Exoplanet discovered using special relativity

[T.M. Sommers]

"Wilson" will love this:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013/pr201312.html

From the press release:

New Method of Finding Planets Scores its First Discovery

Cambridge, MA - Detecting alien worlds presents a significant challenge
since they are small, faint, and close to their stars. The two most
prolific techniques for finding exoplanets are radial velocity (looking
for wobbling stars) and transits (looking for dimming stars). A team at
Tel Aviv University and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
(CfA) has just discovered an exoplanet using a new method that relies on
Einstein's special theory of relativity.

"We are looking for very subtle effects. We needed high quality
measurements of stellar brightnesses, accurate to a few parts per
million," said team member David Latham of the CfA.

"This was only possible because of the exquisite data NASA is collecting
with the Kepler spacecraft," added lead author Simchon Faigler of Tel
Aviv University, Israel.

--
T.M. Sommers -- ab2sb

[Helmut Wabnig]

What does "photons piling up in energy" mean?
They say:
>The brightening results from photons "piling up" in energy, as well as
> light getting focused in the direction of the star's motion
> due to relativistic effects.

Androcles, help!!!!

w.

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 15, 10:21 am, "T.M. Sommers" wrote:

> http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013/pr201312.html

The method is basically an application of classical Doppler effect.
Identifying it as relativistic Doppler is stretching it. <shrug>

The self-styled physicists seem to share the same trait. The other
day we had PD aka Absolutely Vertical bragging being a world class
traveler. How? Because he was able to bounce off webservers located
in two different corners of the world. LOL. <shrug>

The moral of the story is that you always have to double check the
works of Einstein Dingleberries since the Orwellian philosophy is well
indoctrinated among these buffoons. <shrug>

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONSPIRACY IS PEER
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:21:21 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Wilson" will love this:
>>
>> http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013/pr201312.html
>>
>> From the press release:
>>
>> New Method of Finding Planets Scores its First Discovery
>>
>> Cambridge, MA - Detecting alien worlds presents a significant
>> challenge since they are small, faint, and close to their stars. The
>> two most prolific techniques for finding exoplanets are radial
>> velocity (looking for wobbling stars) and transits (looking for
>> dimming stars). A team at Tel Aviv University and the
>> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) has just
>> discovered an exoplanet using a new method that relies on Einstein's
>> special theory of relativity.
>>
>> "We are looking for very subtle effects. We needed high quality
>> measurements of stellar brightnesses, accurate to a few parts per
>> million," said team member David Latham of the CfA.
>>
>> "This was only possible because of the exquisite data NASA is
>> collecting with the Kepler spacecraft," added lead author Simchon
>> Faigler of Tel Aviv University, Israel.
>
>
> What does "photons piling up in energy" mean?

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_beaming
but on a smaller scale with lower speeds involved

> They say:
>> The brightening results from photons "piling up" in energy, as well
>> as light getting focused in the direction of the star's motion
>> due to relativistic effects.

Sure they meant to say "... due to Androclistic effects".

>
> Androcles, help!!!!

That's exactly what I thought when I read it.
You beat me to it.

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message news:0gi7p8l672rnmh3g5...@4ax.com...

======================================

 

What do you need help with?

This?

http://www.dansdata.com/images/elt6/t6_1280.jpg

Six LEDs are brighter than one.

Approach a star and it will appear brighter as the rate of photon arrival will increase.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 1:17 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On May 15, 10:21 am, "T.M. Sommers" wrote:
>
>> http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013/pr201312.html
>
> The method is basically an application of classical Doppler effect.
> Identifying it as relativistic Doppler is stretching it. <shrug>
>
> The self-styled physicists seem to share the same trait. The other
> day we had PD aka Absolutely Vertical bragging being a world class
> traveler. How? Because he was able to bounce off webservers located
> in two different corners of the world. LOL. <shrug>

'i reject your reality, and i substitute it with my own!'
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=i%20reject%20your%20reality%20and%20substitute%20it%20with%20my%20own

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qcccZy03s

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:21:21 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
wrote:

HAHAHAHAHHHHAHA!
I wonder why Tel Aviv university is so interested...but I already know thd
answer.

What they have 'discovered' is nothing new. They have finally woken up to the
fact that stars wobble due to orbiting planets. Maybe they read my thesis.
While they have discovered a few planets using conventional doppler shift, I
have already discovered thousands using variable light speed.
Their findings are not related to Einstein's silly theory in any way. Some
idiot seized upon the opportunity to make it appear as though it was. The
dingleberries are still just as desperate as ever, you know.

Unfortunately, their analyses will be totally wrong because they haven't even
heard of ADoppler...spectral shift due to source acceleration at time of
emission. It is dominant over VDoppler and 90 deg out of phase.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/16/2013 6:32 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:21:21 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Wilson" will love this:
>>
>> http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013/pr201312.html
>>
>> From the press release:
>>
>> New Method of Finding Planets Scores its First Discovery
>>
>> Cambridge, MA - Detecting alien worlds presents a significant challenge
>> since they are small, faint, and close to their stars. The two most
>> prolific techniques for finding exoplanets are radial velocity (looking
>> for wobbling stars) and transits (looking for dimming stars). A team at
>> Tel Aviv University and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
>> (CfA) has just discovered an exoplanet using a new method that relies on
>> Einstein's special theory of relativity.
>>
>> "We are looking for very subtle effects. We needed high quality
>> measurements of stellar brightnesses, accurate to a few parts per
>> million," said team member David Latham of the CfA.
>>
>> "This was only possible because of the exquisite data NASA is collecting
>> with the Kepler spacecraft," added lead author Simchon Faigler of Tel
>> Aviv University, Israel.
>
> HAHAHAHAHHHHAHA!
> I wonder why Tel Aviv university is so interested...but I already know thd
> answer.

What is that supposed to mean?

> What they have 'discovered' is nothing new. They have finally woken up to the
> fact that stars wobble due to orbiting planets.

Every freshman physics student knows that.

> Maybe they read my thesis.

What thesis?

> While they have discovered a few planets using conventional doppler shift,

That's not how the Kepler mission works.

> I
> have already discovered thousands using variable light speed.

You have discovered nothing.

> Their findings are not related to Einstein's silly theory in any way. Some
> idiot seized upon the opportunity to make it appear as though it was. The
> dingleberries are still just as desperate as ever, you know.

I very much doubt you have any idea what they did. Have you read their
paper?

> Unfortunately, their analyses will be totally wrong because they haven't even
> heard of ADoppler...spectral shift due to source acceleration at time of
> emission. It is dominant over VDoppler and 90 deg out of phase.

Why in the world would they have heard of your silly ideas?

Why don't you look at the system they looked at, and see if your
"results" match theirs. You give the masses and orbital parameters of
the planets you think you have found, and compare them to what the real
astronomers found. You might learn something.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:51:35 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

Gawd! the silly girl has returned....

>
>> What they have 'discovered' is nothing new. They have finally woken up to the
>> fact that stars wobble due to orbiting planets.
>
>Every freshman physics student knows that.
>
>> Maybe they read my thesis.
>
>What thesis?

http://www.scisite.info/The_Revised_Ballistic_Theory_of_Light.html

It gets better every day.

>> While they have discovered a few planets using conventional doppler shift,
>
>That's not how the Kepler mission works.

True....but it's the way NASA used in its claims to have found planets.

>> I
>> have already discovered thousands using variable light speed.
>
>You have discovered nothing.

Just about every star has planets, often lots....

>> Their findings are not related to Einstein's silly theory in any way. Some
>> idiot seized upon the opportunity to make it appear as though it was. The
>> dingleberries are still just as desperate as ever, you know.
>
>I very much doubt you have any idea what they did. Have you read their
>paper?
>
>> Unfortunately, their analyses will be totally wrong because they haven't even
>> heard of ADoppler...spectral shift due to source acceleration at time of
>> emission. It is dominant over VDoppler and 90 deg out of phase.
>
>Why in the world would they have heard of your silly ideas?
>
>Why don't you look at the system they looked at, and see if your
>"results" match theirs. You give the masses and orbital parameters of
>the planets you think you have found, and compare them to what the real
>astronomers found. You might learn something.

Why don't you get a brain transplant. ...one from pig would be an
improvemment.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

What do you mean? You've never left.

Now answer the question.

>>> What they have 'discovered' is nothing new. They have finally
>>> woken up to the fact that stars wobble due to orbiting planets.
>>
>> Every freshman physics student knows that.
>>
>>> Maybe they read my thesis.
>>
>> What thesis?
>
> http://www.scisite.info/The_Revised_Ballistic_Theory_of_Light.html
>
> It gets better every day.

That is no thesis. That is just a web page filled with lots of nonsense
and hardly any math or physics.

>>> While they have discovered a few planets using conventional
>>> doppler shift,
>>
>> That's not how the Kepler mission works.
>
> True....but it's the way NASA used in its claims to have found
> planets.

Not in any of the papers I've looked at. Give citations.

>>> I have already discovered thousands using variable light speed.
>>
>> You have discovered nothing.
>
> Just about every star has planets, often lots....

Probably. But that is not a discovery of yours. Give details on the
planets you claim to have discovered.

>>> Their findings are not related to Einstein's silly theory in any
>>> way. Some idiot seized upon the opportunity to make it appear as
>>> though it was. The dingleberries are still just as desperate as
>>> ever, you know.
>>
>> I very much doubt you have any idea what they did. Have you read
>> their paper?

Your silence speaks volumes. Obviously you have not read their paper,
so everything you have said about it is utterly worthless.

>>> Unfortunately, their analyses will be totally wrong because they
>>> haven't even heard of ADoppler...spectral shift due to source
>>> acceleration at time of emission. It is dominant over VDoppler
>>> and 90 deg out of phase.
>>
>> Why in the world would they have heard of your silly ideas?
>>
>> Why don't you look at the system they looked at, and see if your
>> "results" match theirs. You give the masses and orbital parameters
>> of the planets you think you have found, and compare them to what
>> the real astronomers found. You might learn something.
>
> Why don't you get a brain transplant. ...one from pig would be an
> improvemment.

So you admit you can't give details on any planet you claim to have
discovered, and Yoy admit you have no results for the system they
investigated. In other words, you have absolutely nothing to contribute
to the discussion.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:07:05 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/21/2013 4:04 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:51:35 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"

poor girl...would love to be a real physicsist like me..

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

Talking to yourself again? You must be, because, as you very well know,
I'm not a girl and you're certainly not a physicist.

How about talking physics instead of schoolyard taunts. Answer the
questions that were asked. Or be a man and admit you can't answer them.

[Nick Strawberry]

T.M. Sommers wrote:

> How about talking physics instead of schoolyard taunts. Answer the
> questions that were asked. Or be a man and admit you can't answer them.

Since you post in Greek.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

She recently asked me to provide a mathematical proof that time and space
are different. I tell you, this girl is a real nutcase...

[T.M. Sommers]

No, Rabbidge/Wilson/whatever-your-real-name-is, you are the real
nutcase. How can you expect to understand physics when you can't even
tell the sexes apart? What a pathetic loser you are.

You make ludicrous claims, then when challenged you respond with
personal attacks. You claim to be the most brilliant physicist alive,
but you don't have the slightest clue what physics is or how physicists
work, and you refuse (actually you are unable) to answer the simplest
questions about your claims. You are unable to do calculations that
even you say are trivial.

You are a buffoon, a fool, a laughingstock, a dolt, a nincompoop. A sad,
pathetic, delusional loser. You are an embarrassment to humanity. An
immodest man with much to be modest about.

No one takes you seriously, not even your fellow cranks. The only
reason anyone responds to you is to laugh at your fatuous notions of
what physics is.

Save yourself further ridicule, and shut up. We already know how stupid
you are, you don't have to keep proving it to us.

[T.M. Sommers]

Huh? I never post in Greek, and rarely send email in Greek.

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 22, 11:14 pm, "T.M. Sommers" wrote:

> Huh? I never post in Greek, and rarely send email in Greek.

It does not matter if you have posted in Greek or not. You have
supported the claim that an ordinary Doppler effect must be explained
with relativistic Doppler effect. Koobee Wublee has since asked you
to justify why relativistic, and as usual, the response is dead
silence just like when the self-styled physicists are pushed into the
corner where they have no fvcking place to go. <shrug>

A better question to ask is why you become a prostitute doing lip
service for the self-styled physicists. What do you have to gain by
spreading bullshit? <shrug>

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

I can only assme she's paid to waste our time.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 02:12:17 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/22/2013 6:32 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:16:12 +0000 (UTC), Nick Strawberry
>> <nick...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>>>
>>>> How about talking physics instead of schoolyard taunts. Answer
>>>> the questions that were asked. Or be a man and admit you can't
>>>> answer them.
>>>
>>> Since you post in Greek.
>>
>> She recently asked me to provide a mathematical proof that time and
>> space are different. I tell you, this girl is a real nutcase...
>
>No, Rabbidge/Wilson/whatever-your-real-name-is, you are the real
>nutcase. How can you expect to understand physics when you can't even
>tell the sexes apart? What a pathetic loser you are.

That's strange. I once taught physics for several years and all my studenta
passed. I've even written a book about it.

What have you achieved?

>You make ludicrous claims, then when challenged you respond with
>personal attacks. You claim to be the most brilliant physicist alive,
>but you don't have the slightest clue what physics is or how physicists
>work, and you refuse (actually you are unable) to answer the simplest
>questions about your claims. You are unable to do calculations that
>even you say are trivial.
>
>You are a buffoon, a fool, a laughingstock, a dolt, a nincompoop. A sad,
>pathetic, delusional loser. You are an embarrassment to humanity. An
>immodest man with much to be modest about.

...and I always have the last laugh....HAHAHHA! This one's on you....

>No one takes you seriously, not even your fellow cranks. The only
>reason anyone responds to you is to laugh at your fatuous notions of
>what physics is.

I don't expect idiots to take me seriously.
They don't have the intelligence to understand what im saying.
YOU for instance cannot understand my paradox, let alone find a fault in it.
Have another go if you will:
http://www.scisite.info/paradox.txt

>Save yourself further ridicule, and shut up. We already know how stupid
>you are, you don't have to keep proving it to us.

If it's so stupid, why does it worry you so much?

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/23/2013 6:03 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 02:12:17 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2013 6:32 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:16:12 +0000 (UTC), Nick Strawberry
>>> <nick...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How about talking physics instead of schoolyard taunts. Answer
>>>>> the questions that were asked. Or be a man and admit you can't
>>>>> answer them.
>>>>
>>>> Since you post in Greek.
>>>
>>> She recently asked me to provide a mathematical proof that time and
>>> space are different. I tell you, this girl is a real nutcase...
>>
>> No, Rabbidge/Wilson/whatever-your-real-name-is, you are the real
>> nutcase. How can you expect to understand physics when you can't even
>> tell the sexes apart? What a pathetic loser you are.
>
> That's strange. I once taught physics for several years

Sure you did, "Wilson". Was that before or after you were a psychologist?

> and all my studenta
> passed.

Final exam: "Was Einstein a dingleberry?" If they said "yes", they
passed; "no" and they failed.

> I've even written a book about it.

What's its ISBN? Can't answer, can you?

> What have you achieved?

Whatever they are, they're real, not delusional.

>> You make ludicrous claims, then when challenged you respond with
>> personal attacks. You claim to be the most brilliant physicist alive,
>> but you don't have the slightest clue what physics is or how physicists
>> work, and you refuse (actually you are unable) to answer the simplest
>> questions about your claims. You are unable to do calculations that
>> even you say are trivial.
>>
>> You are a buffoon, a fool, a laughingstock, a dolt, a nincompoop. A sad,
>> pathetic, delusional loser. You are an embarrassment to humanity. An
>> immodest man with much to be modest about.
>
> ...and I always have the last laugh....HAHAHHA! This one's on you....

No, "Wilson", everyone is always laughing at you, all the time. Whether
you notice or not.

>> No one takes you seriously, not even your fellow cranks. The only
>> reason anyone responds to you is to laugh at your fatuous notions of
>> what physics is.
>
> I don't expect idiots to take me seriously.

Non-idiots don't take you seriously, either. No one does.

> They don't have the intelligence to understand what im saying.

No, *you* don't have the intelligence to understand what is wrong with
your pathetic "theory".

> YOU for instance cannot understand my paradox, let alone find a fault in it.
> Have another go if you will:
> http://www.scisite.info/paradox.txt

Just because you have pretended that all of the numerous attempts to
show you the error don't exist doesn't mean that you have not been
refuted over and over and over again. Lying about it just makes you
look even more delusional.

>> Save yourself further ridicule, and shut up. We already know how stupid
>> you are, you don't have to keep proving it to us.
>
> If it's so stupid,

Not it, you. We know you have difficulty with pronouns, and are unable
to tell masculine from feminine, but really ...

> why does it worry you so much?

Who's worried?

> Henry Wilson DSc.

Where did you get your alleged DSc, and what is the title of your
dissertation? Can't answer, can you? Just another of your lies.


Now, let's try talking physics instead of personalities. What are the
orbital parameters and masses for the planets you claim to have
discovered around K-76, so we can compare them to what the real grownup
astronomers found?

[Nick Strawberry]

T.M. Sommers wrote:

>> What have you achieved?
>
> Whatever they are, they're real, not delusional.

Surprise me!

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:28:44 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/23/2013 6:03 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 02:12:17 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

>>

>> That's strange. I once taught physics for several years
>
>Sure you did, "Wilson". Was that before or after you were a psychologist?

I have never been a psychologist. I merely majored in psychology so I could
understand what makes impressionable little girls like you so irritating.

>> and all my studenta
>> passed.
>
>Final exam: "Was Einstein a dingleberry?" If they said "yes", they
>passed; "no" and they failed.
>
>> I've even written a book about it.
>
>What's its ISBN? Can't answer, can you?
>
>> What have you achieved?
>
>Whatever they are, they're real, not delusional.

Masterbation variations perhaps?

>
>>> Save yourself further ridicule, and shut up. We already know how stupid
>>> you are, you don't have to keep proving it to us.
>>
>> If it's so stupid,
>
>Not it, you. We know you have difficulty with pronouns, and are unable
>to tell masculine from feminine, but really ...
>
>> why does it worry you so much?
>
>Who's worried?
>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>Where did you get your alleged DSc, and what is the title of your
>dissertation? Can't answer, can you? Just another of your lies.
>
>
>Now, let's try talking physics instead of personalities. What are the
>orbital parameters and masses for the planets you claim to have
>discovered around K-76, so we can compare them to what the real grownup
>astronomers found?

'Einstein's planet' is a joke. Their technique, which is flawed anyway, has
nothing at all to do with Einstein.
There are already many thousands of 'Wilson's Planets'.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/24/2013 5:57 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:28:44 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/23/2013 6:03 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 02:12:17 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
>>> <tmsom...@gmail.com>
>
>>> That's strange. I once taught physics for several years
>>
>> Sure you did, "Wilson". Was that before or after you were a
>> psychologist?
>
> I have never been a psychologist. I merely majored in psychology so I
> could understand what makes impressionable little girls like you so
> irritating.

Being one yourself, you ought to know.

>>> and all my studenta passed.
>>
>> Final exam: "Was Einstein a dingleberry?" If they said "yes",
>> they passed; "no" and they failed.
>>
>>> I've even written a book about it.
>>
>> What's its ISBN? Can't answer, can you?

No answer, as expected.

>>> What have you achieved?
>>
>> Whatever they are, they're real, not delusional.
>
> Masterbation variations perhaps?

At least I learned how to spell.

>>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>
>> Where did you get your alleged DSc, and what is the title of your
>> dissertation? Can't answer, can you? Just another of your lies.

Again no answer. As expected.

>> Now, let's try talking physics instead of personalities. What are
>> the orbital parameters and masses for the planets you claim to
>> have discovered around K-76, so we can compare them to what the
>> real grownup astronomers found?
>
> 'Einstein's planet' is a joke. Their technique, which is flawed
> anyway, has nothing at all to do with Einstein.

Explain their technique, in detail, and what is wrong with it. Give
citations to their paper.

> There are already
> many thousands of 'Wilson's Planets'.

Funny that you are completely unable to give the mass and orbital
parameters of a single one of those thousands.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:37:29 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/24/2013 5:57 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:28:44 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
>> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>> Now, let's try talking physics instead of personalities. What are
>>> the orbital parameters and masses for the planets you claim to
>>> have discovered around K-76, so we can compare them to what the
>>> real grownup astronomers found?
>>
>> 'Einstein's planet' is a joke. Their technique, which is flawed
>> anyway, has nothing at all to do with Einstein.
>
>Explain their technique, in detail, and what is wrong with it. Give
>citations to their paper.

Their main indicator is a velocity curve, calculated from doppler shift of
spectral lines.
They observe an apparent correlation between a brightness increase and a blue
shift and effectiely put that down to a direct increase in h.nu rather than
accepting an increase in light speed..

The truth is that the observed correlation between brightness increase and
blueshift is an ADoppler phenomenon, which is likely to be much larger than
their VDoppler estimate....so all their speed estimates are wrong.

The brightness curve is predominantly a function of the star's acceleration,
not its velocity.

>
>> There are already
>> many thousands of 'Wilson's Planets'.
>
>Funny that you are completely unable to give the mass and orbital
>parameters of a single one of those thousands.

Those kinds of calculations can be done in the conventional way. I'm not
particularly interested. My BaTh method gives mass ratios of planets and their
orbit ecentricities directly. It is very straightforward and simple.

If you bothered to read any of the papers put out by he Kepler team, you will
soon realize they don't have a clue what is going on generally.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/24/2013 4:45 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:37:29 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2013 5:57 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:28:44 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
>>> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Now, let's try talking physics instead of personalities. What
>>>> are the orbital parameters and masses for the planets you claim
>>>> to have discovered around K-76, so we can compare them to what
>>>> the real grownup astronomers found?
>>>
>>> 'Einstein's planet' is a joke. Their technique, which is flawed
>>> anyway, has nothing at all to do with Einstein.
>>
>> Explain their technique, in detail, and what is wrong with it.
>> Give citations to their paper.
>
> Their main indicator is a velocity curve, calculated from doppler
> shift of spectral lines. They observe an apparent correlation between
> a brightness increase and a blue shift and effectiely put that down
> to a direct increase in h.nu rather than accepting an increase in
> light speed..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You didn't even get through the abstract! You
have no clue as to their method.

> The truth is that the observed correlation between brightness
> increase and blueshift is an ADoppler phenomenon, which is likely to
> be much larger than their VDoppler estimate....so all their speed
> estimates are wrong.

No, all your results, if you can call them that, are wrong, because your
"theory" is pure fantasy.

> The brightness curve is predominantly a function of the star's
> acceleration, not its velocity.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

>>> There are already many thousands of 'Wilson's Planets'.
>>
>> Funny that you are completely unable to give the mass and orbital
>> parameters of a single one of those thousands.
>
> Those kinds of calculations can be done in the conventional way. I'm
> not particularly interested. My BaTh method gives mass ratios of
> planets and their orbit ecentricities directly. It is very
> straightforward and simple.

In other words, you can't do it. Your "results" are meaningless.
Especially since you refuse to do any kind of error analysis (probably
because you have no clue as to what error analysis is or how to do it).

> If you bothered to read any of the papers put out by he Kepler team,
> you will soon realize they don't have a clue what is going on
> generally.

You're the one who has refused to look at their papers. Just because
you are incapable of understanding them does not mean they are wrong.
Your incompetence is your failing, not theirs.

> Henry Wilson DSc.

Still can't give the title of your dissertation? Or the ISBN of the
book you claim to have written? Of course you can't, because you are a
lying charlatan.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:27:11 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/24/2013 4:45 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:37:29 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
>> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2013 5:57 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:28:44 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
>>>> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Now, let's try talking physics instead of personalities. What
>>>>> are the orbital parameters and masses for the planets you claim
>>>>> to have discovered around K-76, so we can compare them to what
>>>>> the real grownup astronomers found?
>>>>
>>>> 'Einstein's planet' is a joke. Their technique, which is flawed
>>>> anyway, has nothing at all to do with Einstein.
>>>
>>> Explain their technique, in detail, and what is wrong with it.
>>> Give citations to their paper.
>>
>> Their main indicator is a velocity curve, calculated from doppler
>> shift of spectral lines. They observe an apparent correlation between
>> a brightness increase and a blue shift and effectiely put that down
>> to a direct increase in h.nu rather than accepting an increase in
>> light speed..
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You didn't even get through the abstract! You
>have no clue as to their method.

You poor girl. I feel sorry for you. You don't even know what I'm saying.

>> The truth is that the observed correlation between brightness
>> increase and blueshift is an ADoppler phenomenon, which is likely to
>> be much larger than their VDoppler estimate....so all their speed
>> estimates are wrong.
>
>No, all your results, if you can call them that, are wrong, because your
>"theory" is pure fantasy.
>
>> The brightness curve is predominantly a function of the star's
>> acceleration, not its velocity.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Recorded laughter..
You poor girl. I feel sorry for you. You don't even know what I'm saying.

>>>> There are already many thousands of 'Wilson's Planets'.
>>>
>>> Funny that you are completely unable to give the mass and orbital
>>> parameters of a single one of those thousands.
>>
>> Those kinds of calculations can be done in the conventional way. I'm
>> not particularly interested. My BaTh method gives mass ratios of
>> planets and their orbit ecentricities directly. It is very
>> straightforward and simple.
>
>In other words, you can't do it. Your "results" are meaningless.
>Especially since you refuse to do any kind of error analysis (probably
>because you have no clue as to what error analysis is or how to do it).

You poor girl. I feel sorry for you. You don't even know what I'm saying.

>> If you bothered to read any of the papers put out by he Kepler team,
>> you will soon realize they don't have a clue what is going on
>> generally.
>
>You're the one who has refused to look at their papers. Just because
>you are incapable of understanding them does not mean they are wrong.
>Your incompetence is your failing, not theirs.

You poor girl. I feel sorry for you. You don't even know what I'm saying.

>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>Still can't give the title of your dissertation? Or the ISBN of the
>book you claim to have written? Of course you can't, because you are a
>lying charlatan.

You poor girl. I feel sorry for you. You don't even know what I'm saying.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

As expected, you are completely unable to give a substantive answer to
any question.

We all know what you are saying, and we all know that what you are
saying is pure nonsense.

Come back when you are able to talk physics sensibly. Until then, why
don't you stay in alt.crackpots.wilson.ha.ha.ha where you belong?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:57:48 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

there is no point in discussing physics with you because you don't understand
any of it.

I told you how NASA is finding planets and you accuse me of lying.

You obviously don't have the faintest idea about anything scientific.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

The lack of understanding is entirely on your side. You won't talk
physics because you are afraid of being exposed as a charlatan if you try.

> I told you how NASA is finding planets and you accuse me of lying.

Apparently you can't parse simple sentences, either. That the real
astronomers working with Kepler data have discovered planets is about
the only thing you've said that is true. Your lie is that you have
discovered planets. Since you refuse to back up your claim with data,
what other conclusion is there?

> You obviously don't have the faintest idea about anything
> scientific.

Talking to yourself again.

> Henry Wilson DSc.

Still can't tell us the title of your dissertation, or the ISBN of the
alleged book you wrote. Obviously more lies.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:35:05 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/26/2013 6:27 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:57:48 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
>> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As expected, you are completely unable to give a substantive answer
>>> to any question.
>>>
>>> We all know what you are saying, and we all know that what you are
>>> saying is pure nonsense.
>>>
>>> Come back when you are able to talk physics sensibly. Until then,
>>> why don't you stay in alt.crackpots.wilson.ha.ha.ha where you
>>> belong?
>>
>> there is no point in discussing physics with you because you don't
>> understand any of it.
>
>The lack of understanding is entirely on your side. You won't talk
>physics because you are afraid of being exposed as a charlatan if you try.
>
>> I told you how NASA is finding planets and you accuse me of lying.
>
>Apparently you can't parse simple sentences, either. That the real
>astronomers working with Kepler data have discovered planets is about
>the only thing you've said that is true. Your lie is that you have
>discovered planets. Since you refuse to back up your claim with data,
>what other conclusion is there?

Has your self-delusion always been a problem?

>> You obviously don't have the faintest idea about anything
>> scientific.
>
>Talking to yourself again.
>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>Still can't tell us the title of your dissertation, or the ISBN of the
>alleged book you wrote. Obviously more lies.

I must advise that your chronic loss of memory is probably an indication of
advancing Alzheimer's. You should have it checked immediately.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/26/2013 1:29 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:35:05 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/26/2013 6:27 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:57:48 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
>>> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As expected, you are completely unable to give a substantive answer
>>>> to any question.
>>>>
>>>> We all know what you are saying, and we all know that what you are
>>>> saying is pure nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Come back when you are able to talk physics sensibly. Until then,
>>>> why don't you stay in alt.crackpots.wilson.ha.ha.ha where you
>>>> belong?
>>>
>>> there is no point in discussing physics with you because you don't
>>> understand any of it.
>>
>> The lack of understanding is entirely on your side. You won't talk
>> physics because you are afraid of being exposed as a charlatan if you try.
>>
>>> I told you how NASA is finding planets and you accuse me of lying.
>>
>> Apparently you can't parse simple sentences, either. That the real
>> astronomers working with Kepler data have discovered planets is about
>> the only thing you've said that is true. Your lie is that you have
>> discovered planets. Since you refuse to back up your claim with data,
>> what other conclusion is there?
>
> Has your self-delusion always been a problem?

Look who's talking.

>>> You obviously don't have the faintest idea about anything
>>> scientific.
>>
>> Talking to yourself again.
>>
>>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>
>> Still can't tell us the title of your dissertation, or the ISBN of the
>> alleged book you wrote. Obviously more lies.
>
> I must advise that your chronic loss of memory is probably an indication of
> advancing Alzheimer's. You should have it checked immediately.

What? Who are you? Who am I? What century is it?

> Henry Wilson DSc.

Still can't tell us the title of your dissertation, or the ISBN of the

alleged book you wrote. Loser.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:22:56 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/26/2013 1:29 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:35:05 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>


>

>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>Still can't tell us the title of your dissertation, or the ISBN of the
>alleged book you wrote. Loser.

Just for you, I will let you read the first chapter FREE OF CHARGE.
It is written for beginners so you should appreciate it.

http://www.scisite.info/preface.doc

....copyright

[T.M. Sommers]

So it isn't a real book at all. Real books are published. This
obviously hasn't been published; it isn't even a proper manuscript that
would be acceptable to a publisher. All you've done is bang on your
keyboard for a while. Piffle.

Still no title for your dissertation, either.

Your deceptions are so transparent.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:51:53 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/26/2013 8:07 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:22:56 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 5/26/2013 1:29 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:35:05 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>>
>>> Still can't tell us the title of your dissertation, or the ISBN of the
>>> alleged book you wrote. Loser.
>>
>> Just for you, I will let you read the first chapter FREE OF CHARGE.
>> It is written for beginners so you should appreciate it.
>>
>> http://www.scisite.info/preface.doc
>>
>> ....copyright
>
>So it isn't a real book at all. Real books are published. This
>obviously hasn't been published; it isn't even a proper manuscript that
>would be acceptable to a publisher. All you've done is bang on your
>keyboard for a while. Piffle.

It's an E-book, dopey.
Put a dollar into my Paypal account and you can have the rest of it.

>Still no title for your dissertation, either.

The booklet is entitled "What is PHYSICS".

It is designed for people like yourself who are curious but know nothing about
it....and in your case don't have the ability to understand it.

>Your deceptions are so transparent.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/27/2013 1:54 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:51:53 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/26/2013 8:07 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:22:56 -0400, "T.M. Sommers"
>>> <tmsom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2013 1:29 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>>>
>>>> Still can't tell us the title of your dissertation, or the ISBN
>>>> of the alleged book you wrote. Loser.
>>>
>>> Just for you, I will let you read the first chapter FREE OF
>>> CHARGE. It is written for beginners so you should appreciate it.
>>>
>>> http://www.scisite.info/preface.doc
>>>
>>> ....copyright
>>
>> So it isn't a real book at all. Real books are published. This
>> obviously hasn't been published; it isn't even a proper manuscript
>> that would be acceptable to a publisher. All you've done is bang
>> on your keyboard for a while. Piffle.
>
> It's an E-book, dopey. Put a dollar into my Paypal account and you
> can have the rest of it.

As I said, it's not a real book from a real publisher.

>> Still no title for your dissertation, either.
>
> The booklet is entitled "What is PHYSICS".

Now what about your dissertation? You pretend you have a doctorate, and
to get a doctorate you have to write a dissertation. I would think that
someone with a doctorate would know that.

> It is designed for people like yourself who are curious but know
> nothing about it....and in your case don't have the ability to
> understand it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 20:30:43 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
wrote:

All you've done is bang
>>> on your keyboard for a while. Piffle.
>>
>> It's an E-book, dopey. Put a dollar into my Paypal account and you
>> can have the rest of it.
>
>As I said, it's not a real book from a real publisher.

Why would I want to publish a conventiional physics text. There are hundreds
of them available already.

>>> Still no title for your dissertation, either.
>>
>> The booklet is entitled "What is PHYSICS".

>> It is designed for people like yourself who are curious but know
>> nothing about it....and in your case don't have the ability to
>> understand it.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

laughing at yourself again, eh....because you know it's true...

Henry Wilson DSc.

[T.M. Sommers]

On 5/28/2013 6:21 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 20:30:43 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> All you've done is bang
>>>> on your keyboard for a while. Piffle.
>>>
>>> It's an E-book, dopey. Put a dollar into my Paypal account and you
>>> can have the rest of it.
>>
>> As I said, it's not a real book from a real publisher.
>
> Why would I want to publish a conventiional physics text. There are hundreds
> of them available already.

Beats me. You're the one who claimed to have written a book.

>>>> Still no title for your dissertation, either.
>>>
>>> The booklet is entitled "What is PHYSICS".
>
>>> It is designed for people like yourself who are curious but know
>>> nothing about it....and in your case don't have the ability to
>>> understand it.
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> laughing at yourself again, eh....because you know it's true...

No, definitely laughing at you. Everyone does it, you being a
laughingstock and all.

> Henry Wilson DSc.

Still don't know the title of your dissertation.


You bore me, "Wilson". I won't respond again in this thread unless you
manage to talk physics. I will graciously allow you to have the last word.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 01:54:31 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tmsom...@gmail.com>

You fucking useless creep! You are the most useless boring heap of shit on
this NG. You know nothing about physics and have never uttered one word of
science since you have been here. You have obviously been getting some sort
of satisfaction by trying to criticise a real physicist with your inane
comments. Well from now on, you can now fuck off.

<Plonk>

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/29/2013 12:54 AM, T.M. Sommers wrote:
>>>> It's an E-book, dopey. Put a dollar into my Paypal account and you
>>>> can have the rest of it.
>>>
>>> As I said, it's not a real book from a real publisher.
>>
>> Why would I want to publish a conventiional physics text. There are
>> hundreds
>> of them available already.
>
> Beats me. You're the one who claimed to have written a book.

what's your paypal account, wilson?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/29/2013 5:05 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> Still don't know the title of your dissertation.
>> >
>> >
>> >You bore me, "Wilson". I won't respond again in this thread unless you
>> >manage to talk physics. I will graciously allow you to have the last word.
>
> You fucking useless creep! You are the most useless boring heap of shit on
> this NG. You know nothing about physics and have never uttered one word of
> science since you have been here. You have obviously been getting some sort
> of satisfaction by trying to criticise a real physicist with your inane
> comments. Well from now on, you can now fuck off.
>
> <Plonk>
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.

hence proving dirk's comment that if you really want to piss off a
usenet crank, you ignore them.

[T.M. Sommers]

Yeah, his response exceeded all expectations.