Format(shiftratio, "00.#######")
core = Format(core, "#E-##")
vescape = Format(vescape, "0.#######")
v = Format(v, "0.#######")
decel = Format(decel, "#.####E+##")
accel = Format(accel, "#.####E+##")
deltae = Format(deltae, "00.#####000E+00")
Form2.Print "Distance between source and observer = "; Combo5.Text; " million
lightyears":
Form2.Print "Core density of LH volume: D1 =10^"; Combo6.Text; " kgm/m^3":
Form2.Print "Core density gradient: D2/D1 = "; Combo7.Text:
Form2.Print "Escape velocity from LH volume to infinity ="; vescape; "c":
Form2.Print:
Form2.Print "Energy lost escaping LH volume ="; decel; " mks units":
Form2.Print "Energy gained approaching RH volume ="; accel:
Form2.Print "Difference ="; deltae:
Form2.Print
If Vsquared >= 0 Then Form2.Print "Effective one-way velocity of light reaching
observer: v ="; v; "c":
Form2.Print "Fractional redshift: (c-v)/c = "; shiftratio
GoTo skip
escape:
Form2.Print "Escape velocity from LH volume to infinity="; vescape; "c":
Form2.Print "light cannot escape LH body. 'Black Hole' exists at centre."
GoTo skip
changeyz:
If Y > R1 Or Z > R2 Then Form2.Label6.Visible = True Else Form2.Label6.Visible
= False
GoTo skip
Xnort:
Form2.Print "X must not be zero":
GoTo skip
emty:
Form2.Show
Form2.Cls
Form2.Print "Reset values"
skip:
End Sub
I'm sure it means nothing to you.
>
> SO SHOVE IT UP YOUR GLENLIVET BOTTLE.
Drunken old wabo, you are senile.
Saul Levy
been well known for at least 150 years.
Saul Levy
Paul Schlyter
binary stars was the good ol' William Herschel....
In article <dckds25eftu3e46j8...@4ax.com>,
Paul Schlyter
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You are here referring to Population-I stars, which occupy the disk of
our galaxy. No, it doesn't rotate as a rigid body, instead its
orbital speed is pretty much constant over a farly large part of the
disk. Nevertheless, this does make stars in the vicinity of one
another orbit the galaxy with pretty mch the same speed - like most
stars we see in our sky with the naked eye.
However, there are exceptions. The Population II stars move with
great speed, and large inclination, relative to the disk of our
galaxy. The brightest Population II star in our sky is Arcturus,
and it's really not a coincidence that Arcturus was the very first
star which had its proper motion detected: it had moved a degree
or two in our sky since the age of the ancient Greeks. Arcturus
indeed has the largest motion of all bright stars in the nothern
sky - Alfa Centauri moves faster in our sky though, but that's due
to its proximity to us rather than to a high real speed.
Paul Schlyter
Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
> I was really wondering about well separated binary pairs...why they weren't
> seen to be changing places more frequently...but again 'distance' probably
> provides the answer.
> I know some such binaries are recorded,
...not only "some" - it's actually a quite large number of binaries
which have had their orbital motion measured and their orbits
determined. Thousands of binaries have had their orbits
determined..... btw the first person who measured orbital motions of
binary stars was William Herschel, several centuries ago.
> but generally, those in resolvable orbits will be moving very slowly around
> their orbits.
It seems you have a quite small telescope. Of course whether a binary is
resolvable depends a lot on your telescope: larger scopes will be able
to resolve many more binary stars.
> However, for very heavy stars, the orbit period at say 0.01 LY radius could
> conceivably be less than one hundred years....and movement should be
> observable.
If you want to observe orbital motions in binary stars most easily, you should
pay attention to nearby binary stars.
Alfa Centauri, our most nearby star system at some 4.2 LY distance,
will show considerable orbital motion during a human lifetime (its
orbital period is some 80 years). But it's too far south for most
northern hemisphere observers to see.
I have myself seen orbital motion in two binaries, with causal visual
observation:
70 Ophiuchi: near its perihelion in the 1980's I observed and drew
this binary once a year. After only some 4-5 years it had changed its
PA by some 90 degrees. Now it's away from perihelion and therefore
moving more slowly, but keep an eye on this pair anyway and you'll see
orbital motion. Although now it may take a decade or two. IF you
attach a micrometer to your eyepiece, so you can detect smaller
changes in PA or separation, you'll detect the motion sooner of
course.
Gamma Virginis: In my youth in the 1960's, this binary was easily
resolvable with a separation of some 6 arc seconds. Today it's near
perihelion, with a separation of a fraction of an arc seconds and
most telescopes will be unable to resolve it. Within several years
the pair will widen again, making Gamma Virginis resolvable also
with smaller telescopes.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:s7dds25jojsudebar...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:02:03 GMT, "Dumbledore_" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_r>
>>>Henri thinks stars are 0.3 LY from us to fit his theory.
>>
>> Listen you stupid old dope, stop misrepresenting me or you will end up in
>> court.
>
>It's your data I quoted, psycho. See me in court all you want to.
I will if you don't shutup!
rate the magnitude changes associated with published
>> brightness curves, the distance parameter value that has to be fed in is always
>> less than the hipparcos one. For short period binaries - or whatever they are -
>> the required distances can be less than 1 LY.
>
>You raving mad, Proxima Centauri is further than that by parallax.
>Take me to court, you'll get yourself committed to an asylum.
Fucking old drunk...
Fucking old pommie dri/unj kjdjgk
I hope you are fucking freexing...
Henri Wilson
>In article <0upcs2hgg78g43mtf...@4ax.com>,
>Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
>
>> I was really wondering about well separated binary pairs...why they weren't
>> seen to be changing places more frequently...but again 'distance' probably
>> provides the answer.
>> I know some such binaries are recorded,
>
>...not only "some" - it's actually a quite large number of binaries
>which have had their orbital motion measured and their orbits
>determined. Thousands of binaries have had their orbits
>determined..... btw the first person who measured orbital motions of
>binary stars was William Herschel, several centuries ago.
Paul, I thank you for your very good comments but since I don't post to
sci.astro very often, I should warn you that am a proponent of the ballistic
theory of light.
I say that light in space moves at c wrt its source star and that most
astronomers are under a delusion in believing that is it moves at c wrt Earth.
>> but generally, those in resolvable orbits will be moving very slowly around
>> their orbits.
>
>It seems you have a quite small telescope. Of course whether a binary is
>resolvable depends a lot on your telescope: larger scopes will be able
>to resolve many more binary stars.
I don't have a telescope at present...just read what others have to say..
>> However, for very heavy stars, the orbit period at say 0.01 LY radius could
>> conceivably be less than one hundred years....and movement should be
>> observable.
>
>If you want to observe orbital motions in binary stars most easily, you should
>pay attention to nearby binary stars.
>
>Alfa Centauri, our most nearby star system at some 4.2 LY distance,
>will show considerable orbital motion during a human lifetime (its
>orbital period is some 80 years). But it's too far south for most
>northern hemisphere observers to see.
I'm OZ. We have a great view of the Milky Way. On clear nights I can see the
whole spiral formation.
>I have myself seen orbital motion in two binaries, with causal visual
>observation:
>
>70 Ophiuchi: near its perihelion in the 1980's I observed and drew
>this binary once a year. After only some 4-5 years it had changed its
>PA by some 90 degrees. Now it's away from perihelion and therefore
>moving more slowly, but keep an eye on this pair anyway and you'll see
>orbital motion. Although now it may take a decade or two. IF you
>attach a micrometer to your eyepiece, so you can detect smaller
>changes in PA or separation, you'll detect the motion sooner of
>course.
Were you able to resolve the orbit parameters....eccentricity, yaw?
>Gamma Virginis: In my youth in the 1960's, this binary was easily
>resolvable with a separation of some 6 arc seconds. Today it's near
>perihelion, with a separation of a fraction of an arc seconds and
>most telescopes will be unable to resolve it. Within several years
>the pair will widen again, making Gamma Virginis resolvable also
>with smaller telescopes.
Thanks for that.
I should advise you that for some time, I have been studying variable star
light curves with the aim of proving Einstein wrong...which of course he was.
Light from distant stars travels at c wrt those stars and at c+v wrt planet
Earth.
Binary stars in orbit, emit light at sinusoidially varying speed wrt Earth.
Their 'fast' light catches the slower light, causing 'bunching', which appears
to us as a variation in brightness.
bill.m...@gmail.com
> In article <0upcs2hgg78g43mtfab9u8qbcmjqr0e...@4ax.com>,
I guess another good one to try is Sirius and its' "Pup". The orbit is
around fifty years. The main problem with this one is the difference
in brightness of more than nine magnitudes.
Bill
Dumbledore_
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:ktuds2t1ne7rad9ak...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:42:47 GMT, "Dumbledore_" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_r>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:s7dds25jojsudebar...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:02:03 GMT, "Dumbledore_" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_r>
>
>>>>Henri thinks stars are 0.3 LY from us to fit his theory.
>>>
>>> Listen you stupid old dope, stop misrepresenting me or you will end up in
>>> court.
>>
>>It's your data I quoted, psycho. See me in court all you want to.
>
> I will if you don't shutup!
It's your fuckhead theory of unifuckation we've had to listen to.
Do it, ARSEHOLE.
> rate the magnitude changes associated with published
>>> brightness curves, the distance parameter value that has to be fed in is always
>>> less than the hipparcos one. For short period binaries - or whatever they are -
>>> the required distances can be less than 1 LY.
>>
>>You raving mad, Proxima Centauri is further than that by parallax.
>>Take me to court, you'll get yourself committed to an asylum.
>
> Fucking old drunk...
I see Paul is telling you everything I've tried to and you say 'thank you' to him.
Take me to court, you'll get yourself committed to an asylum.
>
>
>>>
Better than freaking like you.
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:12:11 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
wrote:
>I would say 200+ years. The first astronomer to detect motion in
Art Deco
[kooky spaghetti code dumped]
>>>Form2.Print "X must not be zero":
>>>GoTo skip
>>>emty:
>>>Form2.Show
>>>Form2.Cls
>>>Form2.Print "Reset values"
>>>skip:
>>>End Sub
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sure it means nothing to you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> SO SHOVE IT UP YOUR GLENLIVET BOTTLE.
>>>
>>>Drunken old wabo, you are senile.
>>
>> Fucking old pommie dri/unj kjdjgk
>>
>> I hope you are fucking freexing...
>
>
>Better than freaking like you.
Ko0kFITE!!
<makes more nachos>
--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
Paul Schlyter
Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:12:11 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
> Paul, I thank you for your very good comments but since I don't post to
> sci.astro very often, I should warn you that am a proponent of the ballistic
> theory of light.
> I say that light in space moves at c wrt its source star
Well, it does ... so you're quite correct in that.
> and that most astronomers are under a delusion in believing that is it moves
> at c wrt Earth.
That's not a delusion - there's plenty of experimental evidence that light
always moves at c wrt to any observer on the Earth. And it was this
experimental evidence which caused the birth of the theory of relativity.
Light moves at c with respect to anything: the light source (as you
correctly claim), the Earth's center, any observer on any place on
Earth (which you erroneously call a "delusion"), any other planet or
star, yes even any other light ray.
That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.
>>> but generally, those in resolvable orbits will be moving very slowly around
>>> their orbits.
>>
>> It seems you have a quite small telescope. Of course whether a binary is
>> resolvable depends a lot on your telescope: larger scopes will be able
>> to resolve many more binary stars.
>
> I don't have a telescope at present...just read what others have to say..
Then I fully understand your difficulty in detecting orbital motions in
binary stars: there is not even one single binary star in our skies where
orbital motion has been detected with the naked eye. Epsilon Lyrae, which
probably is the tightest binary star resolvable to the naked eye, has an
orbital period of many millions of years.
>> I have myself seen orbital motion in two binaries, with causal visual
>> observation:
>>
>> 70 Ophiuchi: near its perihelion in the 1980's I observed and drew
>> this binary once a year. After only some 4-5 years it had changed its
>> PA by some 90 degrees. Now it's away from perihelion and therefore
>> moving more slowly, but keep an eye on this pair anyway and you'll see
>> orbital motion. Although now it may take a decade or two. IF you
>> attach a micrometer to your eyepiece, so you can detect smaller
>> changes in PA or separation, you'll detect the motion sooner of
>> course.
>
> Were you able to resolve the orbit parameters....eccentricity, yaw?
...it takes more than causal visual observations to do that..... :-)
I saw the stars quite noticeably change position with respect to one
another, that's all. To derive orbital parameters would require
micrometric measurements (which I didn't do), preferably over one
full orbit or more. Others have already done that.
>> Gamma Virginis: In my youth in the 1960's, this binary was easily
>> resolvable with a separation of some 6 arc seconds. Today it's near
>> perihelion, with a separation of a fraction of an arc seconds and
>> most telescopes will be unable to resolve it. Within several years
>> the pair will widen again, making Gamma Virginis resolvable also
>> with smaller telescopes.
>
> Thanks for that.
>
> I should advise you that for some time, I have been studying variable star
> light curves with the aim of proving Einstein wrong...which of course he was.
:-) ..... I have a book I'd like to recommend you to read. It was
written by Martin Gardner, and it's called "Fads and fallacies in the
name of science". It has a charpter named "Down with Einstein!" where
you'll find examples of other people who, like you, thought they
proved Einstein wrong. Gardner also give examples of people before
Einstein who instead attacked Newton. You know, it's the #1 paradigm
which also is the most popular target for these attacks.
Of course, proving Einstein wrong is a wet dream for any scientist,
since anyone who actually succeeds in doing that will make it into the
history of science. But you'd better be able to base your claims on
solid facts! No-one has yet succeeded in doing that. And if your
claims aren't based on facts, they'll fall apart and you'll just
become another one in the long line of those who deluded themselves
to believe they had proved Einstein wrong....
> Light from distant stars travels at c wrt those stars
Correct!
> and at c+v wrt planet Earth.
Wrong! If light had arrived at Earth with a speed different from c wrt to
the Earth, this would have been detected experimentally over 100 years ago,
in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which attempted to measure just
that: variations in the speed of light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
The correct way to add v to c, the velocity of light, is:
total_speed = (c+v) / ( 1+(cv/c^2))
and here total_speed will become equal to c, no matter what value v has ....
Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
to see how that formula is derived.
> Binary stars in orbit, emit light at sinusoidially varying speed wrt
> Earth. Their 'fast' light catches the slower light, causing 'bunching',
> which appears to us as a variation in brightness.
You don't need binary stars for that -- the Earth's own orbital motion
causes a yearly variation in the radial velocity of any star with +-
30*cos(ecl_lat) km/s, where ecl_lat is the ecliptic latitude of the
star. So if your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. The only
exception would be stars sufficiently close to the ecliptic poles in
our sky.
Now, check the catalogs of variable stars to see how many variables
you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
find? Not ver many, if anyone at all....
Perhaps you think there's a world-wide conspiracy which suppresses and
hides away all information about all those stars in our sky which vary
in brightness with a period of exactly one Earth year? It would of
course be impossible to maintain such a conspiracy, but let's pretend
for a moment that it does exist. There would be an easy way out of
that for you: get a telescope and some good quality photometer, and
start measuring the brightness of the stars yourself!
So what are you waiting for? Get going! :-)
.... and even if you fail to detect any variability of most stars with
a period of exactly one Earth year, you'll at least learn some
practical astronomy. And perhaps you'll also gain a genuine interest
in observing the skies?
Androcles
"Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> wrote in message news:eq9d1c$13ua$1...@merope.saaf.se...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
>
> and here total_speed will become equal to c, no matter what value v has ....
>
> The correct way to add v to c, the velocity of light, is:
>
> total_speed = (c+v) / ( 1+(cv/c^2))
Which statement do you not agree with?
1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.
-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348
2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727
3) Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
4) "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
5) "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
Can you prove that mathematically?
> Check out:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
>
> to see how that formula is derived.
That drivel is written by Ed Schaefer, a well-known illiterate who ran away
from sci.physics.relativity in 1999.
The way the "formula" (baby food) is really derived can be found here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
With explanation here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
>> Binary stars in orbit, emit light at sinusoidially varying speed wrt
>> Earth. Their 'fast' light catches the slower light, causing 'bunching',
>> which appears to us as a variation in brightness.
>
> You don't need binary stars for that -- the Earth's own orbital motion
> causes a yearly variation in the radial velocity of any star with +-
> 30*cos(ecl_lat) km/s, where ecl_lat is the ecliptic latitude of the
> star. So if your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
> appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year.
Yes, A variation of 0.00000000000001 magnitudes, go ahead and measure it.
> The only
> exception would be stars sufficiently close to the ecliptic poles in
> our sky.
Actually Polaris is variable.
> Now, check the catalogs of variable stars to see how many variables
> you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
> find? Not ver many, if anyone at all....
All of them, to within 0.00000000000001 magnitudes. Go ahead
and measure them, what are you waiting for?
>
> Perhaps you think there's a world-wide conspiracy which suppresses and
> hides away all information about all those stars in our sky which vary
> in brightness with a period of exactly one Earth year?
If the Church's objections to Galileo was a conspiracy in your view
then it probably was, but in my view it is merely stupidity.
> It would of
> course be impossible to maintain such a conspiracy, but let's pretend
> for a moment that it does exist. There would be an easy way out of
> that for you: get a telescope and some good quality photometer, and
> start measuring the brightness of the stars yourself!
And your explanation for Doppler shift is aether?
> So what are you waiting for? Get going! :-)
> .... and even if you fail to detect any variability of most stars with
> a period of exactly one Earth year, you'll at least learn some
> practical astronomy. And perhaps you'll also gain a genuine interest
> in observing the skies?
Looking without understanding what you are seeing is rather foolish,
isn't it?
Look, here is a picture made by a renowned astronomer, Percy Lowell.
http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html
Are there canals on Mars, Paul?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message news:YaXxh.227511$QY6.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
> 4) "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
> measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"
> --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
> 5) "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered
> by composition > with a velocity less than that of light."
> --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
>
> Can you prove that mathematically?
Would you be able to do something with it beyond this?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TheProblem.html
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
>In article <39vds2tiv9vv11v83...@4ax.com>,
>Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:12:11 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>>
>> Paul, I thank you for your very good comments but since I don't post to
>> sci.astro very often, I should warn you that am a proponent of the ballistic
>> theory of light.
>> I say that light in space moves at c wrt its source star
>
>Well, it does ... so you're quite correct in that.
>
>> and that most astronomers are under a delusion in believing that is it moves
>> at c wrt Earth.
>
>That's not a delusion - there's plenty of experimental evidence that light
>always moves at c wrt to any observer on the Earth. And it was this
>experimental evidence which caused the birth of the theory of relativity.
>
>Light moves at c with respect to anything: the light source (as you
>correctly claim), the Earth's center, any observer on any place on
>Earth (which you erroneously call a "delusion"), any other planet or
>star, yes even any other light ray.
>
>That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
>with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.
Yes. We know all about the unproven postulate....that's what has been derailing
astronomy for 100 years.
>>>> but generally, those in resolvable orbits will be moving very slowly around
>>>> their orbits.
>>>
>>> It seems you have a quite small telescope. Of course whether a binary is
>>> resolvable depends a lot on your telescope: larger scopes will be able
>>> to resolve many more binary stars.
>>
>> I don't have a telescope at present...just read what others have to say..
>
>Then I fully understand your difficulty in detecting orbital motions in
>binary stars: there is not even one single binary star in our skies where
>orbital motion has been detected with the naked eye. Epsilon Lyrae, which
>probably is the tightest binary star resolvable to the naked eye, has an
>orbital period of many millions of years.
But there must by plenty with resolvable orbits and periods of less than 100
years. I just surprised that more haven't been recorded.
>>> I have myself seen orbital motion in two binaries, with causal visual
>>> observation:
>>>
>>> 70 Ophiuchi: near its perihelion in the 1980's I observed and drew
>>> this binary once a year. After only some 4-5 years it had changed its
>>> PA by some 90 degrees. Now it's away from perihelion and therefore
>>> moving more slowly, but keep an eye on this pair anyway and you'll see
>>> orbital motion. Although now it may take a decade or two. IF you
>>> attach a micrometer to your eyepiece, so you can detect smaller
>>> changes in PA or separation, you'll detect the motion sooner of
>>> course.
>>
>> Were you able to resolve the orbit parameters....eccentricity, yaw?
>
>...it takes more than causal visual observations to do that..... :-)
>
>I saw the stars quite noticeably change position with respect to one
>another, that's all. To derive orbital parameters would require
>micrometric measurements (which I didn't do), preferably over one
>full orbit or more. Others have already done that.
OK
Crap. The MMX null result is a direct result of light being ballistic. It moves
at c wrt everything in the source frame...ie, the whole interferometer.
The MMX was doomed before it even left the ground...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
>
>The correct way to add v to c, the velocity of light, is:
>
> total_speed = (c+v) / ( 1+(cv/c^2))
I can derive that.
Let w always = c by postulate.
therefore
w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
= (c+v)/((c+v)/c)
= (c+v)/1+v/c)
= (c+v/(1+vc/c^2)
It's a neat little piece of circular maths....it proves nothing.
>and here total_speed will become equal to c, no matter what value v has ....
>
>Check out:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
>
>to see how that formula is derived.
I just derived it using circular logic...Can I have my Nobel now?
>> Binary stars in orbit, emit light at sinusoidially varying speed wrt
>> Earth. Their 'fast' light catches the slower light, causing 'bunching',
>> which appears to us as a variation in brightness.
>
>You don't need binary stars for that -- the Earth's own orbital motion
>causes a yearly variation in the radial velocity of any star with +-
>30*cos(ecl_lat) km/s, where ecl_lat is the ecliptic latitude of the
>star. So if your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
>appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. The only
>exception would be stars sufficiently close to the ecliptic poles in
>our sky.
Light from a star doesn't give a stuff about little planet Earth. For most of
its journey it is only interested in its relationship with its source, since it
has no other reference.
Starlight doesn't 'know' the Earth exists. The light from an orbiting star
moves at different speeds wrt its other emitted light. This causes 'bunching'
and periodic brightness variation when viewed from a distance.
Its speed may change by small amounts during its trip acros space due to
intergalactic turbulence and density variations (as well as 'other' unknown
causes). Extinction also tends to unify the speed of all starlight traveling in
any one direction.
It is possible that our whole solar system and in particular the Earth is
surrounded by a local EM frame of reference that acts more or less like a weak
local 'aether'. Light from all stars might consequently spend a minute part of
its journey traveling at around c wrt Earth. For the rest of the time, its
'fast light' tends to catch the slower....although extinction effects appear to
limit this process to relatively short distances from the source star.
>Now, check the catalogs of variable stars to see how many variables
>you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
>find? Not ver many, if anyone at all....
Your logic is typically flawed... like that of all relativists.
>
>Perhaps you think there's a world-wide conspiracy which suppresses and
>hides away all information about all those stars in our sky which vary
>in brightness with a period of exactly one Earth year? It would of
>course be impossible to maintain such a conspiracy, but let's pretend
>for a moment that it does exist. There would be an easy way out of
>that for you: get a telescope and some good quality photometer, and
>start measuring the brightness of the stars yourself!
You're talking crap. see above.
>So what are you waiting for? Get going! :-)
I have.
>.... and even if you fail to detect any variability of most stars with
>a period of exactly one Earth year, you'll at least learn some
>practical astronomy. And perhaps you'll also gain a genuine interest
>in observing the skies?
No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years with fools
like you around.
Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg
Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive delusion?
Most variable star curves can be easily matched in this way although
the required distances are always well short of the Hipparcos figures,....which
reflects the influence of extinction...or 'light unification' as I call it.
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
> No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years with fools
> like you around.
>
> Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.
>
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg
>
> Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive delusion
But yet you are far too afraid to post your math! Courage of your convictions
and all that...
--
<-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
Henri Wilson
<phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>In article <34rhs25rr0be2osft...@4ax.com>, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
>wrote:
>
>> No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years with fools
>> like you around.
>>
>> Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.
>>
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg
>>
>> Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive delusion
>
>
>But yet you are far too afraid to post your math! Courage of your convictions
>and all that...
I've told you the principle.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:8v0is2luf564qmq00...@4ax.com...
Was that the principle that forging your diplomas is okay?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ForgedDegree.html
Dirk Vdm
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
Yet you won't post a mathematical derivation that would allow every step of
your process to be examined.... You don't simply because you know it rests on
unphysical assumptions you don't want exposed.
As I have said before, do you think Einstein's seminal papers had just a few
pictures on them?
Jeff Root
Henry,
After examining the image of your diplomas, I'm puzzled
why you replaced what was in the space for the graduate's
name with what appears to be your own name. Alteration of
the Australian National University diploma is especially
evident. The color you used for the background of the
lettering is the same as the color around the image edges.
Modification to the Sydney Technical College diploma is
less obvious, but a close look shows that you made new
text, reduced it to fit, and pasted it into the space
for the graduate's name.
Why did you do that?
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:8v0is2luf564qmq00...@4ax.com...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG
Dumbledore
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:0x7yh.330317$6f.64...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Crackpot.
This message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore,
the computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test
using Uncle Phuckwit for a guinea pig. How is my driving?
Call 1-800-555-1234
http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/images/small/P_Plates.jpg
Worn with pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate
Henri Wilson
wrote:
I knew you'd turn relativists eventually...
Snowing over there is it?
Henri Wilson
Becasue I found them at the local tip of course.
Fucking moron......
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Jeff Root
Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:
>> After examining the image of your diplomas, I'm puzzled
>> why you replaced what was in the space for the graduate's
>> name with what appears to be your own name. Alteration of
>> the Australian National University diploma is especially
>> evident. The color you used for the background of the
>> lettering is the same as the color around the image edges.
>>
>> Modification to the Sydney Technical College diploma is
>> less obvious, but a close look shows that you made new
>> text, reduced it to fit, and pasted it into the space
>> for the graduate's name.
>>
>> Why did you do that?
>
> Becasue I found them at the local tip of course.
>
> Fucking moron......
Henry,
You claim to have college degrees, but show evidence that
in fact you do not. In response to questions, you lie and
fling childish invectives.
Why?
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson
Because nobody here who's anybody gives a fuck about qualifications.
>
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:0ceks297e81ic4cqs...@4ax.com...
So then why did you forge them, Ralph?
Dirk Vdm
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Because nobody here who's anybody gives a fuck about qualifications.
>
> So then why did you forge them, Ralph?
>
> Dirk Vdm
Because no academic establishment with an iota of respectability would touch
him with a barge pole?
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
> >You claim to have college degrees, but show evidence that
> >in fact you do not. In response to questions, you lie and
> >fling childish invectives.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because nobody here who's anybody gives a fuck about qualifications.
But yet you must, otherwise you wouldn't have forged them.
Dumbledore
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
[snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This
Dumbledore
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Dumbledore" <Headm...@hogwartsphysics.co.uk> wrote:
Ok I revise my opinion. Androcles will truly flip out in MARCH 2007.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-1...@news.octanews.com...
> In article <Aksyh.254752$Kh7.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "Dumbledore" <Headm...@hogwartsphysics.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>> news:34rhs25rr0be2osft...@4ax.com...
>> [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This
>> message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the
>> computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for
>> a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234
>> http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/images/small/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate
>
>
> Ok I revise my opinion. Androcles will truly flip out in MARCH 2007.
With a bit of help (and another bit of luck) I think we can
push it even closer.
Dirk Vdm
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
The phrase "Type 1a" springs to mind ;-)
Jeff Root
Apparently it is important to you, or you would not have
photographed the diplomas, edited the image to change the
names, and put it on the Internet.
Why did you change the names?
You could have simply not posted anything. Posting the
altered photo provided clear evidence that you have been
lying all along.
Why did you do that?
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
pau...@saaf.se
>>Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
>
>>> and that most astronomers are under a delusion in believing that is
>>> it moves at c wrt Earth.
>>
>> That's not a delusion - there's plenty of experimental evidence that
>> light always moves at c wrt to any observer on the Earth. And it
>> was this experimental evidence which caused the birth of the theory
>> of relativity.
>>
>> Light moves at c with respect to anything: the light source (as you
>> correctly claim), the Earth's center, any observer on any place on
>> Earth (which you erroneously call a "delusion"), any other planet or
>> star, yes even any other light ray.
>>
>>That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
>>with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.
>
> Yes. We know all about the unproven postulate....that's what has been
> derailing astronomy for 100 years.
That "unproven" postulate created a theory which has been very
thoroughly tested for almost a century now. Up to the 1920's or so it
might have been reasonable to doubt it, but not anymore! So you are
some 80+ years behind your time....
>>>>> but generally, those in resolvable orbits will be moving very slowly
>>>>> around their orbits.
>>>>
>>>> It seems you have a quite small telescope. Of course whether a binary
>>>> is resolvable depends a lot on your telescope: larger scopes will be
>>>> able to resolve many more binary stars.
>>>
>>> I don't have a telescope at present...just read what others have to say..
>>
>> Then I fully understand your difficulty in detecting orbital motions in
>> binary stars: there is not even one single binary star in our skies where
>> orbital motion has been detected with the naked eye. Epsilon Lyrae, which
>> probably is the tightest binary star resolvable to the naked eye, has an
>> orbital period of many millions of years.
>
> But there must by plenty with resolvable orbits and periods of less
> than 100 years.
Sure! There are lots of them! But you do need a telescope to resolve
them, and you said you didn't have any telescope....
> I just surprised that more haven't been recorded.
How many of these orbits have been recorded which you know about? And
how many would you expect to have been recorded?
>>> I should advise you that for some time, I have been studying
>>> variable star light curves with the aim of proving Einstein
>>> wrong...
Why don't you aim at trying to finding out how Nature works, instead
of trying to prove some particular theory wrong?
>> Wrong! If light had arrived at Earth with a speed different from c
>> wrt to the Earth, this would have been detected experimentally over
>> 100 years ago, in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which
>> attempted to measure just that: variations in the speed of light:
>
>
> Crap. The MMX null result is a direct result of light being ballistic.
> It moves at c wrt everything in the source frame...ie, the whole
> interferometer.
Correct -- I didn't distinguish the ballistic theory from the aether
theory here. However, there are plenty of other ways to measure the
speed of light today, and you just need to apply one of these
thecniques to starlight of stars with different radial velocities --
if the ballistic theory is right one should fairly easily be able to
measure differences in light speed this way. And since actually
succeeding in disproving Einstein would be a wet dream for any
physicist, if the ballistic theory of light was right, this experiment
would already have been performed.
But you can always perform it yourself if you wish. After all, facts
and measurements carry much more weight than just arguments, right?
The easiest way to perform this measurement would probably be from
radio signals from various spacecrafts we've sent out in our solar
system: just measure the time of arrival of some particular part of
the radio wave with high precision at two different continents
simultaneously, and you'll get a high precision difference of the time
of arrival of that radio wave. That'll give you a high precision
value of the speed of propagation of the radio wave, right? Now,
if the ballistic theory of light would be correct, then the speed
of these radio wave would be constant relative to the spacecraft
which transmitted them, but varying relative to the observer here
on Earth, right? And the difference would be large enough to be
measureable...
One could proably even make ground-based experiments of this,
using radio transmitters positioned on e.g. airplanes.....
As you perhaps are aware of, radio waves and light are both
electromagnetic radiation. So if the ballistic theory if light
is valid, as you claim, it should apply to radio waves as well.
> The MMX was doomed before it even left the ground...
No, it did well in contradicting the aether theory, so it served
a good purpose.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
>
>>The correct way to add v to c, the velocity of light, is:
>
>> total_speed = (c+v) / ( 1+(cv/c^2))
>
>
> I can derive that.
>
> Let w always = c by postulate.
> therefore
> w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
> = (c+v)/((c+v)/c)
> = (c+v)/1+v/c)
> = (c+v/(1+vc/c^2)
DING DING DING! Correct -- 5 points to you! :-)
> It's a neat little piece of circular maths....it proves nothing.
Let's put it this way: that formula follows more or less directly
from the postulate that the speed of light is the same for any
observer.
>>and here total_speed will become equal to c, no matter what value v has ....
>
>>Check out:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
>
>>to see how that formula is derived.
>
> I just derived it using circular logic...Can I have my Nobel now?
Not yet - first you must succeed in actually measureing differences in
the speed of light from different light sources. E.g. from stars with
different readial velocities -- I wish you good luck with that!
>>> Binary stars in orbit, emit light at sinusoidially varying speed wrt
>>> Earth. Their 'fast' light catches the slower light, causing 'bunching',
>>> which appears to us as a variation in brightness.
>
>> You don't need binary stars for that -- the Earth's own orbital motion
>> causes a yearly variation in the radial velocity of any star with +-
>> 30*cos(ecl_lat) km/s, where ecl_lat is the ecliptic latitude of the
>> star. So if your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
>> appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. The only
>> exception would be stars sufficiently close to the ecliptic poles in
>> our sky.
>
> Light from a star doesn't give a stuff about little planet Earth.
No -- but our instruments give a lot of stuff about planet Earth. You
see, while the Earth moves, it carries us, and our Earth-based
instruments, along with it. This cause the radial velocity of the
ster, *relative* *to* *the* *instrument*, to vary as the Earth moves
in its yearly orbit around the Sun.
> For most of its journey it is only interested in
...I don't think photons are living organisms which have any
'interest'
in anything .... they are non-biological particles.
> its relationship with its source, since it has no other reference.
> Starlight doesn't 'know' the Earth exists. The light from an orbiting
> star moves at different speeds wrt its other emitted light. This causes
> 'bunching' and periodic brightness variation when viewed from a distance.
>
> Its speed may change by small amounts during its trip acros space due
> to intergalactic turbulence and density variations (as well as 'other'
> unknown causes). Extinction also tends to unify the speed of all starlight
> traveling in any one direction.
>
> It is possible that our whole solar system and in particular the Earth
> is surrounded by a local EM frame of reference that acts more or less
> like a weak local 'aether'. Light from all stars might consequently
> spend a minute part of its journey traveling at around c wrt Earth. For
> the rest of the time, its 'fast light' tends to catch the slower....
> although extinction effects appear to limit this process to relatively
> short distances from the source star.
Sorry, but this 'aether' theory was disproved with the
Michelson-Morley experiment.
Or are you claiming that this 'aether' also would rotate with the
Earth's daily rotation? If so, just redo the MMX in an airplane -- or
are you saying the airplane also carries along its own 'aether'?
Perhaps even each instrument and each observer carries along its own
'aether'? Then we're getting awfully close to that first postulate of
relativity: the speed of light is the same for any observer.....
> Your logic is typically flawed... like that of all relativists.
......
> You're talking crap. see above.
If you want to be taken seriously, your objections should carry a
little
more substance than merely saying "flawed" or "crap" .....
>>.... and even if you fail to detect any variability of most stars with
>>a period of exactly one Earth year, you'll at least learn some
>>practical astronomy. And perhaps you'll also gain a genuine interest
>>in observing the skies?
>
> No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years
> with fools like you around.
>
> Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.
>
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg
FYI: the brightness variation of Cepheids are due to other causes than
just a radial velocity effect.
Also, increased brightness due to an approaching light source appears
not only in the ballistic theory of light but also in relativity.
After all, the light emitted by the light source during the time
interval X will be received duing the different time interval Y, where
Y is smaller than X if the light source is approaching - no matter
what speed the light propagates at. This causes both a doppler shift
towards blue wavelength, AND increased brightness besause the same
energy is squeezed into a shorter time interval, which naturally
increases the brightness.
> Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive
> delusion?
When will you educate yourself enough to realize that:
1. Brightness variation due to changes in radial velocity appears in
the theory of relativity too - so you cannot use that phenomenon to
distinguish relativit from the ballistic theory of light.
2. The observed brightness variations of these cepheids are much
larger than what could be expected if the brightness variation was a
radial velocity effect only.
> Most variable star curves can be easily matched in this way although
> the required distances are always well short of the Hipparcos figures,....
> which reflects the influence of extinction...or 'light unification' as I
> call it.
...however the brightness variation in these cases are due to other
causes than merely a radial velocity change effect. Actually, the
brightness variation is much larger than what could be expceted from a
changing radial velocity effect - both in relativity and in the
(erroneous) ballistic theory of light.
pau...@saaf.se
> <pau...@saaf.se> wrote in messagenews:1170930718....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > On 6 Feb, 09:41, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> wrote in messagenews:eq9d1c$13ua$1...@merope.saaf.se...
> That is patently false, the time for light to get from Jupiter to Earth is
> different to the time it takes from Earth to Jupiter.
Why?
>>> Yes, A variation of 0.00000000000001 magnitudes, go ahead and measure it.
>
>> Why would a speed variation of 0.01 % cause a brightness variation of
>> only some 0.000000000001% ???
>
> Maybe it is more than that, how good at measuring magnitude to 0.01%
> are you?
It was a good example on how you throw around numbers without knowing
what you're talking about....
Anyway, if you and your fellows believe that radial velocity changes
of the order of some tens of
kilometers per second produces easily noticeable brightness changes in
variable stars as well as
in binary stars, why wouldn't radial velocity changes of the same
order of magnitude due to
the orbital speed of Earth produce brightness changes which are just
as easily visible?
>>>> Now, check the catalogs of variablestarsto see how many variables
>>>> you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
>>>> find? Not very many, if anyone at all....
>
>>> All of them, to within 0.00000000000001 magnitudes.
>
>> Please tell us how you measure magnitudes to that level of
>> accuracy.... <g>
>
> That's your problem, not mine. You claimed there were none.
No I never claimed that. I said "not very many", which is different
from
none. You cannot exclude the occasional coincidence.
>>> Go ahead and measure them, what are you waiting for?
>
>> Didn't you just say you already did measure it?
>
> No, I didn't,
Yes you did! Look above -- I quote it here for clarity:
# Now, check the catalogs of variablestarsto see how many variables
# you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
# find? Not very many, if anyone at all....
#
# All of them, to within 0.00000000000001 magnitudes.
To the question "How many did you find?", you answered "All of them".
How can you
find so many variable stars without doing any measurements?
> you did. You said "Soif your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
> appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. "
That's a statement of what one could expect if you and your fellows
would be right,
but it's not a claim that I found any such thing. I really hope you
have brains enough
to be able to note the difference....
> But it would be nice
...so you didn't find any such stars ....
>> indeed if you gave us more details about your measurements.....
>> <double grin>
>
> There are plenty of measurements, I don't deny empirical data,
> I only challenge stupid theories. <triple grin>
Now you changed your mind AGAIN ......
C'mon, make up your mind now: are there, or are there not, plenty of
measurements
of stars varying in brightness with a period of exactly one Earth
year?
<remainder of drivel deleted>
Androcles
<pau...@saaf.se> wrote in message news:1170934395.6...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Feb, 12:14, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote:
>> <pau...@saaf.se> wrote in messagenews:1170930718....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 6 Feb, 09:41, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> "Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> wrote in messagenews:eq9d1c$13ua$1...@merope.saaf.se...
>
>> That is patently false, the time for light to get from Jupiter to Earth is
>> different to the time it takes from Earth to Jupiter.
>
> Why?
Because the speed of light is finite and Jupiter moves relative to the Earth,
that's why. <g8>
Not very intelligent, are you? <g9>
>
>>>> Yes, A variation of 0.00000000000001 magnitudes, go ahead and measure it.
>>
>>> Why would a speed variation of 0.01 % cause a brightness variation of
>>> only some 0.000000000001% ???
>>
>> Maybe it is more than that, how good at measuring magnitude to 0.01%
>> are you?
>
> It was a good example on how you throw around numbers without knowing
> what you're talking about....
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I happen to understand the Principle
of Relativity.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
>
> Anyway, if you and your fellows believe that radial velocity changes
> of the order of some tens of
> kilometers per second produces easily noticeable brightness changes in
> variable stars as well as
> in binary stars, why wouldn't radial velocity changes of the same
> order of magnitude due to
> the orbital speed of Earth produce brightness changes which are just
> as easily visible?
I've told you, they are too small to be easily visible. Anyway, red light
is not a bright and blue light.
>
>>>>> Now, check the catalogs of variablestarsto see how many variables
>>>>> you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
>>>>> find? Not very many, if anyone at all....
>>
>>>> All of them, to within 0.00000000000001 magnitudes.
>>
>>> Please tell us how you measure magnitudes to that level of
>>> accuracy.... <g>
>>
>> That's your problem, not mine. You claimed there were none.
>
> No I never claimed that. I said "not very many", which is different
> from
> none. You cannot exclude the occasional coincidence.
Ok, well, measure the intensity of a twinkle twinkle little star at
dawn and the same star six months later at sunset and see if
it is any dimmer or brighter. <g10>
>
>>>> Go ahead and measure them, what are you waiting for?
>>
>>> Didn't you just say you already did measure it?
>>
>> No, I didn't,
>
> Yes
No son, you brought up the matter of intensity change as a
result of the Earth's orbit, not I. All I said was it is too small
to measure. <g11>
> To the question "How many did you find?", you answered "All of them".
> How can you
> find so many variable stars without doing any measurements?
Simple, The Earth in its orbit moves relatively to ALL of them.
Not very intelligent, are you? <g12>
>
>> you did. You said "Soif your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
>> appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. "
>
> That's a statement of what one could expect if you and your fellows
> would be right,
> but it's not a claim that I found any such thing. I really hope you
> have brains enough
> to be able to note the difference....
Oh, I do. I also expect to find the difference very small <g13>
>
>> But it would be nice
>
> ...so you didn't find any such stars ....
Of course I can find stars, can't you? <g14>
>
>>> indeed if you gave us more details about your measurements.....
>>> <double grin>
>>
>> There are plenty of measurements, I don't deny empirical data,
>> I only challenge stupid theories. <triple grin>
>
> Now you changed your mind AGAIN ......
From what to what? <g15>
>
> C'mon, make up your mind now: are there, or are there not, plenty of
> measurements
> of stars varying in brightness with a period of exactly one Earth
> year?
Yes, they all do.
> <remainder of drivel deleted>
Oh really? I'll remember that. He who grins last grins longest.
Can't take the truth, grinning fuckhead ? Now fuck off. <multiple grin>
Paul B. Andersen
You want us to believe that you faked your diplomas because
you think nobody cares about your qualifications? :-)
You obviously care about your lack of qualifications.
So according to yourself, you are nobody.
For once, you are right.
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:eqfe9p$2bek$1...@news01.tp.hist.no...
I've got mine. Wanna see?
Henri Wilson
Cold over there, is it?
>Paul
Henri Wilson
wrote:
yes.....Androcles, PP.......'permanently pickled'....
Dumbledore
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Dumbledore
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Henri Wilson
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:12:11 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>>>In article <39vds2tiv9vv11v836ne4r516eqld8d...@4ax.com>,
>>>Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
>>
>>>> and that most astronomers are under a delusion in believing that is
>>>> it moves at c wrt Earth.
>>>
>>> That's not a delusion - there's plenty of experimental evidence that
>>> light always moves at c wrt to any observer on the Earth. And it
>>> was this experimental evidence which caused the birth of the theory
>>> of relativity.
>>>
>>> Light moves at c with respect to anything: the light source (as you
>>> correctly claim), the Earth's center, any observer on any place on
>>> Earth (which you erroneously call a "delusion"), any other planet or
>>> star, yes even any other light ray.
>>>
>>>That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
>>>with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.
>>
>> Yes. We know all about the unproven postulate....that's what has been
>> derailing astronomy for 100 years.
>
>That "unproven" postulate created a theory which has been very
>thoroughly tested for almost a century now. Up to the 1920's or so it
>might have been reasonable to doubt it, but not anymore! So you are
>some 80+ years behind your time....
There isn't one believable experiment that supports SR..
The ones we read about are all part of the religious promotion.
>> But there must by plenty with resolvable orbits and periods of less
>> than 100 years.
>
>Sure! There are lots of them! But you do need a telescope to resolve
>them, and you said you didn't have any telescope....
>
>> I just surprised that more haven't been recorded.
>
>How many of these orbits have been recorded which you know about? And
>how many would you expect to have been recorded?
I wouldn't like to put a figure on it. I would expect that many binary pairs
would been recorded as having 'changed places' over twenty years or so.
....but don't worry about it. I doubt if anyone has seriously looked over long
time spans.
>>>> I should advise you that for some time, I have been studying
>>>> variable star light curves with the aim of proving Einstein
>>>> wrong...
>
>Why don't you aim at trying to finding out how Nature works, instead
>of trying to prove some particular theory wrong?
Not only have I been trying...I have succeeded.
I have bothered to simulate many brightness curves using just the BaTh
principles and have discovered that light moves at c wrt its source and at c+v
wrt planet Earth for most of its journey through space.
I have shown that Einstein's P2 is completely wrong and the acceptance of his
stupid theory by a bunch of gullible fools been the cause of much confusion in
the ranks of astronomers for 100 years.
>>> Wrong! If light had arrived at Earth with a speed different from c
>>> wrt to the Earth, this would have been detected experimentally over
>>> 100 years ago, in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which
>>> attempted to measure just that: variations in the speed of light:
>>
>>
>> Crap. The MMX null result is a direct result of light being ballistic.
>> It moves at c wrt everything in the source frame...ie, the whole
>> interferometer.
>
>Correct -- I didn't distinguish the ballistic theory from the aether
>theory here. However, there are plenty of other ways to measure the
>speed of light today, and you just need to apply one of these
>thecniques to starlight of stars with different radial velocities --
>if the ballistic theory is right one should fairly easily be able to
>measure differences in light speed this way.
You are talking nonsense.
There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
moving stars.
The only known way to check this is to try to simulate their brightness curves
using the assumption that their emitted light moves at c+vcos(t) wrt Earth.....
.....and guess what....the simulations work 100%.
>And since actually
>succeeding in disproving Einstein would be a wet dream for any
>physicist, if the ballistic theory of light was right, this experiment
>would already have been performed.
Many light cuves have been recorded.
No indoctrinated astrophysicist has ever bothered to ewxplain them with hte
BaTh.
It is only via this NG that the truth has been able to emerge.
>But you can always perform it yourself if you wish. After all, facts
>and measurements carry much more weight than just arguments, right?
>
>The easiest way to perform this measurement would probably be from
>radio signals from various spacecrafts we've sent out in our solar
>system: just measure the time of arrival of some particular part of
>the radio wave with high precision at two different continents
>simultaneously, and you'll get a high precision difference of the time
>of arrival of that radio wave.
You are turning out to be a pathetic as Draper.
The difference in flight time is so small it can't be measured.
My moon relay experiment is one possible way to compare light speed from
differently moving sources but even that is right on the limits.
>That'll give you a high precision
>value of the speed of propagation of the radio wave, right?
If you do a few calculations, you will soon see why it is impossible.
> Now,
>if the ballistic theory of light would be correct, then the speed
>of these radio wave would be constant relative to the spacecraft
>which transmitted them, but varying relative to the observer here
>on Earth, right? And the difference would be large enough to be
>measureable...
No it would NOT. Do the sums.
>One could proably even make ground-based experiments of this,
>using radio transmitters positioned on e.g. airplanes.....
..maybe you simply don't know how to do the sums....besides, there is a process
called extinction in the Earth's atmosphere....and a similar EM reference frame
probably exists much fi\urther out.
>
>As you perhaps are aware of, radio waves and light are both
>electromagnetic radiation. So if the ballistic theory if light
>is valid, as you claim, it should apply to radio waves as well.
>
>> The MMX was doomed before it even left the ground...
>
>No, it did well in contradicting the aether theory, so it served
>a good purpose.
Yes, it did that...although 'aether drag' could still explain it.
...but 'aether drag' isn indistinguishable from the BaTh anyway.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
>>
>>>The correct way to add v to c, the velocity of light, is:
>>
>>> total_speed = (c+v) / ( 1+(cv/c^2))
>>
>>
>> I can derive that.
>>
>> Let w always = c by postulate.
>> therefore
>> w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
>> = (c+v)/((c+v)/c)
>> = (c+v)/1+v/c)
>> = (c+v/(1+vc/c^2)
>
>DING DING DING! Correct -- 5 points to you! :-)
>
>> It's a neat little piece of circular maths....it proves nothing.
>
>Let's put it this way: that formula follows more or less directly
>from the postulate that the speed of light is the same for any
>observer.
>
>>>and here total_speed will become equal to c, no matter what value v has ....
>>
>>>Check out:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
>>
>>>to see how that formula is derived.
>>
>> I just derived it using circular logic...Can I have my Nobel now?
>
>Not yet - first you must succeed in actually measureing differences in
>the speed of light from different light sources. E.g. from stars with
>different readial velocities -- I wish you good luck with that!
You have already seen this one: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
.....based solely on the principle that light moves at different speeds (wrt
Earth) as the star moves around an orbit.
There are plenty more like this one.
>>>> Binary stars in orbit, emit light at sinusoidially varying speed wrt
>>>> Earth. Their 'fast' light catches the slower light, causing 'bunching',
>>>> which appears to us as a variation in brightness.
>>
>>> You don't need binary stars for that -- the Earth's own orbital motion
>>> causes a yearly variation in the radial velocity of any star with +-
>>> 30*cos(ecl_lat) km/s, where ecl_lat is the ecliptic latitude of the
>>> star. So if your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
>>> appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. The only
>>> exception would be stars sufficiently close to the ecliptic poles in
>>> our sky.
>>
>> Light from a star doesn't give a stuff about little planet Earth.
>
>No -- but our instruments give a lot of stuff about planet Earth. You
>see, while the Earth moves, it carries us, and our Earth-based
>instruments, along with it. This cause the radial velocity of the
>ster, *relative* *to* *the* *instrument*, to vary as the Earth moves
>in its yearly orbit around the Sun.
..yes...we have discussed this and you have been 'enlightened'...
>> For most of its journey it is only interested in
>
>...I don't think photons are living organisms which have any
>'interest'
>in anything .... they are non-biological particles.
>
>> its relationship with its source, since it has no other reference.
>> Starlight doesn't 'know' the Earth exists. The light from an orbiting
>> star moves at different speeds wrt its other emitted light. This causes
>> 'bunching' and periodic brightness variation when viewed from a distance.
>>
>> Its speed may change by small amounts during its trip acros space due
>> to intergalactic turbulence and density variations (as well as 'other'
>> unknown causes). Extinction also tends to unify the speed of all starlight
>> traveling in any one direction.
>>
>> It is possible that our whole solar system and in particular the Earth
>> is surrounded by a local EM frame of reference that acts more or less
>> like a weak local 'aether'. Light from all stars might consequently
>> spend a minute part of its journey traveling at around c wrt Earth. For
>> the rest of the time, its 'fast light' tends to catch the slower....
>> although extinction effects appear to limit this process to relatively
>> short distances from the source star.
>
>Sorry, but this 'aether' theory was disproved with the
>Michelson-Morley experiment.
I am not talking about the type of absolute aether Michelson et al had in
mind...
>Or are you claiming that this 'aether' also would rotate with the
>Earth's daily rotation? If so, just redo the MMX in an airplane -- or
>are you saying the airplane also carries along its own 'aether'?
>Perhaps even each instrument and each observer carries along its own
>'aether'? Then we're getting awfully close to that first postulate of
>relativity: the speed of light is the same for any observer.....
We are indeed...but only close...
You should know my theory about this.
Space is like a very low density turbulent gas. Also present are equally
turbulent 'fields'... whatever they might be.
I say there is a threshold 'density' below which light behaves almost purely
ballistically. Above that threshold, its speed is influenced to varying degrees
by the optical properties of whatever particular region of space it happens to
be passing through. Light is constantly changing speed by very small amounts as
it negotiates space.
Around a large mass centre such as our solar system or planet Earth, I say
there exists an EM reference frame which modifies incoming light speed quite
dramatically. When light enters the Earth's atmosphere, its speed very quickly
approaches c (rather c/n) wrt Earth.
..so in effect, theb Earth's tmosphere and maybe its gravity field act like a
kind of weak 'dragged aether'.
The theory appears to work pretty well.
>> Your logic is typically flawed... like that of all relativists.
>......
>> You're talking crap. see above.
>
>If you want to be taken seriously, your objections should carry a
>little
>more substance than merely saying "flawed" or "crap" .....
>
>>>.... and even if you fail to detect any variability of most stars with
>>>a period of exactly one Earth year, you'll at least learn some
>>>practical astronomy. And perhaps you'll also gain a genuine interest
>>>in observing the skies?
>>
>> No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years
>> with fools like you around.
>>
>> Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.
>>
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg
>
>FYI: the brightness variation of Cepheids are due to other causes than
>just a radial velocity effect.
I have made it clear to others that I accept that pulsating stars might exist.
However, their brightness variation is still largely a mystery.
The ballistic theory applies just as much to this kind of motion as it does to
stars in elliptical orbit.
My variable star program now includes provision for overtone oscillation as
well as the fundamental and can easily produce B-type cepheid curves.
I'm still working on the latest version and haven't placed it on the website
yet.
>Also, increased brightness due to an approaching light source appears
>not only in the ballistic theory of light but also in relativity.
>After all, the light emitted by the light source during the time
>interval X will be received duing the different time interval Y, where
>Y is smaller than X if the light source is approaching - no matter
>what speed the light propagates at. This causes both a doppler shift
>towards blue wavelength, AND increased brightness besause the same
>energy is squeezed into a shorter time interval, which naturally
>increases the brightness.
Yes...but that's a small effect compared with the ballistic 'bunching'..
>
>> Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive
>> delusion?
>
>When will you educate yourself enough to realize that:
>
>1. Brightness variation due to changes in radial velocity appears in
>the theory of relativity too - so you cannot use that phenomenon to
>distinguish relativit from the ballistic theory of light.
When are YOU going to educate yourself enough to be able to calculate that the
changes YOU are refering to are insignificant compared to the Ballistically
generated ones.
>2. The observed brightness variations of these cepheids are much
>larger than what could be expected if the brightness variation was a
>radial velocity effect only.
That's absolute rubbish. Again you prove you need an education...
My program calculates and indicates the magnitude changes. They are too big if
anything...that's why I have introduced my 'unification theory'. (similar to
extinction)
>> Most variable star curves can be easily matched in this way although
>> the required distances are always well short of the Hipparcos figures,....
>> which reflects the influence of extinction...or 'light unification' as I
>> call it.
>
>...however the brightness variation in these cases are due to other
>causes than merely a radial velocity change effect. Actually, the
>brightness variation is much larger than what could be expceted from a
>changing radial velocity effect - both in relativity and in the
>(erroneous) ballistic theory of light.
There is a small group of stars whose magnitudes vary by 7 or more. I have not
been able to match these with the BaTh even though the curve shapes CAN be
simulated quite precisely and easily for smaller magnitude changes. I'm not
sure what goes on here....maybe lensing...or maybe the observations are wrong
somehow.
Most cepheids vary by less than one magnitude and can be easily and accurately
matched.
RT Aur is one good example.
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
>
> The only known way to check this is to try to simulate their brightness
> curves
> using the assumption that their emitted light moves at c+vcos(t) wrt
> Earth.....
>
> .....and guess what....the simulations work 100%.
Post the mathematical derivation.
Dumbledore
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Paul Schlyter
Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
Subject: Re: Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
>>>> That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
>>>> with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.
>>>
>>> Yes. We know all about the unproven postulate....that's what has been
>>> derailing astronomy for 100 years.
>>
>> That "unproven" postulate created a theory which has been very
>> thoroughly tested for almost a century now. Up to the 1920's or so it
>> might have been reasonable to doubt it, but not anymore! So you are
>> some 80+ years behind your time....
>
> There isn't one believable experiment that supports SR..
>
> The ones we read about are all part of the religious promotion.
If so, why don't you just redo some of these experiments, to get
results which contradict relativity? Basically, you're here claiming
these experimental results are all faked in a process of religious
propaganda - redoing the experiments would quickly reveal such a
situation. Any erroneous religious promption can be refuted by
observations and experimentation.
>>> But there must by plenty with resolvable orbits and periods of less
>>> than 100 years.
>>
>> Sure! There are lots of them! But you do need a telescope to resolve
>> them, and you said you didn't have any telescope....
>>
>>> I just surprised that more haven't been recorded.
>>
>> How many of these orbits have been recorded which you know about? And
>> how many would you expect to have been recorded?
>
> I wouldn't like to put a figure on it.
Why not? Don't you know how many of these orbit you know about? Why so
evasive?
> I would expect that many binary pairs would been recorded as having
> 'changed places' over twenty years or so.
Indeed they have .... however the word "many" is a quite fuzzy term and
could mean anything from more than, say, 3, to millions.....
> ....but don't worry about it. I doubt if anyone has seriously looked
> over long time spans.
Binary stars have been measured for centuries .... is that time long
enopugh for you? A number of them have been observed through several
full revolutions in their orbits. Sirius (the brightest star in our
skies) is a double star which have been observed through more than
three full orbital revolutions.
>>>>> I should advise you that for some time, I have been studying
>>>>> variable star light curves with the aim of proving Einstein
>>>>> wrong...
>>
>> Why don't you aim at trying to finding out how Nature works, instead
>> of trying to prove some particular theory wrong?
>
> Not only have I been trying...I have succeeded.
You are indeed overconfident --- however if you also want to convince
others and not just devote yourself to intellectual masturbation, you
need to present evidence rather than just big words through your big
mouth.
> I have bothered to simulate many brightness curves using just the BaTh
> principles
Did you also simulate then using relativity? Was there any difference
in your simulated light curves? Yes, in relativity too, an
approaching light source will appear somewhat brighter -- and at low
speeds compared to light speed, the difference between the two
brightnesses will be quite small.
> and have discovered that light moves at c wrt its source and
> at c+v wrt planet Earth for most of its journey through space.
Yet you also say:
# There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
# moving stars.
Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......
> I have shown that Einstein's P2 is completely wrong and the acceptance
> of his stupid theory by a bunch of gullible fools been the cause of much
> confusion in the ranks of astronomers for 100 years.
<big laugh> ....again, where's your evidence?
> You are talking nonsense.
> There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
> moving stars.
Yet you also say:
# and have discovered that light moves at c wrt its source and
# at c+v wrt planet Earth for most of its journey through space.
Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......
Yet you also say:
> The only known way to check this is to try to simulate their brightness curves
> using the assumption that their emitted light moves at c+vcos(t) wrt Earth.....
>
> .....and guess what....the simulations work 100%.
If there's a radial velocity change of X km/s, how big brightess change, in
stellar magnitudes, would that produce according to you? Please supply a formula.
>> And since actually
>> succeeding in disproving Einstein would be a wet dream for any
>> physicist, if the ballistic theory of light was right, this experiment
>> would already have been performed.
>
> Many light cuves have been recorded.
> No indoctrinated astrophysicist has ever bothered to ewxplain them with
> hte BaTh.
That's because the radial velocity changes are far too small to
produce any significant brightness changes. The radial velocity
change must be a non-negligible fraction of the speed of light to be
able to produce measureable brightness changes. And you know what?
In relativity too there will be such brightness changes: an object
approaching us at, say, half the speed of light will appear much
brighter than the same object if it was stationary.
> It is only via this NG that the truth has been able to emerge.
.... you mean opinion, not truth ....
>> But you can always perform it yourself if you wish. After all, facts
>> and measurements carry much more weight than just arguments, right?
>>
>> The easiest way to perform this measurement would probably be from
>> radio signals from various spacecrafts we've sent out in our solar
>> system: just measure the time of arrival of some particular part of
>> the radio wave with high precision at two different continents
>> simultaneously, and you'll get a high precision difference of the time
>> of arrival of that radio wave.
>
> You are turning out to be a pathetic as Draper.
> The difference in flight time is so small it can't be measured.
The difference should be of the order of one microsecond, which definitely
is measureable using modern electronics.
But there's another way which makes this measurement even easier: have
the spacecraft transmitt a signal at a time known with high precision,
then measure the time of arrival of that signal. That'll produce time
differences of the order of 10 milliseconds from the expected times,
if your ballistic theory of light would be valid. "But how do you
know, with enough precision, when the transimssion is made?", I hear
you object. Well, you put an atomic clock onboard the satellite of
course! There are many satellites with atomic clocks onboard. One
such well-known satellite family is the GPS satellite system (have you
heard about that?), which depend on very precise propagation time
difference measurements when the GPS receiver determines the position
of itself (the packets transmitted by the GPS satellites are timestamped,
and the time difference of reception is monitored by the receiver,
which then compares this difference with the time difference of
transmission).
The GPS system assumes that relativity is valid, and is able to
produce quite accurate positions of each receivers. GPS is nowadays
used to control e.g. the flight paths of airplanes when landing on
airfields in misty weather conditions when visual landing is
impossible. If the assumption of the validity of relativity by the
GPS system would be erroneous and instead your ballistic theory of
light would be valid, the consequences would be dramatic: airplanes
would miss the runways in the airfields and instead crash in e.g. some
nearby wood. Less dramatic but also quite noticeable would be hikers,
or car drivers, getting lost because their GPS showed them an erroneous
position.
So there you have perhaps the most down-to-earth proof of the validity
of relativity: the GPS system (which assumes relativity is valid) does
indeed work! If you doubt this, go and get a GPS receiver and try it
out for yourself! Next, you can study how GPS works (Google a bit on
"GPS" or "Global Positioning System" and you'll find lots of
interesting stuff!). Finally, if you're handy with electronics, or
know someone who are, you could even build your own GPS receiver. You
should really build two receivers: in one of them the algorithms
should assume that relativity is valid, in the other the algorithms
should assume that your ballistic theory of light is valid. Then
bring these two receivers out in the field, to a place with known
longitude and latitude, and see which one of your two receivers does
produce the most accurate position.
> My moon relay experiment is one possible way to compare light speed from
> differently moving sources but even that is right on the limits.
>
>> That'll give you a high precision
>> value of the speed of propagation of the radio wave, right?
>
> If you do a few calculations, you will soon see why it is impossible.
I just showed you above that it's quite possible. If the assumption
by the GPS system of the validity of relativity was erroneous, then
the GPS system would fail to produce accurate positions of the GPS
receivers.
>> Now, if the ballistic theory of light would be correct, then the
>> speed of these radio wave would be constant relative to the spacecraft
>> which transmitted them, but varying relative to the observer here on
>> Earth, right? And the difference would be large enough to be
>> measureable...
>
> No it would NOT. Do the sums.
>
>> One could proably even make ground-based experiments of this,
>> using radio transmitters positioned on e.g. airplanes.....
>
> ..maybe you simply don't know how to do the sums....besides, there is
> a process called extinction in the Earth's atmosphere....and a similar
> EM reference frame probably exists much fi\urther out.
It works for the GPS system..... and the GPS satellites often have
non-negligible radial velocities relative to the surface of the Earth.
>>> I just derived it using circular logic...Can I have my Nobel now?
>>
>> Not yet - first you must succeed in actually measureing differences in
>> the speed of light from different light sources. E.g. from stars with
>> different readial velocities -- I wish you good luck with that!
>
> You have already seen this one: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
Yep -- an obscure figure of yours which for instance lack labels on the axes
telling what they actually represent. Something varies between -0.5 and 0.5
(approxcimately) -- but what is varying? Please redraw that figure more clearly
and label the axes appropriately so one understands what the diagram is supposed
to mean.
Also, that's not a measurement of light speed. It couldn't be, since you
yourself has claimed:
# There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
# moving stars.
You aren't measuring what you yourself claim is impossible to measure, are you?
>>> Light from a star doesn't give a stuff about little planet Earth.
>>
>> No -- but our instruments give a lot of stuff about planet Earth. You
>> see, while the Earth moves, it carries us, and our Earth-based
>> instruments, along with it. This cause the radial velocity of the
>> ster, *relative* *to* *the* *instrument*, to vary as the Earth moves
>> in its yearly orbit around the Sun.
>
> ..yes...we have discussed this and you have been 'enlightened'...
So where are your data showing most stars in the sky varying by about
a magnitude doe to the Earth's orbital velocity? If you are right, such
variations ought to happen.
>> Or are you claiming that this 'aether' also would rotate with the
>> Earth's daily rotation? If so, just redo the MMX in an airplane -- or
>> are you saying the airplane also carries along its own 'aether'?
>> Perhaps even each instrument and each observer carries along its own
>> 'aether'? Then we're getting awfully close to that first postulate of
>> relativity: the speed of light is the same for any observer.....
>
> We are indeed...but only close...
> You should know my theory about this.
If you're so close to relativity, why not take the full step and admit
that relativity is valid? Need proof? Well, get a GPS receiver and
find out for yourself that it actually works - yes, the GPS system
assumes that relativity is valid, and the system would fail if that
assumption was erroneous.
> Space is like a very low density turbulent gas. Also present are equally
> turbulent 'fields'... whatever they might be.
Even an extremely low density gas would produce a quite noticeable
extinction over intergalactic distances.
> I say there is a threshold 'density' below which light behaves almost purely
> ballistically. Above that threshold, its speed is influenced to varying degrees
> by the optical properties of whatever particular region of space it happens to
> be passing through. Light is constantly changing speed by very small amounts as
> it negotiates space.
> Around a large mass centre such as our solar system or planet Earth, I say
> there exists an EM reference frame which modifies incoming light speed quite
> dramatically. When light enters the Earth's atmosphere, its speed very quickly
> approaches c (rather c/n) wrt Earth.
>
> ..so in effect, theb Earth's tmosphere and maybe its gravity field act like a
> kind of weak 'dragged aether'.
>
> The theory appears to work pretty well.
No it doesn't - the fact that GPS works when it assumes relativity is
valid contradicts your assumption.
>> FYI: the brightness variation of Cepheids are due to other causes than
>> just a radial velocity effect.
>
> I have made it clear to others that I accept that pulsating stars might exist.
> However, their brightness variation is still largely a mystery.
> The ballistic theory applies just as much to this kind of motion as it does to
> stars in elliptical orbit.
> My variable star program now includes provision for overtone oscillation as
> well as the fundamental and can easily produce B-type cepheid curves.
>
> I'm still working on the latest version and haven't placed it on the website
> yet.
Are you going to post binaries which runs on Linux or Mac as well?
Or, even better, source code which anyone can compile on their own
system? Source code has another benefit: one can then oneself verify
that the code does not contain viruses or other malware instead of
merely trusting your word that it doesn't. To be frank, I just don't
download binaries posted on some random website, even if it happens to
be yours -- it's just too risky.
>>Also, increased brightness due to an approaching light source appears
>>not only in the ballistic theory of light but also in relativity.
>>After all, the light emitted by the light source during the time
>>interval X will be received duing the different time interval Y, where
>>Y is smaller than X if the light source is approaching - no matter
>>what speed the light propagates at. This causes both a doppler shift
>>towards blue wavelength, AND increased brightness besause the same
>>energy is squeezed into a shorter time interval, which naturally
>>increases the brightness.
>
> Yes...but that's a small effect compared with the ballistic 'bunching'..
Why deos the ballistic 'bunching' cause a so much larger brightness
increase? And, assuming a radial velocity change of X km/s, how many
magnitudes of brightness increase would that cause, according to you?
>>> Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive
>>> delusion?
>>
>> When will you educate yourself enough to realize that:
>>
>> 1. Brightness variation due to changes in radial velocity appears in
>> the theory of relativity too - so you cannot use that phenomenon to
>> distinguish relativit from the ballistic theory of light.
>
> When are YOU going to educate yourself enough to be able to calculate
> that the changes YOU are refering to are insignificant compared to the
> Ballistically generated ones.
You could start by providing formulae showing what brightness increase
a radial velocity change of X km/s would produce, and explain how the
formulae works. I searched your website but no such information could
be found there. No, I'm not going to download your executable binaries,
it's just too risky to download unknown binaries. Besides, just running
someone's piece of software won't explain much.
>> 2. The observed brightness variations of these cepheids are much
>> larger than what could be expected if the brightness variation was a
>> radial velocity effect only.
>
> That's absolute rubbish. Again you prove you need an education...
>
> My program calculates and indicates the magnitude changes. They are too
> big if anything...that's why I have introduced my 'unification theory'.
> (similar to extinction)
....so your theory failed ..... and you added another theory on top of it....
<g>
>>> Most variable star curves can be easily matched in this way although
>>> the required distances are always well short of the Hipparcos figures,....
>>> which reflects the influence of extinction...or 'light unification' as I
>>> call it.
>>
>> ...however the brightness variation in these cases are due to other
>> causes than merely a radial velocity change effect. Actually, the
>> brightness variation is much larger than what could be expceted from a
>> changing radial velocity effect - both in relativity and in the
>> (erroneous) ballistic theory of light.
>
> There is a small group of stars whose magnitudes vary by 7 or more.
The Mira stars, yes. And of course the novae and supernovae --- I suppose
you at least there must admit that the brightness variations are caused
by the pulsation (aperiodic or semi-periodic) of these stars. You know
what? The brightness variations of the Cepheids have a similar cause,
although the details are different, and not well known.
> I have not been able to match these with the BaTh even though the curve
> shapes CAN be simulated quite precisely and easily for smaller magnitude
> changes.
That's easy to fix: just add some proportionality factor, and adjust its
value for each individual star.... <g>
> I'm not sure what goes on here....maybe lensing...
...why are you refusing to accept pulsation of the stars themselves as a
cause? Gravitational lensing jsut won't change that quickly.
> or maybe the observations are wrong somehow.
....are you claiming that observers could observe e.g. Mira Ceti as shining
at magnitude 4, although it really did shine at magnitude 8 or so? Visual
observations of variable stars have its inaccuracies of course, but it's
not THAT inaccurate!!!!
> Most cepheids vary by less than one magnitude and can be easily and
> accurately matched. RT Aur is one good example.
Cpheids expand and contract with a speed of the order of magnitude of
10 km/s, often a bit more. I.e. the pulsation speed is of the same
order of magnitude as the orbital veolcity of the Earth. Now, if
these changes in radial velocity of the surfaces of these stars cause
them to vary by about one magnitude in brightness, as you claim, how
come not most stars in our skies vary in brightness by the same
amount, with a period of exactly one Earth year, due to varying radial
velocity produced by the Earth's motion? Note that it's the relative
motion between the stellar surface and the observer which counts here,
and a radial velocity change of the stellar surface should produce
the same brightness change, no matter if the radial velocity change is
due to the pulsation of the star, or due to the orbital motion of
the Earth.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Henri Wilson
>In article <bf8ns2t621vdindoh...@4ax.com>,
>Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
>Subject: Re: Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
>
>
>>>>> That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
>>>>> with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.
>>
>> There isn't one believable experiment that supports SR..
>>
>> The ones we read about are all part of the religious promotion.
>
>If so, why don't you just redo some of these experiments, to get
>results which contradict relativity? Basically, you're here claiming
>these experimental results are all faked in a process of religious
>propaganda - redoing the experiments would quickly reveal such a
>situation. Any erroneous religious promption can be refuted by
>observations and experimentation.
many of the so called 'supporting experiments' were performed in the sixties.
Why do you think nobody repeats them?
>>> How many of these orbits have been recorded which you know about? And
>>> how many would you expect to have been recorded?
>>
>> I wouldn't like to put a figure on it.
>
>Why not? Don't you know how many of these orbit you know about? Why so
>evasive?
>
>> I would expect that many binary pairs would been recorded as having
>> 'changed places' over twenty years or so.
>
>Indeed they have .... however the word "many" is a quite fuzzy term and
>could mean anything from more than, say, 3, to millions.....
>
>> ....but don't worry about it. I doubt if anyone has seriously looked
>> over long time spans.
>
>Binary stars have been measured for centuries .... is that time long
>enopugh for you? A number of them have been observed through several
>full revolutions in their orbits. Sirius (the brightest star in our
>skies) is a double star which have been observed through more than
>three full orbital revolutions.
Yes I'm aware of that. It also has another companion with a very long term
period.
>>> Why don't you aim at trying to finding out how Nature works, instead
>>> of trying to prove some particular theory wrong?
>>
>> Not only have I been trying...I have succeeded.
>
>You are indeed overconfident --- however if you also want to convince
>others and not just devote yourself to intellectual masturbation, you
>need to present evidence rather than just big words through your big
>mouth.
What do you think I've been doing. (on sci.physics.relativity)
>> I have bothered to simulate many brightness curves using just the BaTh
>> principles
>
>Did you also simulate then using relativity?
What would be the point?
>Was there any difference
>in your simulated light curves?
You don't seem to have the faintest idea about any of this. Relativity says all
the light leaving the star travels at c wrt Earth. That means there is no
relative movement between light emitted at any part of the orbit.
The order of change you are refering to is minute compared with the BaTh
effect.
>Yes, in relativity too, an
>approaching light source will appear somewhat brighter -- and at low
>speeds compared to light speed, the difference between the two
>brightnesses will be quite small.
In this case, negligible
>> and have discovered that light moves at c wrt its source and
>> at c+v wrt planet Earth for most of its journey through space.
>
>Yet you also say:
>
># There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
># moving stars.
Are you really this stupid or just trying to waste my time?
I am not MEASURING OWLS. I am merely demonstrating that light from differently
moving sources DOES NOT move at the same speed....as Einstein claimed.
>Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
>you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
>consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
>it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......
I am COMPARING different light speeds , dopey, not measuring them.
>> I have shown that Einstein's P2 is completely wrong and the acceptance
>> of his stupid theory by a bunch of gullible fools been the cause of much
>> confusion in the ranks of astronomers for 100 years.
>
><big laugh> ....again, where's your evidence?
Here are some more matched light curves.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
Just about any published curve is easily matched.
>> You are talking nonsense.
>> There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
>> moving stars.
>
>Yet you also say:
>
># and have discovered that light moves at c wrt its source and
># at c+v wrt planet Earth for most of its journey through space.
>
>Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
>you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
>consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
>it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......
>Yet you also say:
>
>> The only known way to check this is to try to simulate their brightness curves
>> using the assumption that their emitted light moves at c+vcos(t) wrt Earth.....
>>
>> .....and guess what....the simulations work 100%.
>
>If there's a radial velocity change of X km/s, how big brightess change, in
>stellar magnitudes, would that produce according to you? Please supply a formula.
My program does all the sums.
I have now placed the latest version on my website.
You are free to use it to match published curves.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
I have to revise te instructions because it is rather hard to use.
The effect of extinction has now been included.
>
>>> And since actually
>>> succeeding in disproving Einstein would be a wet dream for any
>>> physicist, if the ballistic theory of light was right, this experiment
>>> would already have been performed.
>>
>> Many light cuves have been recorded.
>> No indoctrinated astrophysicist has ever bothered to ewxplain them with
>> hte BaTh.
>
>That's because the radial velocity changes are far too small to
>produce any significant brightness changes. The radial velocity
>change must be a non-negligible fraction of the speed of light to be
>able to produce measureable brightness changes.
You haven't any idea.
You are thinking only in terms of E = h.nu where nu is doppler shifted.
That is not related to the effect caused by 'c+v bunching'...which is much
larger.
>And you know what?
>In relativity too there will be such brightness changes: an object
>approaching us at, say, half the speed of light will appear much
>brighter than the same object if it was stationary.
Yes we are quite aware of that....that's a totally different principle...it is
not related to the subject here.
>> It is only via this NG that the truth has been able to emerge.
>
>.... you mean opinion, not truth ....
well let's just call it 'evidence that Einstein was wrong'...
>>> But you can always perform it yourself if you wish. After all, facts
>>> and measurements carry much more weight than just arguments, right?
>>>
>>> The easiest way to perform this measurement would probably be from
>>> radio signals from various spacecrafts we've sent out in our solar
>>> system: just measure the time of arrival of some particular part of
>>> the radio wave with high precision at two different continents
>>> simultaneously, and you'll get a high precision difference of the time
>>> of arrival of that radio wave.
>>
>> You are turning out to be a pathetic as Draper.
>> The difference in flight time is so small it can't be measured.
>
>The difference should be of the order of one microsecond, which definitely
>is measureable using modern electronics.
>
>But there's another way which makes this measurement even easier: have
>the spacecraft transmitt a signal at a time known with high precision,
>then measure the time of arrival of that signal. That'll produce time
>differences of the order of 10 milliseconds from the expected times,
>if your ballistic theory of light would be valid. "But how do you
>know, with enough precision, when the transimssion is made?", I hear
>you object.
I'm not objecting at all. That is the very reasin for the impossibility of
measuring OWLS.
> Well, you put an atomic clock onboard the satellite of
>course! There are many satellites with atomic clocks onboard. One
>such well-known satellite family is the GPS satellite system (have you
>heard about that?), which depend on very precise propagation time
>difference measurements when the GPS receiver determines the position
>of itself (the packets transmitted by the GPS satellites are timestamped,
>and the time difference of reception is monitored by the receiver,
>which then compares this difference with the time difference of
>transmission).
Listen I'm sorry but I am way in front of you. These subjects have been
discussed widely in the relativity NG.
>
>The GPS system assumes that relativity is valid, and is able to
>produce quite accurate positions of each receivers. GPS is nowadays
>used to control e.g. the flight paths of airplanes when landing on
>airfields in misty weather conditions when visual landing is
>impossible. If the assumption of the validity of relativity by the
>GPS system would be erroneous and instead your ballistic theory of
>light would be valid, the consequences would be dramatic: airplanes
>would miss the runways in the airfields and instead crash in e.g. some
>nearby wood. Less dramatic but also quite noticeable would be hikers,
>or car drivers, getting lost because their GPS showed them an erroneous
>position.
Yes we know all about the so called GR correction of GPS clocks. It has been
discussed at length. I have proved that the clocks actually physically change
when placed in free fall. The effect has nothing whatsoever to do with
relativity.
>So there you have perhaps the most down-to-earth proof of the validity
>of relativity: the GPS system (which assumes relativity is valid) does
>indeed work! If you doubt this, go and get a GPS receiver and try it
>out for yourself! Next, you can study how GPS works (Google a bit on
>"GPS" or "Global Positioning System" and you'll find lots of
>interesting stuff!). Finally, if you're handy with electronics, or
>know someone who are, you could even build your own GPS receiver. You
>should really build two receivers: in one of them the algorithms
>should assume that relativity is valid, in the other the algorithms
>should assume that your ballistic theory of light is valid. Then
>bring these two receivers out in the field, to a place with known
>longitude and latitude, and see which one of your two receivers does
>produce the most accurate position.
>
>> My moon relay experiment is one possible way to compare light speed from
>> differently moving sources but even that is right on the limits.
>>
>>> That'll give you a high precision
>>> value of the speed of propagation of the radio wave, right?
>>
>> If you do a few calculations, you will soon see why it is impossible.
>
>I just showed you above that it's quite possible. If the assumption
>by the GPS system of the validity of relativity was erroneous, then
>the GPS system would fail to produce accurate positions of the GPS
>receivers.
The GPS system DOES NOT rely on relativity. As long as all the clocks are in
mutual synch, the system will work perfectly well.
>>> Now, if the ballistic theory of light would be correct, then the
>>> speed of these radio wave would be constant relative to the spacecraft
>>> which transmitted them, but varying relative to the observer here on
>>> Earth, right? And the difference would be large enough to be
>>> measureable...
>>
>> No it would NOT. Do the sums.
>>
>>> One could proably even make ground-based experiments of this,
>>> using radio transmitters positioned on e.g. airplanes.....
>>
>> ..maybe you simply don't know how to do the sums....besides, there is
>> a process called extinction in the Earth's atmosphere....and a similar
>> EM reference frame probably exists much fi\urther out.
>
>It works for the GPS system..... and the GPS satellites often have
>non-negligible radial velocities relative to the surface of the Earth.
The only part of the whole GPS process that involves relativity is the offset
of clocks prior to launch. It is claimed that its value is exactly that
predicted by GR. In fact the actual value of the 'free fall' effect has never
been accurately measured. Te clocks simply change rates slightly when placed in
free fall.
>>>> I just derived it using circular logic...Can I have my Nobel now?
>>>
>>> Not yet - first you must succeed in actually measureing differences in
>>> the speed of light from different light sources. E.g. from stars with
>>> different readial velocities -- I wish you good luck with that!
>>
>> You have already seen this one: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
>
>Yep -- an obscure figure of yours which for instance lack labels on the axes
>telling what they actually represent. Something varies between -0.5 and 0.5
>(approxcimately) -- but what is varying?
Star Magnitude is varying, The black dots and lines are the published ones. The
blue dots are my simulation.
>Please redraw that figure more clearly
>and label the axes appropriately so one understands what the diagram is supposed
>to mean.
It's just a conventional light curve, brightness (up) versus time. The star is
RR Lyr.
>Also, that's not a measurement of light speed. It couldn't be, since you
>yourself has claimed:
>
># There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
># moving stars.
>
>You aren't measuring what you yourself claim is impossible to measure, are you?
you are not making sense any more.
The curves are simulated using the notion that light emitted by orbiting stars
travels at periodically varying light speeds relative to Earth.
Observed curves are easy to match. Therefore there is good evidence that light
speed is NOT constant c wrt Earth.
>
>>>> Light from a star doesn't give a stuff about little planet Earth.
>>>
>>> No -- but our instruments give a lot of stuff about planet Earth. You
>>> see, while the Earth moves, it carries us, and our Earth-based
>>> instruments, along with it. This cause the radial velocity of the
>>> ster, *relative* *to* *the* *instrument*, to vary as the Earth moves
>>> in its yearly orbit around the Sun.
>>
>> ..yes...we have discussed this and you have been 'enlightened'...
>
>So where are your data showing most stars in the sky varying by about
>a magnitude doe to the Earth's orbital velocity? If you are right, such
>variations ought to happen.
They do... but they are far too small to measure.
>>> Or are you claiming that this 'aether' also would rotate with the
>>> Earth's daily rotation? If so, just redo the MMX in an airplane -- or
>>> are you saying the airplane also carries along its own 'aether'?
>>> Perhaps even each instrument and each observer carries along its own
>>> 'aether'? Then we're getting awfully close to that first postulate of
>>> relativity: the speed of light is the same for any observer.....
>>
>> We are indeed...but only close...
>> You should know my theory about this.
>
>If you're so close to relativity, why not take the full step and admit
>that relativity is valid? Need proof? Well, get a GPS receiver and
>find out for yourself that it actually works - yes, the GPS system
>assumes that relativity is valid, and the system would fail if that
>assumption was erroneous.
Relativity is just a disguised aether theory.
>> Space is like a very low density turbulent gas. Also present are equally
>> turbulent 'fields'... whatever they might be.
>
>Even an extremely low density gas would produce a quite noticeable
>extinction over intergalactic distances.
That's right. It does. My theory says that light speed in any one direction
tends to be unified over very long distances.
>> I say there is a threshold 'density' below which light behaves almost purely
>> ballistically. Above that threshold, its speed is influenced to varying degrees
>> by the optical properties of whatever particular region of space it happens to
>> be passing through. Light is constantly changing speed by very small amounts as
>> it negotiates space.
>> Around a large mass centre such as our solar system or planet Earth, I say
>> there exists an EM reference frame which modifies incoming light speed quite
>> dramatically. When light enters the Earth's atmosphere, its speed very quickly
>> approaches c (rather c/n) wrt Earth.
>>
>> ..so in effect, theb Earth's tmosphere and maybe its gravity field act like a
>> kind of weak 'dragged aether'.
>>
>> The theory appears to work pretty well.
>
>No it doesn't - the fact that GPS works when it assumes relativity is
>valid contradicts your assumption.
The GPS system DOES NOT require relativity.
>>> FYI: the brightness variation of Cepheids are due to other causes than
>>> just a radial velocity effect.
>>
>> I have made it clear to others that I accept that pulsating stars might exist.
>> However, their brightness variation is still largely a mystery.
>> The ballistic theory applies just as much to this kind of motion as it does to
>> stars in elliptical orbit.
>> My variable star program now includes provision for overtone oscillation as
>> well as the fundamental and can easily produce B-type cepheid curves.
>>
>> I'm still working on the latest version and haven't placed it on the website
>> yet.
>
>Are you going to post binaries which runs on Linux or Mac as well?
No. You need a wondows based system.
94% of the world's computer are.
>Or, even better, source code which anyone can compile on their own
>system? Source code has another benefit: one can then oneself verify
>that the code does not contain viruses or other malware instead of
>merely trusting your word that it doesn't. To be frank, I just don't
>download binaries posted on some random website, even if it happens to
>be yours -- it's just too risky.
My programs do not contain any viruses.
>>>Also, increased brightness due to an approaching light source appears
>>>not only in the ballistic theory of light but also in relativity.
>>>After all, the light emitted by the light source during the time
>>>interval X will be received duing the different time interval Y, where
>>>Y is smaller than X if the light source is approaching - no matter
>>>what speed the light propagates at. This causes both a doppler shift
>>>towards blue wavelength, AND increased brightness besause the same
>>>energy is squeezed into a shorter time interval, which naturally
>>>increases the brightness.
>>
>> Yes...but that's a small effect compared with the ballistic 'bunching'..
>
>Why deos the ballistic 'bunching' cause a so much larger brightness
>increase? And, assuming a radial velocity change of X km/s, how many
>magnitudes of brightness increase would that cause, according to you?
If you could run my program you would see the principle.
>>>> Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive
>>>> delusion?
>>>
>>> When will you educate yourself enough to realize that:
>>>
>>> 1. Brightness variation due to changes in radial velocity appears in
>>> the theory of relativity too - so you cannot use that phenomenon to
>>> distinguish relativit from the ballistic theory of light.
>>
>> When are YOU going to educate yourself enough to be able to calculate
>> that the changes YOU are refering to are insignificant compared to the
>> Ballistically generated ones.
>
>You could start by providing formulae showing what brightness increase
>a radial velocity change of X km/s would produce, and explain how the
>formulae works. I searched your website but no such information could
>be found there. No, I'm not going to download your executable binaries,
>it's just too risky to download unknown binaries. Besides, just running
>someone's piece of software won't explain much.
these equations were done a hundred years ago...by people like Walter Ritz and
Sekerin.
>>> 2. The observed brightness variations of these cepheids are much
>>> larger than what could be expected if the brightness variation was a
>>> radial velocity effect only.
>>
>> That's absolute rubbish. Again you prove you need an education...
>>
>> My program calculates and indicates the magnitude changes. They are too
>> big if anything...that's why I have introduced my 'unification theory'.
>> (similar to extinction)
>
>....so your theory failed ..... and you added another theory on top of it....
><g>
No, it is called 'science'.
The plain fact is the distances required to match observed magnitude changes
are consistently much shorter than the hipparcos values.
Introducing extinction effects accounts for that.
>>>> Most variable star curves can be easily matched in this way although
>>>> the required distances are always well short of the Hipparcos figures,....
>>>> which reflects the influence of extinction...or 'light unification' as I
>>>> call it.
>>>
>>> ...however the brightness variation in these cases are due to other
>>> causes than merely a radial velocity change effect. Actually, the
>>> brightness variation is much larger than what could be expceted from a
>>> changing radial velocity effect - both in relativity and in the
>>> (erroneous) ballistic theory of light.
>>
>> There is a small group of stars whose magnitudes vary by 7 or more.
>
>The Mira stars, yes. And of course the novae and supernovae --- I suppose
>you at least there must admit that the brightness variations are caused
>by the pulsation (aperiodic or semi-periodic) of these stars. You know
>what? The brightness variations of the Cepheids have a similar cause,
>although the details are different, and not well known.
they aren't well known because astonomers are still chasing the Einsteinian red
herring.
>> I have not been able to match these with the BaTh even though the curve
>> shapes CAN be simulated quite precisely and easily for smaller magnitude
>> changes.
>
>That's easy to fix: just add some proportionality factor, and adjust its
>value for each individual star.... <g>
No I don't cheat.
>
>> I'm not sure what goes on here....maybe lensing...
>
>...why are you refusing to accept pulsation of the stars themselves as a
>cause? Gravitational lensing jsut won't change that quickly.
I didn't say I was. You can even include the effect of the first overtone using
my program.
>
>> or maybe the observations are wrong somehow.
>
>....are you claiming that observers could observe e.g. Mira Ceti as shining
>at magnitude 4, although it really did shine at magnitude 8 or so? Visual
>observations of variable stars have its inaccuracies of course, but it's
>not THAT inaccurate!!!!
No I said I cannot match these large brightness changes with just the BaTh.
>> Most cepheids vary by less than one magnitude and can be easily and
>> accurately matched. RT Aur is one good example.
>
>Cpheids expand and contract with a speed of the order of magnitude of
>10 km/s, often a bit more. I.e. the pulsation speed is of the same
>order of magnitude as the orbital veolcity of the Earth. Now, if
>these changes in radial velocity of the surfaces of these stars cause
>them to vary by about one magnitude in brightness, as you claim, how
>come not most stars in our skies vary in brightness by the same
>amount, with a period of exactly one Earth year, due to varying radial
>velocity produced by the Earth's motion? Note that it's the relative
>motion between the stellar surface and the observer which counts here,
>and a radial velocity change of the stellar surface should produce
>the same brightness change, no matter if the radial velocity change is
>due to the pulsation of the star, or due to the orbital motion of
>the Earth.
No you simply don't get it. The speeds ""relative to the star""" prevail for
the majority of the distance to Earth.
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
> >Are you going to post binaries which runs on Linux or Mac as well?
>
> No. You need a wondows based system.
> 94% of the world's computer are.
Great open science there, loon!
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
> >Or, even better, source code which anyone can compile on their own
> >system? Source code has another benefit: one can then oneself verify
> >that the code does not contain viruses or other malware instead of
> >merely trusting your word that it doesn't. To be frank, I just don't
> >download binaries posted on some random website, even if it happens to
> >be yours -- it's just too risky.
>
> My programs do not contain any viruses.
And your word is worth exactly what, loon?
Eric Gisse
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:42:17 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> >Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
>
> >>>>> That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
> >>>>> with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.
>
> >> There isn't one believable experiment that supports SR..
>
> >> The ones we read about are all part of the religious promotion.
>
> >If so, why don't you just redo some of these experiments, to get
> >results which contradict relativity? Basically, you're here claiming
> >these experimental results are all faked in a process of religious
> >propaganda - redoing the experiments would quickly reveal such a
> >situation. Any erroneous religious promption can be refuted by
> >observations and experimentation.
>
> many of the so called 'supporting experiments' were performed in the sixties.
> Why do you think nobody repeats them?
No point.
But since you have an opinion to the contrary, why don't you repeat
some experiments? It isn't as if you have anything better to do, and
it would teach you a lot.
[...]
>
> >You are indeed overconfident --- however if you also want to convince
> >others and not just devote yourself to intellectual masturbation, you
> >need to present evidence rather than just big words through your big
> >mouth.
>
> What do you think I've been doing. (on sci.physics.relativity)
Between hiding under the pseudonym Henri Wilson even though your
actual name is Ralph Rabbidge, and posting forged degrees?
>
> >> I have bothered to simulate many brightness curves using just the BaTh
> >> principles
>
> >Did you also simulate then using relativity?
>
> What would be the point?
>
> >Was there any difference
> >in your simulated light curves?
>
> You don't seem to have the faintest idea about any of this. Relativity says all
> the light leaving the star travels at c wrt Earth. That means there is no
> relative movement between light emitted at any part of the orbit.
> The order of change you are refering to is minute compared with the BaTh
> effect.
What is the order, Henri?
>
> >Yes, in relativity too, an
> >approaching light source will appear somewhat brighter -- and at low
> >speeds compared to light speed, the difference between the two
> >brightnesses will be quite small.
>
> In this case, negligible
How do you know? You admit not understanding relativity.
[...]
>
> >> I have shown that Einstein's P2 is completely wrong and the acceptance
> >> of his stupid theory by a bunch of gullible fools been the cause of much
> >> confusion in the ranks of astronomers for 100 years.
>
> ><big laugh> ....again, where's your evidence?
>
> Here are some more matched light curves.www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>
> Just about any published curve is easily matched.
With a closed source program that uses an arbitrary amount of
parameters.
>
>
>
> >> You are talking nonsense.
> >> There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
> >> moving stars.
>
> >Yet you also say:
>
> ># and have discovered that light moves at c wrt its source and
> ># at c+v wrt planet Earth for most of its journey through space.
>
> >Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
> >you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
> >consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
> >it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......
> >Yet you also say:
>
> >> The only known way to check this is to try to simulate their brightness curves
> >> using the assumption that their emitted light moves at c+vcos(t) wrt Earth.....
>
> >> .....and guess what....the simulations work 100%.
>
> >If there's a radial velocity change of X km/s, how big brightess change, in
> >stellar magnitudes, would that produce according to you? Please supply a formula.
>
> My program does all the sums.
> I have now placed the latest version on my website.
>
> You are free to use it to match published curves.
But not against your source to understand how the program works,
right?
[...]
> >> It is only via this NG that the truth has been able to emerge.
>
> >.... you mean opinion, not truth ....
>
> well let's just call it 'evidence that Einstein was wrong'...
Why? Your theory falls apart under close scrutiny, which is why you
have refused to provide any details about how the theory exactly
works or how the programs you use exactly work.
[...]
>
> Yes we know all about the so called GR correction of GPS clocks. It has been
> discussed at length. I have proved that the clocks actually physically change
> when placed in free fall. The effect has nothing whatsoever to do with
> relativity.
Curiously enough, relativity gets the correction correctly. Why?
[...]
Paul Schlyter
Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:42:17 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
>>> There isn't one believable experiment that supports SR..
>>>
>>> The ones we read about are all part of the religious promotion.
>>
>> If so, why don't you just redo some of these experiments, to get
>> results which contradict relativity? Basically, you're here claiming
>> these experimental results are all faked in a process of religious
>> propaganda - redoing the experiments would quickly reveal such a
>> situation. Any erroneous religious promption can be refuted by
>> observations and experimentation.
>
> many of the so called 'supporting experiments' were performed in the
> sixties. Why do you think nobody repeats them?
For the same reason that nobody today repeats experiment to prove that
the Earth is not flat.... well, these experiments are sometimes
performed for educational purposes in elementary school, but never in
science. Science makes progress you know - therefore it doesn't
endlessly repeat the old experiments over and over again.
>>>> How many of these orbits have been recorded which you know about? And
>>>> how many would you expect to have been recorded?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't like to put a figure on it.
>>
>> Why not? Don't you know how many of these orbit you know about? Why so
>> evasive?
No response .....
>>> I would expect that many binary pairs would been recorded as having
>>> 'changed places' over twenty years or so.
>>
>> Indeed they have .... however the word "many" is a quite fuzzy term and
>> could mean anything from more than, say, 3, to millions.....
>>
>>> ....but don't worry about it. I doubt if anyone has seriously looked
>>> over long time spans.
>>
>> Binary stars have been measured for centuries .... is that time long
>> enough for you? A number of them have been observed through several
>> full revolutions in their orbits. Sirius (the brightest star in our
>> skies) is a double star which have been observed through more than
>> three full orbital revolutions.
>
> Yes I'm aware of that. It also has another companion with a very long term
> period.
If you're aware of that many has seriously looked at binary stars over
long periods, you ought to realize you have nothing to worry about here.
>>>> Why don't you aim at trying to finding out how Nature works, instead
>>>> of trying to prove some particular theory wrong?
>>>
>>> Not only have I been trying...I have succeeded.
>>
>> You are indeed overconfident --- however if you also want to convince
>> others and not just devote yourself to intellectual masturbation, you
>> need to present evidence rather than just big words through your big
>> mouth.
>
> What do you think I've been doing. (on sci.physics.relativity)
Babbling I suppose - to satisfy nobody but yourself.
>>> I have bothered to simulate many brightness curves using just the BaTh
>>> principles
>>
>> Did you also simulate then using relativity?
>
> What would be the point?
Didn't you want to prove Einstein wrong?
Suppose you have two theories, A and B. You want to refute theory A
because you believe in theory B. So you produce predictions with
theory A _and_ theory B, and compare these predictions with
observations.
If the prediction by theory B but not theory A match the observations,
you have succeeded in refuting theory A.
If the prediction by theory A but not theory B match the observations,
you have refuted theory B and should discard it.
If predictions of both theories A and B match the observations, you
cannot use that particular observation to decide which of theories A
and B are correct.
But you do something different: you compare theory B only with
observations and conclude they match - then you discard theory A
without even bother to look at the predictions provided by that
theory. And it seems like you don't even understand why you should
examine the predictions by theory A before discarding it. There's a
name for that: it's called prejudice.
The point of also examining the theory you want to discard is to
avoid being accused for prejudice....
>> Was there any difference in your simulated light curves?
>
> You don't seem to have the faintest idea about any of this. Relativity
> says all the light leaving the star travels at c wrt Earth.
True.
> That means there is no relative movement between light emitted at any
> part of the orbit.
False! Remember that c + any velocity equals c in relativity.
> The order of change you are refering to is minute compared with the BaTh
> effect.
Did you actually compute this? Or did you just use your prejudice?
>> Yes, in relativity too, an
>> approaching light source will appear somewhat brighter -- and at low
>> speeds compared to light speed, the difference between the two
>> brightnesses will be quite small.
>
> In this case, negligible
Yes -- just as in bath.... there's no way a radial velocity change
of just some tens of km/s could produce a brightness change of the
order of one stellar magnitude.
>>> and have discovered that light moves at c wrt its source and
>>> at c+v wrt planet Earth for most of its journey through space.
>>
>> Yet you also say:
>>
>> # There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
>> # moving stars.
>
> Are you really this stupid or just trying to waste my time?
>
> I am not MEASURING OWLS. I am merely demonstrating that light from differently
> moving sources DOES NOT move at the same speed....as Einstein claimed.
How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?
>> Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
>> you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
>> consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
>> it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......
>
> I am COMPARING different light speeds , dopey, not measuring them.
How can you compare two speeds without measuring them?
>>> I have shown that Einstein's P2 is completely wrong and the acceptance
>>> of his stupid theory by a bunch of gullible fools been the cause of much
>>> confusion in the ranks of astronomers for 100 years.
>>
>> <big laugh> ....again, where's your evidence?
>
> Here are some more matched light curves.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
I asked for _evidence_ !! Not some obscure diagrams without adequate
explanation....
> Just about any published curve is easily matched.
>>> The only known way to check this is to try to simulate their brightness curves
>>> using the assumption that their emitted light moves at c+vcos(t) wrt Earth.....
>>>
>>> .....and guess what....the simulations work 100%.
>>
>> If there's a radial velocity change of X km/s, how big brightess change, in
>> stellar magnitudes, would that produce according to you? Please supply a formula.
>
> My program does all the sums.
> I have now placed the latest version on my website.
>
> You are free to use it to match published curves.
>
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
Source code, please ..... I don't download binaries from untrusted web sites.
> I have to revise te instructions because it is rather hard to use.
This seems to be the #1 fallacy of crackpots: they're so much into
their own ideas that they fail to realize they have to explain what
they're doing, in a clear way, to others if they want support for
their ideas. Or perhaps it's a strategy used by them, since
explaining your ideas clearly imposes a risk: it then becomes easier
for others to point out the flaws in your idea to you.
>> That's because the radial velocity changes are far too small to
>> produce any significant brightness changes. The radial velocity
>> change must be a non-negligible fraction of the speed of light to be
>> able to produce measureable brightness changes.
>
> You haven't any idea.
> You are thinking only in terms of E = h.nu where nu is doppler shifted.
> That is not related to the effect caused by 'c+v bunching'...which is much
> larger.
How much larger? Please give a formula....
>> The GPS system assumes that relativity is valid, and is able to
>> produce quite accurate positions of each receivers. GPS is nowadays
>> used to control e.g. the flight paths of airplanes when landing on
>> airfields in misty weather conditions when visual landing is
>> impossible. If the assumption of the validity of relativity by the
>> GPS system would be erroneous and instead your ballistic theory of
>> light would be valid, the consequences would be dramatic: airplanes
>> would miss the runways in the airfields and instead crash in e.g. some
>> nearby wood. Less dramatic but also quite noticeable would be hikers,
>> or car drivers, getting lost because their GPS showed them an erroneous
>> position.
>
> Yes we know all about the so called GR correction of GPS clocks. It has been
> discussed at length. I have proved that the clocks actually physically change
> when placed in free fall. The effect has nothing whatsoever to do with
> relativity.
Then how come the relativistic effects assumed to be valid in GPS does
indeed succeed in producing accurate positions of the GPS receivers?
>> I just showed you above that it's quite possible. If the assumption
>> by the GPS system of the validity of relativity was erroneous, then
>> the GPS system would fail to produce accurate positions of the GPS
>> receivers.
>
> The GPS system DOES NOT rely on relativity.
If so, why does it employ relativistic corrections?
>>> You have already seen this one: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
>>
>> Yep -- an obscure figure of yours which for instance lack labels on the axes
>> telling what they actually represent. Something varies between -0.5 and 0.5
>> (approxcimately) -- but what is varying?
>
> Star Magnitude is varying,
Why didn't you label the coordinate axes accordingly?
> The black dots and lines are the published ones. The
> blue dots are my simulation.
Why didn't you add that text to your figure?
OK, so you have a simulation which produces these figures. The algorithms
are well hidden within your executable files. Why are you hiding your
algorithms? Why not instead publish them? After all, that's what science
is about: publish your stuff, in enouigh detail for others to be able
to judge whether what you're doing is valid or not. Having some executable
file with closed source produce some figure and call that figure "proof" of
your ideas won't work!
>> Please redraw that figure more clearly
>> and label the axes appropriately so one understands what the diagram is supposed
>> to mean.
>
> It's just a conventional light curve, brightness (up) versus time. The star is
> RR Lyr.
Another piece of information missing from your figure.
>> Also, that's not a measurement of light speed. It couldn't be, since you
>> yourself has claimed:
>>
>> # There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
>> # moving stars.
>>
>> You aren't measuring what you yourself claim is impossible to measure, are you?
>
> you are not making sense any more.
> The curves are simulated using the notion that light emitted by orbiting stars
> travels at periodically varying light speeds relative to Earth.
> Observed curves are easy to match. Therefore there is good evidence that light
> speed is NOT constant c wrt Earth.
Not until you've provided good evidence which such small radial velocity
changes (compared to light speed) should produce such large brightness
changes --- PUBLISH YOUR ALGORITHMS!
>> So where are your data showing most stars in the sky varying by about
>> a magnitude doe to the Earth's orbital velocity? If you are right, such
>> variations ought to happen.
>
> They do... but they are far too small to measure.
Likewise, brightness changes due to radial velocity changes in cepheids
will produce brightness changes too small to detect. It's a very similar
situation.
> Relativity is just a disguised aether theory.
On the contrary, relativity is an anti-aether theory.
>>> Space is like a very low density turbulent gas. Also present are equally
>>> turbulent 'fields'... whatever they might be.
>>
>> Even an extremely low density gas would produce a quite noticeable
>> extinction over intergalactic distances.
>
> That's right. It does.
Could you please give the extinction coefficient in, say, stellar magnitudes
per megaparsec?
>> No it doesn't - the fact that GPS works when it assumes relativity is
>> valid contradicts your assumption.
>
> The GPS system DOES NOT require relativity.
If so, why are relativity included in that system?
>>> I'm still working on the latest version and haven't placed it on the website
>>> yet.
>>
>> Are you going to post binaries which runs on Linux or Mac as well?
>
> No. You need a wondows based system.
> 94% of the world's computer are.
Post source code instead, so anyone can examine what you're doing.
>> Or, even better, source code which anyone can compile on their own
>> system? Source code has another benefit: one can then oneself verify
>> that the code does not contain viruses or other malware instead of
>> merely trusting your word that it doesn't. To be frank, I just don't
>> download binaries posted on some random website, even if it happens to
>> be yours -- it's just too risky.
>
> My programs do not contain any viruses.
So you say. There are plenty of viruses out there claiming they
aren't viruses. Of coruse you might tell the truth here, but I don't
want to risk my computer on it. After all, you're just a crackpot
among many other crackpots on the Net.
>> Why does the ballistic 'bunching' cause a so much larger brightness
>> increase? And, assuming a radial velocity change of X km/s, how many
>> magnitudes of brightness increase would that cause, according to you?
>
> If you could run my program you would see the principle.
Are you saying you are unable to explain it?
>>> I have not been able to match these with the BaTh even though the curve
>>> shapes CAN be simulated quite precisely and easily for smaller magnitude
>>> changes.
>>
>> That's easy to fix: just add some proportionality factor, and adjust its
>> value for each individual star.... <g>
>
> No I don't cheat.
If so, post a description of your algorithm, instead if hiding it in
executable programs!
>> Cpheids expand and contract with a speed of the order of magnitude of
>> 10 km/s, often a bit more. I.e. the pulsation speed is of the same
>> order of magnitude as the orbital veolcity of the Earth. Now, if
>> these changes in radial velocity of the surfaces of these stars cause
>> them to vary by about one magnitude in brightness, as you claim, how
>> come not most stars in our skies vary in brightness by the same
>> amount, with a period of exactly one Earth year, due to varying radial
>> velocity produced by the Earth's motion? Note that it's the relative
>> motion between the stellar surface and the observer which counts here,
>> and a radial velocity change of the stellar surface should produce
>> the same brightness change, no matter if the radial velocity change is
>> due to the pulsation of the star, or due to the orbital motion of
>> the Earth.
>
> No you simply don't get it. The speeds ""relative to the star""" prevail for
> the majority of the distance to Earth.
When the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, ALL of the Earth follows
this orbital motion. Therefore the "majority of the distance to Earth"
does indeed have a radial velocity change with a period of one Earth
year and an amplitude of +- 30 km/s.
Sorry, but you just ran into an intellectual dead-end here. Your BaTH just
doesn't produce these large brightness variations - if it did, most
stars in the sky would also vary in brightness with an amplitude of
about one magnitude and a period of exactly one Earth year!
Androcles
"Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> wrote in message news:eqilkl$229h$1...@merope.saaf.se...
> In article <bf8ns2t621vdindoh...@4ax.com>,
> Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
>
>
>>>>> That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
>>>>> with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. We know all about the unproven postulate....that's what has been
>>>> derailing astronomy for 100 years.
>>>
>>> That "unproven" postulate created a theory which has been very
>>> thoroughly tested for almost a century now. Up to the 1920's or so it
>>> might have been reasonable to doubt it, but not anymore! So you are
>>> some 80+ years behind your time....
>>
>> There isn't one believable experiment that supports SR..
>>
>> The ones we read about are all part of the religious promotion.
>
> If so, why don't you just redo some of these experiments, to get
> results which contradict relativity?
Why don't you examine them critically instead of preaching?
> Basically, you're here claiming
> these experimental results are all faked in a process of religious
> propaganda - redoing the experiments would quickly reveal such a
> situation.
Correct, so why don't you examine them critically instead of preaching?
> Any erroneous religious promption can be refuted by
> observations and experimentation.
Yes, that is correct. So why don't you examine them critically
instead of preaching?
>
>
>>>> But there must by plenty with resolvable orbits and periods of less
>>>> than 100 years.
>>>
>>> Sure! There are lots of them! But you do need a telescope to resolve
>>> them, and you said you didn't have any telescope....
>>>
>>>> I just surprised that more haven't been recorded.
>>>
>>> How many of these orbits have been recorded which you know about? And
>>> how many would you expect to have been recorded?
>>
>> I wouldn't like to put a figure on it.
>
> Why not?
Because it is unknown.
> Don't you know how many of these orbit you know about?
Yes, but numbers of orbits are not critical to the principle.
> Why so
> evasive?
It's not evasive to say "unknown".
>
>> I would expect that many binary pairs would been recorded as having
>> 'changed places' over twenty years or so.
>
> Indeed they have .... however the word "many" is a quite fuzzy term and
> could mean anything from more than, say, 3, to millions.....
Yes, say three to millions. So what, the point is the speed of
light in vacuo is source dependent, preacher.
>
>> ....but don't worry about it. I doubt if anyone has seriously looked
>> over long time spans.
>
> Binary stars have been measured for centuries
Whoopee, the only one seen is Sirius, period 50 years.
.... is that time long
> enopugh for you?
No. Is one binary enough for you?
> A number of them have been observed through several
> full revolutions in their orbits.
However the word "number" is a quite fuzzy term and could mean anything from, say, 1, to 1...
> Sirius (the brightest star in our
> skies) is a double star which have been observed through more than
> three full orbital revolutions.
Yeah, that's it. That's the one.
>
>>>>>> I should advise you that for some time, I have been studying
>>>>>> variable star light curves with the aim of proving Einstein
>>>>>> wrong...
>>>
>>> Why don't you aim at trying to finding out how Nature works, instead
>>> of trying to prove some particular theory wrong?
>>
>> Not only have I been trying...I have succeeded.
>
> You are indeed overconfident --- however if you also want to convince
> others and not just devote yourself to intellectual masturbation, you
> need to present evidence rather than just big words through your big
> mouth.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
>> I have bothered to simulate many brightness curves using just the BaTh
>> principles
>
> Did you also simulate then using relativity?
I simulated relativity, overconfident preacher devoting yourself to mental masturbation.
[rest of drivel snipped]
cliff wright
Hi!
Well I've tried it by experiment as a variable star observer and I'm
afraid I wasn't able to detect the variation either with a trained eye
or a basic photometer! Now a long period variable or a Cepheid was quite
easy!
This sort of mixup seems to be so common these days and is probably the
result of very poor science education in schools (I'm 66 BTW).
People end up taking up ideas with no conception of their realative
importance or effect. Radial velocity changes as the Earth goes around
the Sun sure but it is an effect only used for extremely accurate star
mapping or work on projects like extra Solar planets.
I noticed her today also that someone did not understand the difference
between the wavelength of EM radiation and its velocity of propogation.
Probablty the same teacher.
Regards Cliff Wright.
Androcles
"cliff wright" <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:45cd...@clear.net.nz...
Do you think this effect might be noticeable, Cliff?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/image021.jpg
Henri Wilson
>In article <7rpps2pc2051r1edg...@4ax.com>,
>Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:42:17 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>>
>>>> There isn't one believable experiment that supports SR..
>>>>
>>>> The ones we read about are all part of the religious promotion.
>>>
>>> If so, why don't you just redo some of these experiments, to get
>>> results which contradict relativity? Basically, you're here claiming
>>> these experimental results are all faked in a process of religious
>>> propaganda - redoing the experiments would quickly reveal such a
>>> situation. Any erroneous religious promption can be refuted by
>>> observations and experimentation.
>>
>> many of the so called 'supporting experiments' were performed in the
>> sixties. Why do you think nobody repeats them?
>
>For the same reason that nobody today repeats experiment to prove that
>the Earth is not flat.... well, these experiments are sometimes
>performed for educational purposes in elementary school, but never in
>science. Science makes progress you know - therefore it doesn't
>endlessly repeat the old experiments over and over again.
Hahahahhohohohoh!
What a pathetic attempt to wriggle out....
>>>>> How many of these orbits have been recorded which you know about? And
>>>>> how many would you expect to have been recorded?
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't like to put a figure on it.
>>>
>>> Why not? Don't you know how many of these orbit you know about? Why so
>>> evasive?
>
>No response .....
>
>>>> I would expect that many binary pairs would been recorded as having
>>>> 'changed places' over twenty years or so.
>>>
>>> Indeed they have .... however the word "many" is a quite fuzzy term and
>>> could mean anything from more than, say, 3, to millions.....
>>>
>>>> ....but don't worry about it. I doubt if anyone has seriously looked
>>>> over long time spans.
>>>
>>> Binary stars have been measured for centuries .... is that time long
>>> enough for you? A number of them have been observed through several
>>> full revolutions in their orbits. Sirius (the brightest star in our
>>> skies) is a double star which have been observed through more than
>>> three full orbital revolutions.
>>
>> Yes I'm aware of that. It also has another companion with a very long term
>> period.
>
>If you're aware of that many has seriously looked at binary stars over
>long periods, you ought to realize you have nothing to worry about here.
Yes, I am quite aware.
>>> You are indeed overconfident --- however if you also want to convince
>>> others and not just devote yourself to intellectual masturbation, you
>>> need to present evidence rather than just big words through your big
>>> mouth.
>>
>> What do you think I've been doing. (on sci.physics.relativity)
>
>Babbling I suppose - to satisfy nobody but yourself.
Well my ability to produce star brightness curves based on c+v is pretty
convincing.
>>> Did you also simulate then using relativity?
>>
>> What would be the point?
>
>Didn't you want to prove Einstein wrong?
Astronomers are completely lost in regard to finding reasons for variable
stars. They are making up all kinds of outrageous theories when the simple fact
is that all the starlight in the universe is NOT adjusted by the fairies to
travel at exactly c wrt little planet Earth.
Light moves at c wrt its source and at c+v wrt a moving observer. In the case
of an orbiting star, the fast c+v light continuosly moves up on the slower,
resulting in bunching. De Sitter's 'proof' that this is wrong is now itself
known to be completely wrong. Multiple images are never seen because of
'extinction' in the vast regions of space.
>Suppose you have two theories, A and B. You want to refute theory A
>because you believe in theory B. So you produce predictions with
>theory A _and_ theory B, and compare these predictions with
>observations.
>
>If the prediction by theory B but not theory A match the observations,
>you have succeeded in refuting theory A.
>
>If the prediction by theory A but not theory B match the observations,
>you have refuted theory B and should discard it.
>
>If predictions of both theories A and B match the observations, you
>cannot use that particular observation to decide which of theories A
>and B are correct.
Sorry, you are not making sense.
You haven't any idea what I am talking about.
You are obsessed with the equation E = h.nu and believe the doppler shift from
relatively moving sources is in some significant way responsible for star
brightness variation. It is not....and this is not rrelated to the effect I am
discussing.
>
>But you do something different: you compare theory B only with
>observations and conclude they match - then you discard theory A
>without even bother to look at the predictions provided by that
>theory. And it seems like you don't even understand why you should
>examine the predictions by theory A before discarding it. There's a
>name for that: it's called prejudice.
>
>The point of also examining the theory you want to discard is to
>avoid being accused for prejudice....
SR has led astronomers on a wild goose chase. They are completely lost in a
maze of way out theories.
The BaTh explains most star brightness curves, simply and soundly.
So which theory should I reject?
>>> Was there any difference in your simulated light curves?
>>
>> You don't seem to have the faintest idea about any of this. Relativity
>> says all the light leaving the star travels at c wrt Earth.
>
>True.
>
>> That means there is no relative movement between light emitted at any
>> part of the orbit.
>
>False! Remember that c + any velocity equals c in relativity.
>
>> The order of change you are refering to is minute compared with the BaTh
>> effect.
>
>Did you actually compute this? Or did you just use your prejudice?
It isn't hard to compute :) . It's just doppler. I can do it in my head.
>>> Yes, in relativity too, an
>>> approaching light source will appear somewhat brighter -- and at low
>>> speeds compared to light speed, the difference between the two
>>> brightnesses will be quite small.
>>
>> In this case, negligible
>
>Yes -- just as in bath.... there's no way a radial velocity change
>of just some tens of km/s could produce a brightness change of the
>order of one stellar magnitude.
Very funny :)
Run my program.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
This is a very comprehensive program, written in Vbasic....It requires
windows.. It has no viruses and cannot harm your computer.
>>> # There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
>>> # moving stars.
>>
>> Are you really this stupid or just trying to waste my time?
>>
>> I am not MEASURING OWLS. I am merely demonstrating that light from differently
>> moving sources DOES NOT move at the same speed....as Einstein claimed.
>
>How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?
The 'measurements' have been done. They take the form of star brightness
curves. That's all I need.
>>> Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
>>> you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
>>> consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
>>> it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......
>>
>> I am COMPARING different light speeds , dopey, not measuring them.
>
>How can you compare two speeds without measuring them?
Easily.
If they are known to pass a starting point together, then, if they don't arrive
somewhere else together, they must have travelled at different speeds.
In the case of light, the 'starting point' can be a fast optical gate.
>>>> I have shown that Einstein's P2 is completely wrong and the acceptance
>>>> of his stupid theory by a bunch of gullible fools been the cause of much
>>>> confusion in the ranks of astronomers for 100 years.
>>>
>>> <big laugh> ....again, where's your evidence?
>>
>> Here are some more matched light curves.
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>
>I asked for _evidence_ !! Not some obscure diagrams without adequate
>explanation....
Are you not familiar with brightness curves? I am surprised! You seem to think
you are some kind of expert on everything....but you've obnviously never seen a
star brightness curve.... :)
>> Just about any published curve is easily matched.
>>>> The only known way to check this is to try to simulate their brightness curves
>>>> using the assumption that their emitted light moves at c+vcos(t) wrt Earth.....
>>>>
>>>> .....and guess what....the simulations work 100%.
>>>
>>> If there's a radial velocity change of X km/s, how big brightess change, in
>>> stellar magnitudes, would that produce according to you? Please supply a formula.
>>
>> My program does all the sums.
>> I have now placed the latest version on my website.
>>
>> You are free to use it to match published curves.
>>
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
>
>Source code, please ..... I don't download binaries from untrusted web sites.
Keep your head in the sand if you wish. The program is mine and cannot harm
your computer. My web site is well known here.
>> I have to revise te instructions because it is rather hard to use.
>
>This seems to be the #1 fallacy of crackpots: they're so much into
>their own ideas that they fail to realize they have to explain what
>they're doing, in a clear way, to others if they want support for
>their ideas. Or perhaps it's a strategy used by them, since
>explaining your ideas clearly imposes a risk: it then becomes easier
>for others to point out the flaws in your idea to you.
Run my program...
>>> That's because the radial velocity changes are far too small to
>>> produce any significant brightness changes. The radial velocity
>>> change must be a non-negligible fraction of the speed of light to be
>>> able to produce measureable brightness changes.
>>
>> You haven't any idea.
>> You are thinking only in terms of E = h.nu where nu is doppler shifted.
>> That is not related to the effect caused by 'c+v bunching'...which is much
>> larger.
>
>How much larger? Please give a formula....
There is NO general formula. There are too many parameters to consider.
...that's why I wrote the program.
>>> The GPS system assumes that relativity is valid, and is able to
>>> produce quite accurate positions of each receivers. GPS is nowadays
>>> used to control e.g. the flight paths of airplanes when landing on
>>> airfields in misty weather conditions when visual landing is
>>> impossible. If the assumption of the validity of relativity by the
>>> GPS system would be erroneous and instead your ballistic theory of
>>> light would be valid, the consequences would be dramatic: airplanes
>>> would miss the runways in the airfields and instead crash in e.g. some
>>> nearby wood. Less dramatic but also quite noticeable would be hikers,
>>> or car drivers, getting lost because their GPS showed them an erroneous
>>> position.
>>
>> Yes we know all about the so called GR correction of GPS clocks. It has been
>> discussed at length. I have proved that the clocks actually physically change
>> when placed in free fall. The effect has nothing whatsoever to do with
>> relativity.
>
>Then how come the relativistic effects assumed to be valid in GPS does
>indeed succeed in producing accurate positions of the GPS receivers?
It is NOT a relativistic effect. the clocks are preadjusted before launch by an
amount that compensates for their rate change in free fall. It just happens to
be close to the GR prediction....but is software fine tuned when the clocks are
in orbit anyway.
>>> I just showed you above that it's quite possible. If the assumption
>>> by the GPS system of the validity of relativity was erroneous, then
>>> the GPS system would fail to produce accurate positions of the GPS
>>> receivers.
>>
>> The GPS system DOES NOT rely on relativity.
>
>If so, why does it employ relativistic corrections?
They are only called 'relativistic corrections' by relativists.
They are really 'free fall' corrections.
>>>> You have already seen this one: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
>>>
>>> Yep -- an obscure figure of yours which for instance lack labels on the axes
>>> telling what they actually represent. Something varies between -0.5 and 0.5
>>> (approxcimately) -- but what is varying?
>>
>> Star Magnitude is varying,
>
>Why didn't you label the coordinate axes accordingly?
It is a standard convention.
>> The black dots and lines are the published ones. The
>> blue dots are my simulation.
>
>Why didn't you add that text to your figure?
Because the figure was originally made for someone else who knew what it
was....and it doesn't matter much anyway.
Even you should be able to see the fit is about as good as one could get.
>OK, so you have a simulation which produces these figures. The algorithms
>are well hidden within your executable files. Why are you hiding your
>algorithms? Why not instead publish them? After all, that's what science
>is about: publish your stuff, in enouigh detail for others to be able
>to judge whether what you're doing is valid or not. Having some executable
>file with closed source produce some figure and call that figure "proof" of
>your ideas won't work!
The method is described in the program itself.
The principle is quite simple...the code is extremely difficult.
I will be writing a very large paper on this when I have completed the
program....right now I am in the process of adding to it.
>>> Please redraw that figure more clearly
>>> and label the axes appropriately so one understands what the diagram is supposed
>>> to mean.
>>
>> It's just a conventional light curve, brightness (up) versus time. The star is
>> RR Lyr.
>
>Another piece of information missing from your figure.
Look up RR Lyr on google...
>>> # moving stars.
>>>
>>> You aren't measuring what you yourself claim is impossible to measure, are you?
>>
>> you are not making sense any more.
>> The curves are simulated using the notion that light emitted by orbiting stars
>> travels at periodically varying light speeds relative to Earth.
>> Observed curves are easy to match. Therefore there is good evidence that light
>> speed is NOT constant c wrt Earth.
>
>Not until you've provided good evidence which such small radial velocity
>changes (compared to light speed) should produce such large brightness
>changes --- PUBLISH YOUR ALGORITHMS!
The program is accurate.
Androcles has created a similar one quite independently and it produces the
same kind of curves.
>>> So where are your data showing most stars in the sky varying by about
>>> a magnitude doe to the Earth's orbital velocity? If you are right, such
>>> variations ought to happen.
>>
>> They do... but they are far too small to measure.
>
>Likewise, brightness changes due to radial velocity changes in cepheids
>will produce brightness changes too small to detect. It's a very similar
>situation.
You are talking plain nonsense. You don't know anything about this...
>> Relativity is just a disguised aether theory.
>
>On the contrary, relativity is an anti-aether theory.
It simply replaced the aether with hte P2.
.
>>>> Space is like a very low density turbulent gas. Also present are equally
>>>> turbulent 'fields'... whatever they might be.
>>>
>>> Even an extremely low density gas would produce a quite noticeable
>>> extinction over intergalactic distances.
>>
>> That's right. It does.
>
>Could you please give the extinction coefficient in, say, stellar magnitudes
>per megaparsec?
I am just in the process of doing this. It appears that unificatiuon rates are
typically around 0.99999 per lightday.
>>> No it doesn't - the fact that GPS works when it assumes relativity is
>>> valid contradicts your assumption.
>>
>> The GPS system DOES NOT require relativity.
>
>If so, why are relativity included in that system?
>
>>>> I'm still working on the latest version and haven't placed it on the website
>>>> yet.
>>>
>>> Are you going to post binaries which runs on Linux or Mac as well?
>>
>> No. You need a wondows based system.
>> 94% of the world's computer are.
>
>Post source code instead, so anyone can examine what you're doing.
>
>>> Or, even better, source code which anyone can compile on their own
>>> system? Source code has another benefit: one can then oneself verify
>>> that the code does not contain viruses or other malware instead of
>>> merely trusting your word that it doesn't. To be frank, I just don't
>>> download binaries posted on some random website, even if it happens to
>>> be yours -- it's just too risky.
>>
>> My programs do not contain any viruses.
>
>So you say. There are plenty of viruses out there claiming they
>aren't viruses. Of coruse you might tell the truth here, but I don't
>want to risk my computer on it. After all, you're just a crackpot
>among many other crackpots on the Net.
piss off....
I don't write viruses...
>>> Why does the ballistic 'bunching' cause a so much larger brightness
>>> increase? And, assuming a radial velocity change of X km/s, how many
>>> magnitudes of brightness increase would that cause, according to you?
>>
>> If you could run my program you would see the principle.
>
>Are you saying you are unable to explain it?
It would take me a long time.
but the principle is simple...
>>>> I have not been able to match these with the BaTh even though the curve
>>>> shapes CAN be simulated quite precisely and easily for smaller magnitude
>>>> changes.
>>>
>>> That's easy to fix: just add some proportionality factor, and adjust its
>>> value for each individual star.... <g>
>>
>> No I don't cheat.
>
>If so, post a description of your algorithm, instead if hiding it in
>executable programs!
It will be published in due course.
Nobody will be able to understand it though.
>>> Cpheids expand and contract with a speed of the order of magnitude of
>>> 10 km/s, often a bit more. I.e. the pulsation speed is of the same
>>> order of magnitude as the orbital veolcity of the Earth. Now, if
>>> these changes in radial velocity of the surfaces of these stars cause
>>> them to vary by about one magnitude in brightness, as you claim, how
>>> come not most stars in our skies vary in brightness by the same
>>> amount, with a period of exactly one Earth year, due to varying radial
>>> velocity produced by the Earth's motion? Note that it's the relative
>>> motion between the stellar surface and the observer which counts here,
>>> and a radial velocity change of the stellar surface should produce
>>> the same brightness change, no matter if the radial velocity change is
>>> due to the pulsation of the star, or due to the orbital motion of
>>> the Earth.
>>
>> No you simply don't get it. The speeds ""relative to the star""" prevail for
>> the majority of the distance to Earth.
>
>When the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, ALL of the Earth follows
>this orbital motion. Therefore the "majority of the distance to Earth"
>does indeed have a radial velocity change with a period of one Earth
>year and an amplitude of +- 30 km/s.
>
>Sorry, but you just ran into an intellectual dead-end here. Your BaTH just
>doesn't produce these large brightness variations - if it did, most
>stars in the sky would also vary in brightness with an amplitude of
>about one magnitude and a period of exactly one Earth year!
You haven't a clue...
Learn something about this or please go away...
Dumbledore
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Paul Schlyter
I give up! It's just impossible to keep a sensible discussion with you....
Go on living in your dream world, and I hope you're happy there.
Just one final note:
## If so, post a description of your algorithm, instead if hiding it in
## executable programs!
#
# It will be published in due course.
# Nobody will be able to understand it though.
If so, you're not doing science. Science is about making your findings
understandable to others. If "nobody will be able to understand it",
why even bother publishing it? Do you even understand it yourself?
Check out:
http://tinyurl.com/8hah7
http://tinyurl.com/46u8s
"Arguing with the crank is useless, because he will invariably dismiss
all evidence or arguments which contradict his cranky belief."
Bye!
*PLONK*
In article <lohss2te46jsaqdit...@4ax.com>,
Henri Wilson
PP plater....Permanently Pissed...
Androcles
"Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> wrote in message news:eqmkji$h3q$1...@merope.saaf.se...
>
> I give up! It's just impossible to keep a sensible discussion with you....
> Go on living in your dream world, and I hope you're happy there.
Sour grapes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes
Typical fuckhead!
PD
> I give up! It's just impossible to keep a sensible discussion with you....
> Go on living in your dream world, and I hope you're happy there.
>
> Just one final note:
>
> ## If so, post a description of your algorithm, instead if hiding it in
> ## executable programs!
> #
> # It will be published in due course.
> # Nobody will be able to understand it though.
>
> If so, you're not doing science. Science is about making your findings
> understandable to others. If "nobody will be able to understand it",
> why even bother publishing it? Do you even understand it yourself?
>
> Check out:
> http://tinyurl.com/8hah7
> http://tinyurl.com/46u8s
>
> "Arguing with the crank is useless, because he will invariably dismiss
> all evidence or arguments which contradict his cranky belief."
>
> Bye!
>
> *PLONK*
>
Keep in mind that this is music to Henri's ears. He really would
rather not have to discuss his thinking at all -- he knows it's
slipshod. He just would like to toss out things he thinks sound clever
and have no one challenge him. This is called "pontification without a
point". Eventually he retreats to something that he knows sounds
eerily like a chicken squawk.
PD
Henri Wilson
>In article <7rpps2pc2051r1edg...@4ax.com>,
>Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:42:17 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
>>> Was there any difference in your simulated light curves?
>>
>> You don't seem to have the faintest idea about any of this. Relativity
>> says all the light leaving the star travels at c wrt Earth.
>
>True.
>
>> That means there is no relative movement between light emitted at any
>> part of the orbit.
>
>False! Remember that c + any velocity equals c in relativity.
No theat's not relativity. That's a WIlsonian example of circular logic:
Let w always = c, by postulate.
Therefore
w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
= (c+v)/(1+v/c)
= (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2)
>
>> The order of change you are refering to is minute compared with the BaTh
>> effect.
>
>Did you actually compute this? Or did you just use your prejudice?
Doppler shift is generally of the order of 1 in 10^4 or less.
Star magnitude changes atributed to BaTh are as high as about 20 (linear, not
log)
I think even you should be able to recognize the difference :)
>>> Yes, in relativity too, an
>>> approaching light source will appear somewhat brighter -- and at low
>>> speeds compared to light speed, the difference between the two
>>> brightnesses will be quite small.
>>
>> In this case, negligible
>
>Yes -- just as in bath.... there's no way a radial velocity change
>of just some tens of km/s could produce a brightness change of the
>order of one stellar magnitude.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I will explain what happens once again.
All stars are in some kind of orbit, some are in short period orbits. These are
generally called binaries. The companion can be either hot or cold and
invisible...large or small.
Both objects revolve around a common barycentre. That centre has a velocity wrt
Earth.
At any instant, light emitted by the hot star moves at (c+v).cos(f(t)) relative
to the barycentre, towards Earth. Here, v is the peripheral velocity of the
star around its orbit. Its component in the earth direction is a function of
time, determined by the orbit parameters, mainly eccentricity, yaw and pitch.
It can be seen that all the light emitted in the direction of Earth is moving
at different speeds wrt the barycentre as the star rotates. As it traverses
space, half of it moves up on the other half ...at differing rates.
The long term result is a 'bunching' effect. When the beam reaches an Earth
observer, the observed intensity varies with time as the spatially regular
'bunching pattern' moves past.
The Earth's movement has a negligible effect on the spatial pattern, which
forms over great distances. It merely results in a quite small yearly cycle of
doppler shift.
Get it now?
>>>> and have discovered that light moves at c wrt its source and
>>>> at c+v wrt planet Earth for most of its journey through space.
>>>
>>> Yet you also say:
>>>
>>> # There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
>>> # moving stars.
>>
>> Are you really this stupid or just trying to waste my time?
>>
>> I am not MEASURING OWLS. I am merely demonstrating that light from differently
>> moving sources DOES NOT move at the same speed....as Einstein claimed.
>
>How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?
It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.
>>> Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
>>> you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
>>> consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
>>> it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......
>>
>> I am COMPARING different light speeds , dopey, not measuring them.
>
>How can you compare two speeds without measuring them?
Easily.
I measure the DIFFERENCE in their travel times over a set distance.
In the case of light, I use an optical gate at the far end and a single CRO at
the other.
However, as I have tried to explain, a very fast source is needed...much too
fast for lab conditions.
I'll let you do the sums.
Eric Gisse
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:11:59 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> >Henri Wilson <HW@.......> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:42:17 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
> >>> Was there any difference in your simulated light curves?
>
> >> You don't seem to have the faintest idea about any of this. Relativity
> >> says all the light leaving the star travels at c wrt Earth.
>
> >True.
>
> >> That means there is no relative movement between light emitted at any
> >> part of the orbit.
>
> >False! Remember that c + any velocity equals c in relativity.
>
> No theat's not relativity. That's a WIlsonian example of circular logic:
>
> Let w always = c, by postulate.
>
> Therefore
> w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
> = (c+v)/(1+v/c)
> = (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2)
Apparently you have never heard of Hyperbolic geometry then, Ralph.
You should look into it, Poincare contributed a fair bit to its'
development.
[...]
>
> It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.
Are you aware that simulations who have hidden program sources and
methodology are ignored?
Oh, no. Of course not. You have no experience with anything, Ralph.
>
> >>> Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
> >>> you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
> >>> consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
> >>> it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......
>
> >> I am COMPARING different light speeds , dopey, not measuring them.
>
> >How can you compare two speeds without measuring them?
>
> Easily.
> I measure the DIFFERENCE in their travel times over a set distance.
>
> In the case of light, I use an optical gate at the far end and a single CRO at
> the other.
>
> However, as I have tried to explain, a very fast source is needed...much too
> fast for lab conditions.
Really? The speed of light is too fast for a lab measurment?
Come on Ralph, that is an undergraduate lab experiment.
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
> >How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?
>
> It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.
But yet you don't post the algorithms you use - a technique NOT widely used in
science and technology.
Henri Wilson
<phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>In article <k56vs25pok05urf8c...@4ax.com>, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
>wrote:
>
>> >How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?
>>
>> It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.
>
>
>But yet you don't post the algorithms you use - a technique NOT widely used in
>science and technology.
Listen fiddlephuck, do you deny that my demo:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe
accurately illustrates the second postulate of Einstein?
Eric Gisse
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:35:27 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck
>
> >In article <k56vs25pok05urf8cnbp1us4h170ok8...@4ax.com>, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
> >wrote:
>
> >> >How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?
>
> >> It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.
>
> >But yet you don't post the algorithms you use - a technique NOT widely used in
> >science and technology.
>
> Listen fiddlephuck, do you deny that my demo:
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe
>
> accurately illustrates the second postulate of Einstein?
Woosh! POINT GOES RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD!
Nobody has any reason whatsoever to believe the word of Ralph
Rabbidge, aka Henri Wilson the compulsive liar.
Paul Schlyter
I'm fully aware that whatever I do it'll be music to Henri's ears. If
I continue discussing with him, he gets attention and he'll enjoy
that. And if I stop wasting time on pointless discussions with him,
he'll think he "won" the discussion, and that too he'll enjoy a lot.
But there's another point of view involved here: how much more time am
*I* willing to waste on pointless discussions with Henri? Not much, I
can tell you that! I have better things to do.
Henri's tactics is to claim he's got a new revolutionary theory but he
doesn't reveal what it's all about. All he says is "run the exe",
"it's very complicated", "no-one will understand it". That kind of
crackpot is described in Gardner's classic "Fads and fallacies in the
names of science": their ideas are so far-fetched that others lose
their interest and they end up talking to just themselves. And since
nobody oppose their ideas anymore, they take that as "proof" that
they're right. Today's crackpot does have a tool which was
unavailable to most people in Gardner's time: they can hide their
ideas in a computer program, distributed as an executable file only,
and then say "run the program, and all your questions will be
answered" -- just as if blindly trusting the output of some black box
would help you understand anything. Fortunately, those people who
blindly trust computer output are getting fewer.
Eric Gisse
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:11:59 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
You have been saying that for years. Why do you keep delaying, Ralph?
Androcles
"Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> wrote in message news:eqp7ai$1gm6$1...@merope.saaf.se...
He did, you resigned.
Hahahahahaha!
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Fortunately, those people who blindly trust computer output are getting fewer.
Really?
I can't speak for Sweden, but in the United States people trust black
boxes enough to put them in control of voting machines without any
mechanism in place to determine if the black boxes counted correctly.
The fallibility of computers is not something folks are made aware
of.
PD
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:35:27 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck
>
> >In article <k56vs25pok05urf8cnbp1us4h170ok8...@4ax.com>, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
> >wrote:
>
> >> >How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?
>
> >> It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.
>
> >But yet you don't post the algorithms you use - a technique NOT widely used in
> >science and technology.
>
> Listen fiddlephuck, do you deny that my demo:
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe
>
> accurately illustrates the second postulate of Einstein?
I certainly do deny that. You've done nothing to demonstrate that it
does.
PD
bz
>>>No you simply don't get it. The speeds ""relative to the star"""
>>>prevail for the majority of the distance to Earth.
>>
Henri has a point here.... IF there were c+v and c-v photons emitted by a
star orbiting either another star or a massive heavy body with an orbital
period equal to the period of a particular cephid variable
AND those photons traveling at different speeds 'bunched up' during the
journey of dozens or hundreds of light years
THEN there might be brightness variation that matched the observed
variation of the cephid being studied.
This would allow an alternative explanation for cephid variability.
HOWEVER, cepheid variables with large proper motion would be seen to 'waltz
back and forth' due to the fast and slow photons arriving from different
locations in the sky. The waltz step would correlate with the doppler shift
of the photons.
Henri also has the problem that his brightness curves are 90 degrees out of
phase with the doppler shift that would be predicted to accompany the
'bunches' of photons if the brightness variations were due to orbital
motion rather than a radial expansion and contraction of the star [what
Henri calls 'Huff and Puff' variable stars].
>>
>> When the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, ALL of the Earth
>> follows this orbital motion. Therefore the "majority of the distance
>> to Earth" does indeed have a radial velocity change with a period of
>> one Earth year and an amplitude of +- 30 km/s.
>>
>> Sorry, but you just ran into an intellectual dead-end here. Your BaTH
>> just doesn't produce these large brightness variations - if it did,
>> most stars in the sky would also vary in brightness with an amplitude
>> of about one magnitude and a period of exactly one Earth year!
>>
> Hi!
> Well I've tried it by experiment as a variable star observer and I'm
> afraid I wasn't able to detect the variation either with a trained eye
> or a basic photometer! Now a long period variable or a Cepheid was quite
> easy!
> This sort of mixup seems to be so common these days and is probably the
> result of very poor science education in schools (I'm 66 BTW).
> People end up taking up ideas with no conception of their realative
> importance or effect. Radial velocity changes as the Earth goes around
> the Sun sure but it is an effect only used for extremely accurate star
> mapping or work on projects like extra Solar planets.
> I noticed her today also that someone did not understand the difference
> between the wavelength of EM radiation and its velocity of propogation.
> Probablty the same teacher.
> Regards Cliff Wright.
Do you know of any waltzing cepheids with doppler shift correlated with the
waltz step? Wouldn't observation of such a phenomina be quite noteworthy?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
George Dishman
"bz" <bz+n...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns98D57F1AE25CWQ...@130.39.198.139...
> cliff wright <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
> news:45cd...@clear.net.nz:
>
>>>>No you simply don't get it. The speeds ""relative to the star"""
>>>>prevail for the majority of the distance to Earth.
>>>
>
> Henri has a point here.... IF there were c+v and c-v photons emitted by a
> star orbiting either another star or a massive heavy body with an orbital
> period equal to the period of a particular cephid variable
>
> AND those photons traveling at different speeds 'bunched up' during the
> journey of dozens or hundreds of light years
>
> THEN there might be brightness variation that matched the observed
> variation of the cephid being studied.
>
> This would allow an alternative explanation for cephid variability.
>
> HOWEVER, cepheid variables with large proper motion would be seen to
> 'waltz
> back and forth' due to the fast and slow photons arriving from different
> locations in the sky. The waltz step would correlate with the doppler
> shift
> of the photons.
>
> Henri also has the problem that his brightness curves are 90 degrees out
> of
> phase with the doppler shift that would be predicted to accompany the
> 'bunches' of photons if the brightness variations were due to orbital
> motion rather than a radial expansion and contraction of the star [what
> Henri calls 'Huff and Puff' variable stars].
Henri also has another problem. Think about a simple RF
carrier signal. The wavefronts would also be "bunched up"
so the frequency is affected by the same factor. That
means that, for a given spectroscopic shift, the velocity
is quite different from what conventional theory predicts.
Henri calls it "Willusory" for some unknown reason, but
when he wrote is modelling software he ignored it because
it means any brightness variation can only be of the same
magnitude as the observed fractional Doppler shift. That
means no more than a few thousands of a magnitude.
Sekerin made the same mistake and his assistant missed that
one although he corrected another less subtle error.
George
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"bz" <bz+n...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>news:Xns98D57F1AE25CWQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> cliff wright <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>> news:45cd...@clear.net.nz:
>>
>>>>>No you simply don't get it. The speeds ""relative to the star"""
>>>>>prevail for the majority of the distance to Earth.
>>>>
>>
I'll answer both of you..
>> Henri has a point here.... IF there were c+v and c-v photons emitted by a
>> star orbiting either another star or a massive heavy body with an orbital
>> period equal to the period of a particular cephid variable
>>
>> AND those photons traveling at different speeds 'bunched up' during the
>> journey of dozens or hundreds of light years
>>
>> THEN there might be brightness variation that matched the observed
>> variation of the cephid being studied.
>>
>> This would allow an alternative explanation for cephid variability.
It certainly does.
>> HOWEVER, cepheid variables with large proper motion would be seen to
>> 'waltz
>> back and forth' due to the fast and slow photons arriving from different
>> locations in the sky. The waltz step would correlate with the doppler
>> shift
>> of the photons.
That's not right. We only see photons that started out heading for where the
Earth will be when they arrive.
This could be a minor problem for stars with long orbit periods but most
cepheids have quite short periods.
>> Henri also has the problem that his brightness curves are 90 degrees out
>> of
>> phase with the doppler shift that would be predicted to accompany the
>> 'bunches' of photons if the brightness variations were due to orbital
>> motion rather than a radial expansion and contraction of the star [what
>> Henri calls 'Huff and Puff' variable stars].
Two comments. Firstly, it is pretty hard to find decent velocity curves for ANY
star let alone a cepheid whose brightness curve is also available. In the case
of RT Aur, the author openly admits that the velocity curve is little more than
a guess.
Secondly, I have made it quite clear that I accept the basic notion of 'huff
puff' stars because there appears to be sound evidence supporting the presence
of harmonics in the brightness curves of type B cepheids. This might be
explained by the presence of two orbiting objects with periods in the ratio 2:1
but that would not be a very common event.
My program now allows for the inclusion of the first overtone. However it is
not clear how to handle the radial velocity of a sphere that is resonating
because it would really be an average over the whole circle.
There are several other possibilities that might explain the presence of
harmonics in a brightness curve...eg shape and temperature when in tidal lock.
>Henri also has another problem. Think about a simple RF
>carrier signal. The wavefronts would also be "bunched up"
>so the frequency is affected by the same factor.
Please enlarge on this...
>That
>means that, for a given spectroscopic shift, the velocity
>is quite different from what conventional theory predicts.
>Henri calls it "Willusory" for some unknown reason, but
>when he wrote is modelling software he ignored it because
>it means any brightness variation can only be of the same
>magnitude as the observed fractional Doppler shift. That
>means no more than a few thousands of a magnitude.
This is plain nonsense George.
>Sekerin made the same mistake and his assistant missed that
>one although he corrected another less subtle error.
You are completely wrong about this.
The doppler variation in incident energy is minute compared with the c+v
bunching effect.
>George
>
>
George Dishman
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
...
>>Henri also has another problem. Think about a simple RF
>>carrier signal. The wavefronts would also be "bunched up"
>>so the frequency is affected by the same factor.
>
> Please enlarge on this...
We discussed it at length last year when we talked about
a radio station sending a news broadcast on the hour.
The broadcasts have to "bunch up" if the source is
moving towards the observer faster for those sent later
and that means the underlying carrier must also change
by the same factor. A photon is just a sample of that
carrier so must also change frequency by the same amount.
I gave you the resulting Doppler equation which include
an acceleration term not found in the conventional or
relativistic formulae.
>>That
>>means that, for a given spectroscopic shift, the velocity
>>is quite different from what conventional theory predicts.
>>Henri calls it "Willusory" for some unknown reason, but
>>when he wrote is modelling software he ignored it because
>>it means any brightness variation can only be of the same
>>magnitude as the observed fractional Doppler shift. That
>>means no more than a few thousands of a magnitude.
>
> This is plain nonsense George.
Well I could be wrong about your "Willusory" term but the
underlying physics is undeniable. As I explained in our
previous discussion, just apply a Fourier transform of a
rectangularly AM modulated carrier. If the pulses close
up, as you say they do, then the carrier frequency must
be changed too. The frequency or wavelength of a photon
of course cannot differ from that of the carrier of which
it is part, something that should be obvious if you
consider applying a PM tube or CCD to a diffraction
grating.
The end result IIRC was about 0.002 magnitude maximum
variation for a grazing binary with a speed of 300km/s.
>>Sekerin made the same mistake and his assistant missed that
>>one although he corrected another less subtle error.
>
> You are completely wrong about this.
> The doppler variation in incident energy is minute compared with the c+v
> bunching effect.
The Doppler variation is the same as the bunching effect
because it is exactly that bunching that closes up the
cycles of the wave, but you are right to an extent, if
the energy of a photon remains the same in transit then
the "E=hv" relationship is broken for distant accelerated
sources and only applies to those either nearby or from
un-accelerated sources.
George
Paul Schlyter
Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 11:12 pm, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Fortunately, those people who blindly trust computer output are
>> getting fewer.
>
> Really?
>
> I can't speak for Sweden, but in the United States people trust black
> boxes enough to put them in control of voting machines without any
> mechanism in place to determine if the black boxes counted correctly.
>
> The fallibility of computers is not something folks are made aware
> of.
You're right - the situation is probably different in the US. Here in
Sweden we've never had any voting machines like that. Instead, voting
is done by selecting a piece of paper representing the party you wish
to vote for, putting it in a sealed envelope which then is collected
in a large bin. The votes are then counted manually by a large number
of people, including observers from the different parties, to ensure
that no cheating can occur.
This also has other effect. For instance it's more common for americans
than swedes to believe in astrology, to be religious, or to be
proponents for crackpot or conspiracy theories.
Paul Schlyter
bz <bz+n...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> cliff wright <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
> news:45cd...@clear.net.nz:
>
>>>>No you simply don't get it. The speeds ""relative to the star"""
>>>>prevail for the majority of the distance to Earth.
>>>
>
> Henri has a point here.... IF there were c+v and c-v photons emitted by a
> star orbiting either another star or a massive heavy body with an orbital
> period equal to the period of a particular cephid variable
>
> AND those photons traveling at different speeds 'bunched up' during the
> journey of dozens or hundreds of light years
>
> THEN there might be brightness variation that matched the observed
> variation of the cephid being studied.
>
> This would allow an alternative explanation for cephid variability.
If this really happened, it would be visible in the spectrum of such a
star: during maximum brightness, light with many different radial
velocities would reach us simultaneously. This would be seen in the
spectrum of the star as a widening, i.e. blurring, of the spectral
lines.
Also, the well-known period-luminosity relation of the cepheids would
be replaced by a period-distance relation: at a different distance,
a different period would be required for the light to "bunch up"
properly, and if the distance was different from that, the amplitude
of the variation would be much smaller.
bz
> In article <Xns98D57F1AE25CWQ...@130.39.198.139>,
> bz <bz+n...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> cliff wright <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>> news:45cd...@clear.net.nz:
>>
>>>>>No you simply don't get it. The speeds ""relative to the star"""
>>>>>prevail for the majority of the distance to Earth.
>>>>
>>
>> Henri has a point here.... IF there were c+v and c-v photons emitted by
>> a star orbiting either another star or a massive heavy body with an
>> orbital period equal to the period of a particular cephid variable
>>
>> AND those photons traveling at different speeds 'bunched up' during the
>> journey of dozens or hundreds of light years
>>
>> THEN there might be brightness variation that matched the observed
>> variation of the cephid being studied.
>>
>> This would allow an alternative explanation for cephid variability.
>
> If this really happened, it would be visible in the spectrum of such a
> star: during maximum brightness, light with many different radial
> velocities would reach us simultaneously. This would be seen in the
> spectrum of the star as a widening, i.e. blurring, of the spectral
> lines.
>
> Also, the well-known period-luminosity relation of the cepheids would
> be replaced by a period-distance relation: at a different distance,
> a different period would be required for the light to "bunch up"
> properly, and if the distance was different from that, the amplitude
> of the variation would be much smaller.
Correct, except Henri takes care of part of the problem by having his
photons 'unite' in velocity after some distance is traveled.
Before he provided for 'extinction' of the c+v and c-v portion of the
velocity of these photons, he was getting brightness curves [from stars
over a certain distance away] that were 'impossible' in that the
brightness would go to infinity as all the photons emitted during a major
portion of the orbit would arrive at exactly the same time. Since there
are few high frequency periodic novas observed, the invention of a way to
avoid that problem was necessary.
Of course, he is still faced with the problem of slowing down c+v photons
(which COULD happen as they encountered some kind of 'friction') AND, most
importantly, speeding up the c-v photons (which would require adding
energy and violating laws of thermodynamics (reducing entropy) as far as I
can tell).
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
bz
@news.freedom2surf.net:
> Henri also has another problem.
More than one, actually. :)
> Think about a simple RF
> carrier signal. The wavefronts would also be "bunched up"
> so the frequency is affected by the same factor.
I agree.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson
>In article <1171273772....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
>Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 11, 11:12 pm, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Fortunately, those people who blindly trust computer output are
>>> getting fewer.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> I can't speak for Sweden, but in the United States people trust black
>> boxes enough to put them in control of voting machines without any
>> mechanism in place to determine if the black boxes counted correctly.
>>
>> The fallibility of computers is not something folks are made aware
>> of.
>
>You're right - the situation is probably different in the US. Here in
>Sweden we've never had any voting machines like that. Instead, voting
>is done by selecting a piece of paper representing the party you wish
>to vote for, putting it in a sealed envelope which then is collected
>in a large bin. The votes are then counted manually by a large number
>of people, including observers from the different parties, to ensure
>that no cheating can occur.
>
>This also has other effect. For instance it's more common for americans
>than swedes to believe in astrology, to be religious, or to be
>proponents for crackpot or conspiracy theories.
America is a nation of mixed up people who are in the main totally ignorant of
anything outside their own shitty country.
They are trying to force their pathetic lifestyle on the rest of the world with
brute force when in fact it is one of the most disasterous societies that ever
existed on Earth.
No wonder they are detested wherever they go.
Jeff Root
Bob,
I'm impressed by your grasp of Henry's ideas. I wanted to
say exactly the same as you said. You said it better than
I could have because you recalled more specific details.
Quite a long time ago we started discussing some aspects
of cosmology. I wanted and still want that discussion to
continue, because the ideas you expressed are closer to
my own speculations than any others I've ever seen.
In a few minutes I'll send you an email. If it doesn't reach
you (if Google didn't give me your correct address), then
please email me at: jroot at freemars dot org.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Eric Gisse
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:12:57 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
We can safely add the United States to the list of subjects Ralph
Rabbidge [Henri Wilson] doesn't know jack shit about.
karand...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:39:13 -0000, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:Xns98D57F1AE25CWQ...@130.39.198.139...
> >> cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
You just registered a "2.7 Wilson"
Paul Schlyter
bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote in news:eqqn8e$23ab$1...@merope.saaf.se:
..................
>> Also, the well-known period-luminosity relation of the cepheids would
>> be replaced by a period-distance relation: at a different distance,
>> a different period would be required for the light to "bunch up"
>> properly, and if the distance was different from that, the amplitude
>> of the variation would be much smaller.
>
> Correct, except Henri takes care of part of the problem by having his
> photons 'unite' in velocity after some distance is traveled.
>
> Before he provided for 'extinction' of the c+v and c-v portion of the
> velocity of these photons, he was getting brightness curves [from stars
> over a certain distance away] that were 'impossible' in that the
> brightness would go to infinity
Actually, the brightness could go to infinity as long as the infinite peak
would have zero duration -- then the total energy could still be finite.
> as all the photons emitted during a major
> portion of the orbit would arrive at exactly the same time. Since there
> are few high frequency periodic novas observed, the invention of a way to
> avoid that problem was necessary.
>
> Of course, he is still faced with the problem of slowing down c+v photons
> (which COULD happen as they encountered some kind of 'friction') AND, most
> importantly, speeding up the c-v photons (which would require adding
> energy and violating laws of thermodynamics (reducing entropy) as far as I
> can tell).
Which means Henri isn't just denying relativity, he's contradicting good ol'
Newtonian physics as well.....
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote in news:eqqn8e$23ab$1...@merope.saaf.se:
>
>> If this really happened, it would be visible in the spectrum of such a
>> star: during maximum brightness, light with many different radial
>> velocities would reach us simultaneously. This would be seen in the
>> spectrum of the star as a widening, i.e. blurring, of the spectral
>> lines.
>>
>> Also, the well-known period-luminosity relation of the cepheids would
>> be replaced by a period-distance relation: at a different distance,
>> a different period would be required for the light to "bunch up"
>> properly, and if the distance was different from that, the amplitude
>> of the variation would be much smaller.
>
>
>Correct, except Henri takes care of part of the problem by having his
>photons 'unite' in velocity after some distance is traveled.
>
>Before he provided for 'extinction' of the c+v and c-v portion of the
>velocity of these photons, he was getting brightness curves [from stars
>over a certain distance away] that were 'impossible' in that the
>brightness would go to infinity as all the photons emitted during a major
>portion of the orbit would arrive at exactly the same time. Since there
>are few high frequency periodic novas observed, the invention of a way to
>avoid that problem was necessary.
>
>Of course, he is still faced with the problem of slowing down c+v photons
>(which COULD happen as they encountered some kind of 'friction') AND, most
>importantly, speeding up the c-v photons (which would require adding
>energy and violating laws of thermodynamics (reducing entropy) as far as I
>can tell).
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, D.C.
Information Contact:
Geoff Chester, USNO Public Affairs Office
(202) 762-1438
Dr. Roopesh Ojha, USNO
(202) 762-0607
FOR RELEASE: 9:20 AM PST, Tuesday January 9, 2007
FIRST DIRECT DETECTION OF IONIZED INTERGALACTIC MEDIUM AT HIGH REDSHIFTS IS
ANNOUNCED
An international team of astronomers may now have the first direct evidence
for a turbulent, ionized intergalactic medium at redshift values of z>2. The
research leading to this finding was done by Drs. Roopesh Ojha (U.S. Naval
Observatory), Tapio Pursimo (Nordic Optical Telescope), David L. Jauncey and
Jim E. Lovell (Australia Telescope National Facility), Jean-Pierre Macquart
(National Radio Astronomy Observatory/Caltech) and Michael Dutka (University
of Maryland), and will be presented today at the American Astronomical
Society meeting in Seattle, Washington. This result is a first step towards
being able to understand the possible inhomogeneity -- "lumpiness" -- of the
intergalactic medium (IGM) at high redshifts, and to trace how the IGM has
changed over time.
"This technique gives astronomers an important new tool for probing the
ionized gas in the intergalactic medium", says Dr. Ojha. "While current
observational techniques are able to study the neutral gas at higher
redshifts, we now have the ability to study the ionized gas which is
postulated to be much more widespread than neutral gas at these redshifts.
Thus we may have a new way to test current theories about the nature of the
IGM."
The space between stars in a galaxy is not empty; think of it as a thin
"soup" of gas and dust. Known as the interstellar medium (ISM), this soup is
known to be both lumpy and turbulent, a sort of "cosmic minestrone".
The space between galaxies, the intergalactic medium, is much emptier.
Nonetheless, it too is a "soup", although more of a "watery consomm when
compared to the "minestrone" of the ISM. At least that's what the IGM
appears to be like in the local, nearby universe. At redshifts above 2 --
that is, at a time when the Universe's volume was about three percent of
what it is at present -- astronomers have not had a way to probe its nature.
But now Ojha et al. have used the ISM -- the "minestrone" in our Galaxy --
as a special kind of filter to distinguish between distant compact radio
sources -- quasars -- on the basis of their angular size. And above a
redshift of 2, the angular size of the sources appears to increase. Ojha et
al. argue that this apparent increase in size is not due to the intrinsic
nature of the sources or some trick of cosmology, but rather that it is the
result of the quasars' radio emission being scattered by a turbulent and
ionized IGM.
How does one use the interstellar medium as a filter? In the 1980s, certain
extragalactic radio sources, the quasars, were found to vary on extremely
short time scales, their radio flux strength rising and falling drastically
in just a few hours. After a bit of sleuthing, this "intraday variability"
was traced to the ISM, which was causing the quasars to scintillate, or
"twinkle", just as Earth's atmosphere causes stars to twinkle. Radio
telescope sky surveys then followed to establish how widespread these
rapidly scintillating sources were.
The largest of these surveys to date, MASIV (Micro-Arcsecond
Scintillation-Induced Variability), was carried out using the National
Science Foundation's Very Large Array radio telescope at Socorro, New
Mexico, by Jim Lovell and colleagues. MASIV detected 500 flat-spectrum radio
sources at a frequency of 5 GHz: 56% of these showed scintillation.
Ojha et al. obtained redshifts for 190 of the 500 sources in the MASIV
survey: 150 came from the literature, while 40 were new measurements made
with the 2.6-m Nordic Optical Telescope in La Palma, Spain. The entire
dataset was then used to look for any difference in the redshift
distribution of scintillating and non-scintillating sources. The researchers
found, to a 98% confidence level, a redshift dependence on the
scintillators, with a striking deficit of scintillating sources above z~2.
Scintillation occurs only if the radio sources are below a certain angular
size, which is around 100 millionths of an arcsecond -- a level of detail
that would allow us to see an ant in Albuquerque, New Mexico while sitting
in downtown Sydney, Australia! This is almost 10 times finer than the
angular size that astronomers can currently observe by other techniques. The
drop-off at z~2 implies that, at higher redshifts, the sources are either
intrinsically or apparently larger in angular size.
While an intrinsically larger angular size at higher redshifts cannot be
completely ruled out, there are a number of reasons why this is not very
likely. Current theories of galaxy formation tell us that quasars should
appear smaller at higher redshifts. Also, the sources for the MASIV survey
were selected in a manner that tended to bias the survey towards finding
smaller sources at high redshifts.
The most likely explanation of these results is that an ionized IGM is
diffusing the radio emissions from the quasars, causing them to appear
larger than the angular size below which they can twinkle. A terrestrial
analogy would be the way fog or heavy snowfall diffuses the headlights of
distant oncoming cars at night. At z>2 the Universe was much smaller than it
is today, so the intergalactic medium must have been much denser, overall,
than it is now. Hot young stars, radio galaxies, and quasars, all present in
abundance at this epoch, would have been "ionization factories" pumping out
both ionizing radiation and charged particles.
"We believe, therefore, that we're seeing the effect of the radio signals
being scattered by the ionized intergalactic medium," said Dr. Jauncey.
"But to confirm this result, we really need to get more redshifts,
particularly for the weaker sources, so that we can rule out any possible
selection effects," said Dr. Pursimo.
Given enough radio sources of the right kind, the scientists say, they might
be able to trace how the scattering properties of the intergalactic medium
changed through time at higher redshifts. The degree of inhomogeneity, or
lumpiness, in the intergalactic medium could be established by taking
optical spectra along the lines of sight to quasars from the survey.
IMAGE CAPTIONS:
[Image 1:
http://www.usno.navy.mil/pao/Digipix/scint_cartoon.jpg (70KB)]
Schematic diagram of IGM broadening of z>2 quasar's apparent size. Credit:
Dr. Jean-Pierre Macquart.
[Image 2:
http://www.not.iac.es/general/photos/telescope/views/IMG_3097.JPG (418KB)]
The Nordic Optical Telescope, La Palma, Spain. Credit: Nordic Optical
Telescope, Jyri Nen
Henri Wilson
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm impressed by your grasp of Henry's ideas. I wanted to
>say exactly the same as you said. You said it better than
>I could have because you recalled more specific details.
He has little understanding of what I'm talking about.
Henri Wilson
Not so. If you had any appreciation of what Maxwell's equations mean, you would
know what I'm saying.
Space is like a vast turbulent VLP gas in which various regions behave like
very weak EM reference fames. There is ONE natural light speed for each frame,
given by Maxwell's equations. Differently moving observers measure different
values for the two constants. only the observer at rest with the region will
produce hte answer 'c'...(more prescisely, c/n)
Any light moving at other than that speed will lose or gain energy as its speed
adjusts.
Eric Gisse
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:11:53 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> >bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote innews:eqqn8e$23ab$1...@merope.saaf.se:
Why do you talk about Maxwell's equations when you are incapable of
using them?