How much more proof does one need?
Henry Wilson DSc
Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
simulation.
The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
making complete fools of themselves.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Henry Wilson DSc
Sorry, here's the website:
www.scisite.info/R Cru2.jpg
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:jvafg5t0r28oros6h...@4ax.com...
There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a
couple of days I was getting worried about ya.
If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this:
www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg
Dirk Van de moortel
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
Wilson's degrees are clearly forged:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ForgedDegree.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
Dirk Vdm
eric gisse
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a
> BaTh simulation.
>
> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted
> light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large
> planet.
Cephids aren't planetary systems.
>
> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids'
> are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and
> stop making complete fools of themselves.
Around the time you post under your real name.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
OK Try this: http://www.scisite.info/r_cru.jpg
Pretty convincing, eh?
Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I
haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different
values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product
(distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a particular
factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same curve, as
you should know.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a
>> BaTh simulation.
>>
>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted
>> light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large
>> planet.
>
>Cephids aren't planetary systems.
They don't have to be.... although most cepheids DO have a companion star.
They can be genuine huff-puff stars, in which case their true velocity
component towards earth is similar to a star in elliptical orbit.
The BaTh theory of brightness variation still applies.
Incidentally, if a star's brightness was observed to vary like this,
http://www.scisite.info/falseeclipse.jpg
what would be an astronomer's natural conclusion?
No, it isn't an eclipsing star at all.
It's just a huff-puff with a substantial 1st overtone.
>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids'
>> are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and
>> stop making complete fools of themselves.
>
>Around the time you post under your real name.
Why don't you do something useful with your life instead of wasting it on
criticizing real scientists.
BURT
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:39:14 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The speed of light is a constant until inside the atom.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:22:59 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with
>>> a BaTh simulation.
>>>
>>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted
>>> light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a
>>> large planet.
>>
>>Cephids aren't planetary systems.
>
> They don't have to be.... although most cepheids DO have a companion star.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
>
> They can be genuine huff-puff stars, in which case their true velocity
> component towards earth is similar to a star in elliptical orbit.
Nice waffle. Throw out a handful of possible explanations, including the one
accepted for most of a century now.
>
> The BaTh theory of brightness variation still applies.
But remains completely undetectable by Earth-bound experiments, which you
can not explain. And is also inconsistent with observations from binary
stars, which you also can not explain.
>
> Incidentally, if a star's brightness was observed to vary like this,
> http://www.scisite.info/falseeclipse.jpg
>
> what would be an astronomer's natural conclusion?
Since you always neglect to include axis labels, scales, or sources for your
data, an astronomer's natural conclusion given your history of manipulating
graphs and falsifying certifications would be that you are full of shit.
>
> No, it isn't an eclipsing star at all.
> It's just a huff-puff with a substantial 1st overtone.
>
>>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids'
>>> are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up
>>> and stop making complete fools of themselves.
>>
>>Around the time you post under your real name.
>
> Why don't you do something useful with your life instead of wasting it on
> criticizing real scientists.
Putting your name on someone else's degrees doesn't make you a real
scientist.
>
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Imagine that - www.scisite.info is registered to Ralph Rabbidge.
Henry Wilson DSc
...idiot..
>Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
Inertial
news:4mjgg5pm74d7f4i74...@4ax.com...
> Pretty convincing, eh?
Nothing a known liar such as yourself posts would be convincing
Greg Hennessy
> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I
> haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
> because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different
> values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively.
I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it
past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho
catalog does not include parallax.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:39:14 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:jvafg5t0r28oros6h...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 GMT, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> Sorry, here's the website:
>>> www.scisite.info/R Cru2.jpg
>>>
>>> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>>>
>>> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
>>
>>
>>There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a
>>couple of days I was getting worried about ya.
>>If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this:
>> www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg
>
> OK Try this: http://www.scisite.info/r_cru.jpg
>
> Pretty convincing, eh?
Not bad. Now do it with 100 points as I did.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
Eccentricity .25
Yaw angle 82
Pitch angle 0
Distance 280
Phase 1
Sample 0
> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch.
> I
> haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
> because I cannot find reliable figures.
EXACTLY!
Distance is the Holy Grail of Astronomy, that's why Hipparcos
and Tycho were launched.
> Hipparcos and Tycho give different
> values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product
> (distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a
> particular
> factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same
> curve, as
> you should know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hipparcos-accuracies.gif
I have a question, though.
Why does your program refer to more than one star?
A cepheid is a star and a planet, not a double star.
Androcles
"Greg Hennessy" <greg.h...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%V%Nm.17396$gd1....@newsfe05.iad...
http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/catalogs/tycho2.html
The Tycho-2 positions and magnitudes are based on precisely the same
observations as the Tycho-1 Catalogue (ESA SP-1200, 1997) collected by the
star mapper of the ESA Hipparcos satellite, but Tycho-2 is much bigger and
slightly more precise, owing to a more advanced reduction technique.
I shall ignore Hennessy's farting, he has his head up his arse.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:22:59 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with
>>> a
>>> BaTh simulation.
>>>
>>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted
>>> light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a
>>> large
>>> planet.
>>
>>Cephids aren't planetary systems.
>
> They don't have to be.... although most cepheids DO have a companion star.
Bullshit. A cepheid is a star and planet.
> They can be genuine huff-puff stars, in which case their true velocity
> component towards earth is similar to a star in elliptical orbit.
Bullshit. There are no huff-puff stars.
>
> The BaTh theory of brightness variation still applies.
Thank Gawd BaTh is a crackpot theory.
> Incidentally, if a star's brightness was observed to vary like this,
> http://www.scisite.info/falseeclipse.jpg
>
> what would be an astronomer's natural conclusion?
That curve doesn't exist in Nature. Algol has a sloping top
to make it seem as if it does, and Mars has fuckin' canals
because Lowell wanted to see them.
> No, it isn't an eclipsing star at all.
> It's just a huff-puff with a substantial 1st overtone.
It's a cepheid with the major axis along the line of sight.
>>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids'
>>> are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up
>>> and
>>> stop making complete fools of themselves.
>>
>>Around the time you post under your real name.
>
> Why don't you do something useful with your life instead of wasting it on
> criticizing real scientists.
>
He did, he put his ugly fat dimpled cross-eyed mug on facebook so
we can all see what a real dork looks like (along with his pal Wormley.)
http://www.facebook.com/eric.gisse
Henry Wilson DSc
What is this then?
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_scripts/HIPcatalogueSearch.pl
Catogue T(ycho), parallax = 3.1
Here's the Hipparcos one:
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_scripts/HIPcatalogueSearch.pl
trig parallx = 1.97
So who is the dickhead now?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:s5kgg5dums4r5ef0b...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:22:59 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted
>>>> light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a
>>>> large
>>>> planet.
>>>
>>>Cephids aren't planetary systems.
>>
>> They don't have to be.... although most cepheids DO have a companion star.
>
>Bullshit. A cepheid is a star and planet.
It could easily be that, too....but many have a companion star identified by
its spectrum.
Mind you, astronomers know absolutely nothing about ADoppler (WaSh) so nothing
they conclude is believable.
>> They can be genuine huff-puff stars, in which case their true velocity
>> component towards earth is similar to a star in elliptical orbit.
>
>Bullshit. There are no huff-puff stars.
There could be. ..but I doubt if many 'cepheids' are like that.
To accommodate huff-puffs, I have adjusted my program so that it takes into
account the different radial velocities of concentric rings of an expanding
sphere. A significant finding is that the little hump that I originally put
down to an overtone is somewhat exaggerated when this effect is included.
There is a strong suggestion of the presence of an overtone in their brigthness
curves. I have another explanation for that. If the star is egg shaped due to
tidal forces, its brightness would cycle at twice its orbital frequency.
>> The BaTh theory of brightness variation still applies.
>
>Thank Gawd BaTh is a crackpot theory.
It's YOUR theory.
>
>
>> Incidentally, if a star's brightness was observed to vary like this,
>> http://www.scisite.info/falseeclipse.jpg
>>
>> what would be an astronomer's natural conclusion?
>
>That curve doesn't exist in Nature. Algol has a sloping top
>to make it seem as if it does, and Mars has fuckin' canals
>because Lowell wanted to see them.
Yes....astronomers can imagine all kinds of strange phenomena.
...but many genuinely eclipsing binary pairs must exist purely on pobabilistic
grounds.
>> No, it isn't an eclipsing star at all.
>> It's just a huff-puff with a substantial 1st overtone.
>
>It's a cepheid with the major axis along the line of sight.
>
>
>>>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids'
>>>> are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up
>>>> and
>>>> stop making complete fools of themselves.
>>>
>>>Around the time you post under your real name.
>>
>> Why don't you do something useful with your life instead of wasting it on
>> criticizing real scientists.
>>
>He did, he put his ugly fat dimpled cross-eyed mug on facebook so
>we can all see what a real dork looks like (along with his pal Wormley.)
> http://www.facebook.com/eric.gisse
Yes, that figures. Only a real idiot would live in Alaska
Henry Wilson DSc
Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
Inertial
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>
> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
Wrong
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:atdhg514lb7kne2ul...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>
> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
>
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
Why do you bother with fuckwits?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
Hennessy is the dickhead with his cock up his own arse.
Inertial
news:y_2Om.130211$9M4....@newsfe03.ams2...
>
> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> news:atdhg514lb7kne2ul...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>>
>> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
>>
> Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
Of course, there is no third postulate
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
That doesn't show anything wrong apart from you
> Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
> Why do you bother with fuckwits?
Because you are entertaining.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:31:04 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:s5kgg5dums4r5ef0b...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:22:59 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted
>>>>> light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a
>>>>> large
>>>>> planet.
>>>>
>>>>Cephids aren't planetary systems.
>>>
>>> They don't have to be.... although most cepheids DO have a companion
>>> star.
>>
>>Bullshit. A cepheid is a star and planet.
>
> It could easily be that, too....but many have a companion star identified
> by
> its spectrum.
Bullshit. Name one and show the spectrum.
> Mind you, astronomers know absolutely nothing about ADoppler (WaSh) so
> nothing
> they conclude is believable.
Your WaSh is SoAp. Make an opera out of it.
>>> They can be genuine huff-puff stars, in which case their true velocity
>>> component towards earth is similar to a star in elliptical orbit.
>>
>>Bullshit. There are no huff-puff stars.
>
> There could be. ..but I doubt if many 'cepheids' are like that.
There could be canals on Mars and Einstein could be right.
Stick your fuckin' "could be's" up your arse, you are bullshitting
without any fuckin' evidence except the evidence you invent.
> To accommodate huff-puffs, I have adjusted my program so that it takes
> into
> account the different radial velocities of concentric rings of an
> expanding
> sphere. A significant finding is that the little hump that I originally
> put
> down to an overtone is somewhat exaggerated when this effect is included.
>
> There is a strong suggestion of the presence of an overtone in their
> brigthness
> curves. I have another explanation for that. If the star is egg shaped due
> to
> tidal forces, its brightness would cycle at twice its orbital frequency.
>
>>> The BaTh theory of brightness variation still applies.
>>
>>Thank Gawd BaTh is a crackpot theory.
>
> It's YOUR theory.
>
Not at all. I stay with science, BaTh is all yours. I want no part of it.
I didn't invent lucky white heather, unifuckation or any of the wild
and crazy ideas you have. Stars have planets and move around
barycentres, that's all there is to it. All the rest is just wild
imagination.
>>
>>
>>> Incidentally, if a star's brightness was observed to vary like this,
>>> http://www.scisite.info/falseeclipse.jpg
>>>
>>> what would be an astronomer's natural conclusion?
>>
>>That curve doesn't exist in Nature. Algol has a sloping top
>>to make it seem as if it does, and Mars has fuckin' canals
>>because Lowell wanted to see them.
>
> Yes....astronomers can imagine all kinds of strange phenomena.
> ...but many genuinely eclipsing binary pairs must exist purely on
> pobabilistic
> grounds.
Bullshit. There are no close binary pairs, they'd break up if
they existed. The only probability you'll need is the line-of-
sight aligned with the major axis. Sirius is a binary, but the stars
are so far apart the period is 50 years. If we had another sun
with its orbit as close as Mercury's it would still take 88 days
for an orbit, and if it took 70 hours like Algol it would collide.
Hell, Mercury could only just orbit the sun in 3 days without
falling in. It would be like the ISS, 200 miles up. Less than that
and it hits atmosphere. To have a star in close orbit with another
would be like the Moon orbiting the Earth in a day, where the
geostationary satellites are. Given the inverse square law the
fuckin' high tide would reach the Moon. Earth and Moon
would break apart, Earth would have rings like Saturn.
I can turn a cepheid into an eclipsing variable just by changing
a few orbital parameters.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
>>> No, it isn't an eclipsing star at all.
>>> It's just a huff-puff with a substantial 1st overtone.
>>
>>It's a cepheid with the major axis along the line of sight.
>>
>>
>>>>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way.
>>>>> 'Cepheids'
>>>>> are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up
>>>>> and
>>>>> stop making complete fools of themselves.
>>>>
>>>>Around the time you post under your real name.
>>>
>>> Why don't you do something useful with your life instead of wasting it
>>> on
>>> criticizing real scientists.
>>>
>>He did, he put his ugly fat dimpled cross-eyed mug on facebook so
>>we can all see what a real dork looks like (along with his pal Wormley.)
>> http://www.facebook.com/eric.gisse
>
> Yes, that figures. Only a real idiot would live in Alaska
>
That doesn't excuse you from lying to the moron.
BradGuth
Photons or quantum strings if you like can not coexist inside the
atom.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
> >> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> >Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>
> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
subjective = objective (it's the mainstream new math = cosmology
that's politically and faith-based correct)
~ BG
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:b3dhg51gp5o2hirie...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted
>>>>>> light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a
>>>>>> large
>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cephids aren't planetary systems.
>>>>
>>>> They don't have to be.... although most cepheids DO have a companion
>>>> star.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. A cepheid is a star and planet.
>>
>> It could easily be that, too....but many have a companion star identified
>> by
>> its spectrum.
>
>Bullshit. Name one and show the spectrum.
http://www.konkoly.hu/CEP/intro.html
""""quote:
Binaries among Galactic classical Cepheids
Introduction
This site contains useful information on those Cepheids in the Milky Way galaxy
which are known to have a physical companion (or more companions). When
compiling this list, the published literature was critically reviewed, and
whenever new pieces of information are available, the site is revised, updated
and extended.
The announcement of this database appeared in the Information Bulletin on
Variable Stars. When referring to this site in published papers please include
the following citation: Szabados L., 2003, Inf. Bull. Var. Stars, No. 5394.
Other important data of Galactic Cepheids (not only on binaries) are available
in the Database of Galactic Classical Cepheids maintained by the David Dunlap
Observatory. Click here
(http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/research/cepheids/cepheids.html) to consult
the DDO Database.
Click here (http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/Cepheid) for retrieving information
from McMaster Cepheid Photometry and Radial Velocity Data Archive.
The site is intended to give easily accessible background information for those
who are involved in performing or analysing photometric or spectroscopic
observations of classical (i.e. Pop. I) Cepheids.
As far as photometric data are concerned, the effect of the companion is
essential in deriving the apparent brightness and the intrinsic colour indices
of the Cepheid. If the effect of a blue main-sequence companion is not taken
into account (i.e. the observed brightness is attributed solely to the
Cepheid), the apparent magnitude and colour indices can be falsified by several
hundredth of a magnitude. The false (bluer) colour introduces an error in the
derivation of the interstellar extinction, mimicking a smaller amount of
absorption. Together with the brighter apparent magnitude (also due to the
companion) the Cepheid seems to be more luminous than it is in reality. In
brief, negligence of the companion(s) leads to an erroneous zero-point of the
period-luminosity relationship.
It would be an easy but unreasonable solution to exclude Cepheids belonging to
binary systems from the calibration of the period-luminosity relation because
majority of classical Cepheids have one or more companions ( Szabados L., 2003,
in GAIA Spectroscopy, Science and Technology, ed. U. Munari, ASP Conf. Ser.,
Vol. 298, 237-244).
>> Mind you, astronomers know absolutely nothing about ADoppler (WaSh) so
>> nothing
>> they conclude is believable.
>
>Your WaSh is SoAp. Make an opera out of it.
It's time you washed out your own foul mouth.
>>>> They can be genuine huff-puff stars, in which case their true velocity
>>>> component towards earth is similar to a star in elliptical orbit.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. There are no huff-puff stars.
>>
>> There could be. ..but I doubt if many 'cepheids' are like that.
>
>There could be canals on Mars and Einstein could be right.
>Stick your fuckin' "could be's" up your arse, you are bullshitting
>without any fuckin' evidence except the evidence you invent.
Astonomers aren't completely stupid. They accept there are several distinctly
different types of 'cepheids'.
I would suggest that some are huff-puffs and some are just ordinary stars
orbiting a barycentre with some kind of companion.
One would expect the radial velocity curve of a huff puff to be almost
identical to that of a star in moderately elliptical orbit.
>> To accommodate huff-puffs, I have adjusted my program so that it takes
>> into
>> account the different radial velocities of concentric rings of an
>> expanding
>> sphere. A significant finding is that the little hump that I originally
>> put
>> down to an overtone is somewhat exaggerated when this effect is included.
>>
>> There is a strong suggestion of the presence of an overtone in their
>> brigthness
>> curves. I have another explanation for that. If the star is egg shaped due
>> to
>> tidal forces, its brightness would cycle at twice its orbital frequency.
>>
>>>> The BaTh theory of brightness variation still applies.
>>>
>>>Thank Gawd BaTh is a crackpot theory.
>>
>> It's YOUR theory.
>>
>Not at all. I stay with science, BaTh is all yours. I want no part of it.
>I didn't invent lucky white heather, unifuckation or any of the wild
>and crazy ideas you have. Stars have planets and move around
>barycentres, that's all there is to it.
I agree that many star curves can be produced solely on that basis. However the
majority of cepheids are OBSERVED to have companion STARS. Of course that may
just be part of the willusion....
>All the rest is just wild
>imagination.
Not quite all. For instance, how would you explain the apparent presence of a
1st overtone in many cepheid brightness curves?
Apart from the oscillating huff puff concept, my 'egg shaped star' theory is
one highly likely explanation. The star would present a larger radiating area
to us TWICE per orbit. Its phasing wrt the brightness curve would vary somewhat
with the orbit yaw angle. It would require a pretty big orbiting planet to make
a star 20-30% egg shaped though.
>>>> Incidentally, if a star's brightness was observed to vary like this,
>>>> http://www.scisite.info/falseeclipse.jpg
>>>>
>>>> what would be an astronomer's natural conclusion?
>>>
>>>That curve doesn't exist in Nature. Algol has a sloping top
>>>to make it seem as if it does, and Mars has fuckin' canals
>>>because Lowell wanted to see them.
>>
>> Yes....astronomers can imagine all kinds of strange phenomena.
>> ...but many genuinely eclipsing binary pairs must exist purely on
>> pobabilistic
>> grounds.
>
>Bullshit. There are no close binary pairs, they'd break up if
>they existed.
I agree that many of the so called 'short period binaries' probably have much
longer periods but are experiencing time compression (a form of WaSh).
>The only probability you'll need is the line-of-
>sight aligned with the major axis.
That's right...and there are many stars out there that fall into that category.
>Sirius is a binary, but the stars
>are so far apart the period is 50 years. If we had another sun
>with its orbit as close as Mercury's it would still take 88 days
>for an orbit, and if it took 70 hours like Algol it would collide.
>Hell, Mercury could only just orbit the sun in 3 days without
>falling in. It would be like the ISS, 200 miles up. Less than that
>and it hits atmosphere. To have a star in close orbit with another
>would be like the Moon orbiting the Earth in a day, where the
>geostationary satellites are. Given the inverse square law the
>fuckin' high tide would reach the Moon. Earth and Moon
>would break apart, Earth would have rings like Saturn.
>I can turn a cepheid into an eclipsing variable just by changing
>a few orbital parameters.
It wouldn't be classed as a cepheid becasue the yaw angle and eccentricity
would have to be changed from around 70 and 0.2 to zero and >0.5.
I just showed how.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
My program is far more user friendly. Why should I use yours?
>>>> Why don't you do something useful with your life instead of wasting it
>>>> on
>>>> criticizing real scientists.
>>>>
>>>He did, he put his ugly fat dimpled cross-eyed mug on facebook so
>>>we can all see what a real dork looks like (along with his pal Wormley.)
>>> http://www.facebook.com/eric.gisse
>>
>> Yes, that figures. Only a real idiot would live in Alaska
>>
>That doesn't excuse you from lying to the moron.
I don't have to lie.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:atdhg514lb7kne2ul...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>>
>> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
>>
>Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
So was his second.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
yes, not bad
>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
Inertial
Seeing you're a total moron and a liar, you could use as much boosting as
you can get. Though how being continually shown that you are wrong boost
your ego is anyone's guess. But then, you are a moron.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
It gives me an ego boost to rub your nose in it, dopey.
(Not really -- I don't have your ego, Henry Wilson 'D'opey 'Sc'um. )
Inertial
>
> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> news:ol4ig5ta71aug24mv...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:20:37 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>news:atdhg514lb7kne2ul...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>>>news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>>>>
>>>> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the
>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>> So was his second.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
>>
>> yes, not bad
>>
>>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
>>>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
>>
>> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
>
> You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
> travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
As the second postulate says the speed from A to B is the same as the speed
from B to A, and as the distance is the same for two fixed points, then it
must be the same time.
You've never shown it to be otherwise .. and you can't.
Even ballistic theory says that light travelling from A to B and B to A will
behave that way (if A is the source) and you get the same time taken.
> It gives me an ego boost to rub your nose in it, dopey.
So .. Ralph was correct once upon a time. Must have been a fluke :)
> (Not really -- I don't have your ego, Henry Wilson 'D'opey 'Sc'um. )
> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..>
Oh .. I think you do.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
Can't you read, dumbfuck?
I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
>>> Mind you, astronomers know absolutely nothing about ADoppler (WaSh) so
>>> nothing
>>> they conclude is believable.
>>
>>Your WaSh is SoAp. Make an opera out of it.
>
> It's time you washed out your own foul mouth.
Can't you read, you fucking cretin?
I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
>
>>>>> They can be genuine huff-puff stars, in which case their true velocity
>>>>> component towards earth is similar to a star in elliptical orbit.
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. There are no huff-puff stars.
>>>
>>> There could be. ..but I doubt if many 'cepheids' are like that.
>>
>>There could be canals on Mars and Einstein could be right.
>>Stick your fuckin' "could be's" up your arse, you are bullshitting
>>without any fuckin' evidence except the evidence you invent.
>
> Astonomers aren't completely stupid. They accept there are several
> distinctly
> different types of 'cepheids'.
Can't you read, dumbfuck?
I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
> I would suggest that some are huff-puffs and some are just ordinary stars
> orbiting a barycentre with some kind of companion.
Can't you read, dumbfuck?
I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
> One would expect the radial velocity curve of a huff puff to be almost
> identical to that of a star in moderately elliptical orbit.
Can't you read, dumbfuck?
I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
Can't you read, dumbfuck?
I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
> Apart from the oscillating huff puff concept, my 'egg shaped star' theory
> is
> one highly likely explanation. The star would present a larger radiating
> area
> to us TWICE per orbit. Its phasing wrt the brightness curve would vary
> somewhat
> with the orbit yaw angle. It would require a pretty big orbiting planet to
> make
> a star 20-30% egg shaped though.
Can't you read, dumbfuck?
I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
>
>>>>> Incidentally, if a star's brightness was observed to vary like this,
>>>>> http://www.scisite.info/falseeclipse.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> what would be an astronomer's natural conclusion?
>>>>
>>>>That curve doesn't exist in Nature. Algol has a sloping top
>>>>to make it seem as if it does, and Mars has fuckin' canals
>>>>because Lowell wanted to see them.
>>>
>>> Yes....astronomers can imagine all kinds of strange phenomena.
>>> ...but many genuinely eclipsing binary pairs must exist purely on
>>> pobabilistic
>>> grounds.
>>
>>Bullshit. There are no close binary pairs, they'd break up if
>>they existed.
>
> I agree that many of the so called 'short period binaries' probably have
> much
> longer periods but are experiencing time compression (a form of WaSh).
Can't you read, dumbfuck?
I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
>>The only probability you'll need is the line-of-
>>sight aligned with the major axis.
>
> That's right...and there are many stars out there that fall into that
> category.
Can't you read, dumbfuck?
I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
>>Sirius is a binary, but the stars
>>are so far apart the period is 50 years. If we had another sun
>>with its orbit as close as Mercury's it would still take 88 days
>>for an orbit, and if it took 70 hours like Algol it would collide.
>>Hell, Mercury could only just orbit the sun in 3 days without
>>falling in. It would be like the ISS, 200 miles up. Less than that
>>and it hits atmosphere. To have a star in close orbit with another
>>would be like the Moon orbiting the Earth in a day, where the
>>geostationary satellites are. Given the inverse square law the
>>fuckin' high tide would reach the Moon. Earth and Moon
>>would break apart, Earth would have rings like Saturn.
>>I can turn a cepheid into an eclipsing variable just by changing
>>a few orbital parameters.
>
> It wouldn't be classed as a cepheid becasue the yaw angle and eccentricity
> would have to be changed from around 70 and 0.2 to zero and >0.5.
>
> I just showed how.
>
>
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
>
> My program is far more user friendly. Why should I use yours?
Go back to sleep.
>
>>>>> Why don't you do something useful with your life instead of wasting it
>>>>> on
>>>>> criticizing real scientists.
>>>>>
>>>>He did, he put his ugly fat dimpled cross-eyed mug on facebook so
>>>>we can all see what a real dork looks like (along with his pal Wormley.)
>>>> http://www.facebook.com/eric.gisse
>>>
>>> Yes, that figures. Only a real idiot would live in Alaska
>>>
>>That doesn't excuse you from lying to the moron.
>
> I don't have to lie.
Can't you read, dumbfuck?
I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
Greg Hennessy
On 2009-11-22, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). <HW@> wrote:
> What is this then?
>
> http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_scripts/HIPcatalogueSearch.pl
It is a link to a perl script, that does not work as an independant
link.
Greg Hennessy
> I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it
> past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho
> catalog does not include parallax.
I was incorrect with this claim.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
soap....mouth....WaSh...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:ol4ig5ta71aug24mv...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:20:37 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>>>>
>>>Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>> So was his second.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
>>
>> yes, not bad
>>
>>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
>>>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
>>
>> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
>
>You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
>travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
It IS correct if the source is at rest with the mirror....as in any TWLS
experiment.
Even YOU should be able to work that out.
Einstein, who obviously still believed in an aether, concocted the idea of
adjusting clocks so that tAB would always equal tBA even if it wasn't true. He
was a cheating idiot.
>It gives me an ego boost to rub your nose in it, dopey.
>(Not really -- I don't have your ego, Henry Wilson 'D'opey 'Sc'um. )
Your inabililty to read properly doesn't worry me at all.
> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..>
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
A WORLD RECORD!
On Sunday, November 22, 2009, Henry Wilson D.umb Sc.um
answered a post without interrupting.
Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:ol4ig5ta71aug24mv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:20:37 -0000, "Androcles"
>>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>
>>>>>
>>>>Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> So was his second.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
>>>
>>> yes, not bad
>>>
>>>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
>>>>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
>>>
>>> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
>>
>>You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
>>travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
>
> It IS correct if the source is at rest with the mirror....as in any TWLS
> experiment.
I just did a TWLS experiment and it obviously isn't correct.
Wanna see it again?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
> Even YOU should be able to work that out.
The whole point of relativity is to have a v in 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A
and it is seldom correct. Even a used car saleman like YOU should be
able to work that out.
> Einstein, who obviously still believed in an aether, concocted the idea
> of
> adjusting clocks so that tAB would always equal tBA even if it wasn't
> true. He
> was a cheating idiot.
Yes, but it was YOU that said his ``time'' required by light to travel from
A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A was correct.
How much more proof does one need?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:995jg5tcte7dpsf2u...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:37:10 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>>>> in GAIA Spectroscopy, Science and Technology, ed. U. Munari, ASP Conf.
>>>> Ser.,
>>>> Vol. 298, 237-244).
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> To accommodate huff-puffs, I have adjusted my program so that it takes
....silly old drunken pom....
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:bb5jg59g7tfaj3i1u...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>>
>>>> So was his second.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
>>>>
>>>> yes, not bad
>>>>
>>>>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
>>>>>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
>>>>
>>>> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
>>>
>>>You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
>>>travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
>>
>> It IS correct if the source is at rest with the mirror....as in any TWLS
>> experiment.
>
>I just did a TWLS experiment and it obviously isn't correct.
>Wanna see it again?
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
What's that? Androclearo Crapiro?
The source and mirror are not MAR....and you are using a rotating frame.
>> Even YOU should be able to work that out.
>
>The whole point of relativity is to have a v in 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>
>You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
>travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A
>and it is seldom correct. Even a used car saleman like YOU should be
>able to work that out.
It is always correct in flat gravity if the source, detector and mirror are
MAR. That's what W.E.T. (BaTh) says.
>
>> Einstein, who obviously still believed in an aether, concocted the idea
>> of
>> adjusting clocks so that tAB would always equal tBA even if it wasn't
>> true. He
>> was a cheating idiot.
>
>Yes, but it was YOU that said his ``time'' required by light to travel from
>A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A was correct.
>How much more proof does one need?
You don't read properly. I clearly stated that it is true if and only if the
source, detector and mirror are MAR and in flat gravity.
Einstein on the other hand thought that an 'aether flow' would cause the two
times to be different....so he cheated by fiddling his clocks and making them
equal.
....the amazing thing is that dopes like little eric and inertial still cannot
see the joke Einstein played on the whole scientific community.
BradGuth
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:45:39 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:bb5jg59g7tfaj3i1u...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0000, "Androcles"
These crazy guys have no proper sense of humor, especially of any
Einstein perpetrated ruse.
~ BG
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
"A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'...
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson
news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jg...@4ax.com
The source is Earth and the "mirror" is Mars.... and I am using a
rotating frame.
"ROTATING FRAMES FEATURE IMAGINARY EFFECTS.
DON'T TRY TO USE THEM."-- Wilson
news:drh9e553jdb7u87m7...@4ax.com
"DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it).
news:aqqqm35ka2ef6qhei...@4ax.com
>>> Even YOU should be able to work that out.
>>
>>The whole point of relativity is to have a v in 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>>
>>You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
>>travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A
>>and it is seldom correct. Even a used car saleman like YOU should be
>>able to work that out.
>
> It is always correct in flat gravity if the source, detector and mirror
> are
> MAR. That's what W.E.T. (BaTh) says.
So a used car salesman like you could NOT work it out.
No surprise there. Got any more VW camper vans for sale?
>>
>>> Einstein, who obviously still believed in an aether, concocted the idea
>>> of
>>> adjusting clocks so that tAB would always equal tBA even if it wasn't
>>> true. He
>>> was a cheating idiot.
>>
>>Yes, but it was YOU that said his ``time'' required by light to travel
>>from
>>A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A was correct.
>>How much more proof does one need?
>
> You don't read properly. I clearly stated that it is true if and only if
> the
> source, detector and mirror are MAR and in flat gravity.
Not two years ago, you didn't. You are a fuckin' slow learner.
Besides, gravity is irrelevant.
> Einstein on the other hand thought that an 'aether flow' would cause the
> two
> times to be different....so he cheated by fiddling his clocks and making
> them
> equal.
>
> ....the amazing thing is that dopes like little eric and inertial still
> cannot
> see the joke Einstein played on the whole scientific community.
>
And you fell for it. At least now you are slowly catching on.
Little Eric is just a dope, the spitting image of a retard. He is
involuntarily stupid. Inertial is just a cunt, he's voluntarily a moron.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
Name just one and provide the spectrum, you lying old bastard.
eric gisse
[...]
>
> ....the amazing thing is that dopes like little eric and inertial still
> cannot see the joke Einstein played on the whole scientific community.
Do you _really_ find it easier to believe Einstein has been tricking the
entire world of physics for the last century than accepting that you are
wrong?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:v3kjg59d5mehchq96...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:33:25 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>>>> I don't have to lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can't you read, dumbfuck?
>>>>>I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
>>>>>I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> soap....mouth....WaSh...
>>>>
>>>
>>> A WORLD RECORD!
>>>
>>>On Sunday, November 22, 2009, Henry Wilson D.umb Sc.um
>>>answered a post without interrupting.
>>>
>>> Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
>>>of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
>>>by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
>>
>> ....silly old drunken pom....
>
>Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
>of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
>by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
>Name just one and provide the spectrum, you lying old bastard.
Don't blame me. I gave you the website and the reference. Email the bloke you
wrote it and ask him.
What's so wrong with cepheids having companion stars anyway? They have to orbit
something for your program to work....and it doesn't have to be a bloody
planet.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:takjg5tvvu2o9hrv6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:45:39 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>
>>>Yes, but it was YOU that said his ``time'' required by light to travel
>>>from
>>>A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A was correct.
>>>How much more proof does one need?
>>
>> You don't read properly. I clearly stated that it is true if and only if
>> the
>> source, detector and mirror are MAR and in flat gravity.
>
>Not two years ago, you didn't. You are a fuckin' slow learner.
>Besides, gravity is irrelevant.
No it isn't.
Pound and Rebka showed why.
>> Einstein on the other hand thought that an 'aether flow' would cause the
>> two
>> times to be different....so he cheated by fiddling his clocks and making
>> them
>> equal.
>>
>> ....the amazing thing is that dopes like little eric and inertial still
>> cannot
>> see the joke Einstein played on the whole scientific community.
>>
>And you fell for it. At least now you are slowly catching on.
>Little Eric is just a dope, the spitting image of a retard. He is
>involuntarily stupid. Inertial is just a cunt, he's voluntarily a moron.
Inertial has to be a 'she'. No man could be that stupid.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>
>> ....the amazing thing is that dopes like little eric and inertial still
>> cannot see the joke Einstein played on the whole scientific community.
>
>Do you _really_ find it easier to believe Einstein has been tricking the
>entire world of physics for the last century than accepting that you are
>wrong?
Since every known experiment supports Bath and there is absolutely no evidence
in support of Einstein's silly theory, I found it quite easy to reach a
conclusion.
Now, I have shown that most variable star curves are a simple consequence of
variable light speed.
I'm not the slightest bit concerned that you and the rest of your relativist
colleagues want to stick to the christian view that planet Earth is the centre
of the universe.
eric gisse
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:45:28 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>
>>> ....the amazing thing is that dopes like little eric and inertial still
>>> cannot see the joke Einstein played on the whole scientific community.
>>
>>Do you _really_ find it easier to believe Einstein has been tricking the
>>entire world of physics for the last century than accepting that you are
>>wrong?
>
> Since every known experiment supports Bath and there is absolutely no
> evidence in support of Einstein's silly theory, I found it quite easy to
> reach a conclusion.
Ives-Stilwell, Philipas and Fox.
That second reference has been given to you probably 100 times since you
first started posting. The first time was probably a month after you first
started emitting idiocies on this newsgroup, and you are yet to learn what
it says.
> Now, I have shown that most variable star curves are a simple consequence
> of variable light speed.
Which doesn't match observation.
>
> I'm not the slightest bit concerned
Which is why you've only spent the last decade posting to USENET instead of
actually doing something useful.
> that you and the rest of your
> relativist colleagues want to stick to the christian view that planet
> Earth is the centre of the universe.
Ah, a new and interesting way to misunderstand relativity.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:38:23 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:takjg5tvvu2o9hrv6...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:45:39 -0000, "Androcles"
>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but it was YOU that said his ``time'' required by light to travel
>>>>from
>>>>A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A was
>>>>correct.
>>>>How much more proof does one need?
>>>
>>> You don't read properly. I clearly stated that it is true if and only if
>>> the
>>> source, detector and mirror are MAR and in flat gravity.
>>
>>Not two years ago, you didn't. You are a fuckin' slow learner.
>>Besides, gravity is irrelevant.
>
> No it isn't.
> Pound and Rebka showed why.
Bwahahahaha!
v ~= gh/c = 7.5E-07 m/s??
That's a keeper, I'll add it to my collection.
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:4r2kg5df673rgadip...@4ax.com
"The Pound and Rebka audio experiment showed why gravity
was relevant." -- Wilson the Einstein Dingleberry.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:40:21 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:v3kjg59d5mehchq96...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:33:25 -0000, "Androcles"
>
>>>>>>> I don't have to lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can't you read, dumbfuck?
>>>>>>I said "Name one and show the spectrum."
>>>>>>I do not ask for a lesson in bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> soap....mouth....WaSh...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A WORLD RECORD!
>>>>
>>>>On Sunday, November 22, 2009, Henry Wilson D.umb Sc.um
>>>>answered a post without interrupting.
>>>>
>>>> Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
>>>>of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
>>>>by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
>>>
>>> ....silly old drunken pom....
>>
>>Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
>>of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
>>by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
>>Name just one and provide the spectrum, you lying old bastard.
>
> Don't blame me.
I WILL blame you; it's your claim, you fuckin' Pound-Rebka
worshipping Einstein dingleberry.
I gave you the website and the reference. Email the bloke you
> wrote it and ask him.
There is not one spectrum in the reference YOU gave, you fuckin' Pound-Rebka
worshipping Einstein dingleberry. What you should have quoted is this one:
http://tinyurl.com/n9kq87
Or this one:
http://tinyurl.com/5v8cym
> What's so wrong with cepheids having companion stars anyway?
Because the period is measured in days, you drunken ignorant
Einstein dingleberry who can't read:
There are no close binary pairs, they'd break up if they existed.
The only probability you'll need is the line-of-sight aligned with
the major axis. Sirius is a binary, but the stars are so far apart the
period is 50 years. If we had another sun with its orbit as close
as Mercury's it would still take 88 days for an orbit, and if it took
70 hours like Algol it would collide.
Hell, Mercury could only just orbit the sun in 3 days without
falling in. It would be like the ISS, 200 miles up. Less than that
and it hits atmosphere. To have a star in close orbit with another
would be like the Moon orbiting the Earth in a day, where the
geostationary satellites are. Given the inverse square law the
fuckin' high tide would reach the Moon. Earth and Moon
would break apart, Earth would have rings like Saturn.
I can turn a cepheid into an eclipsing variable just by changing
a few orbital parameters.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
> They have to orbit
> something for your program to work....and it doesn't have to be a bloody
> planet.
What, are we back to fuckin' WCH's again?
Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
Name just one and provide the spectrum, you lying old bastard,
and yes, I'm blaming you for bluffing false data, you bullshitting
Einstein dingleberry.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:vk2kg5h2je597ophj...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:40:21 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>>> Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
>>>>>of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
>>>>>by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
>>>>
>>>> ....silly old drunken pom....
>>>
>>>Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
>>>of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
>>>by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
>>>Name just one and provide the spectrum, you lying old bastard.
>>
>> Don't blame me.
>
>I WILL blame you; it's your claim, you fuckin' Pound-Rebka
>worshipping Einstein dingleberry.
You don't even know what the Pound Rebka experiment did.
>I gave you the website and the reference. Email the bloke you
>> wrote it and ask him.
>
>There is not one spectrum in the reference YOU gave, you fuckin' Pound-Rebka
>worshipping Einstein dingleberry. What you should have quoted is this one:
> http://tinyurl.com/n9kq87
>Or this one:
> http://tinyurl.com/5v8cym
...silly old pom...
>> What's so wrong with cepheids having companion stars anyway?
>
>Because the period is measured in days, you drunken ignorant
>Einstein dingleberry who can't read:
If you keep calling me an Einstein dingleberry I'll have you up for
defamation...
Not all cepheids have such short periods. many are around 40 or more days.
>There are no close binary pairs, they'd break up if they existed.
So would a fucking planet spinning around a star every couple of days.
The short periods are probably due to time compression.
>The only probability you'll need is the line-of-sight aligned with
>the major axis. Sirius is a binary, but the stars are so far apart the
>period is 50 years. If we had another sun with its orbit as close
>as Mercury's it would still take 88 days for an orbit, and if it took
>70 hours like Algol it would collide.
>Hell, Mercury could only just orbit the sun in 3 days without
>falling in. It would be like the ISS, 200 miles up. Less than that
>and it hits atmosphere. To have a star in close orbit with another
>would be like the Moon orbiting the Earth in a day, where the
>geostationary satellites are. Given the inverse square law the
>fuckin' high tide would reach the Moon. Earth and Moon
>would break apart, Earth would have rings like Saturn.
>I can turn a cepheid into an eclipsing variable just by changing
>a few orbital parameters.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
You said all that before.....zzzzz! zzzz!
>> They have to orbit
>> something for your program to work....and it doesn't have to be a bloody
>> planet.
>
>What, are we back to fuckin' WCH's again?
I invented them. NOW YOU ARE CLAIMING YOU DID.
>Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
>of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
>by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
>Name just one and provide the spectrum, you lying old bastard,
>and yes, I'm blaming you for bluffing false data, you bullshitting
>Einstein dingleberry.
Send him an email.
...and try the polite approach..
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:4r2kg5df673rgadip...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:38:23 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>>
>>>> You don't read properly. I clearly stated that it is true if and only if
>>>> the
>>>> source, detector and mirror are MAR and in flat gravity.
>>>
>>>Not two years ago, you didn't. You are a fuckin' slow learner.
>>>Besides, gravity is irrelevant.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>> Pound and Rebka showed why.
>
>Bwahahahaha!
>
> v ~= gh/c = 7.5E-07 m/s??
>
>That's a keeper, I'll add it to my collection.
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:4r2kg5df673rgadip...@4ax.com
>"The Pound and Rebka audio experiment showed why gravity
>was relevant." -- Wilson the Einstein Dingleberry.
You don't even know your own theory.
The Pound Rebka experiment showed that light accelerates due to gravity like
anything else.
The idiot Einstein said it doesn't. He put a gradient in space instead.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:45:28 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Do you _really_ find it easier to believe Einstein has been tricking the
>>>entire world of physics for the last century than accepting that you are
>>>wrong?
>>
>> Since every known experiment supports Bath and there is absolutely no
>> evidence in support of Einstein's silly theory, I found it quite easy to
>> reach a conclusion.
>
>Ives-Stilwell, Philipas and Fox.
>
>That second reference has been given to you probably 100 times since you
>first started posting. The first time was probably a month after you first
>started emitting idiocies on this newsgroup, and you are yet to learn what
>it says.
yes we've been through all those before...all crap.
>> Now, I have shown that most variable star curves are a simple consequence
>> of variable light speed.
>
>Which doesn't match observation.
I just showed you one that was such a good match you can hardly see the
original OBSERVED curve.
Have another look, dopey.
There are plenty more just as good as that one.
>
>>
>> I'm not the slightest bit concerned
>
>Which is why you've only spent the last decade posting to USENET instead of
>actually doing something useful.
One cannot change the course of scientific history without first learning how
to deal with the indoctrinated idiots.
>> that you and the rest of your
>> relativist colleagues want to stick to the christian view that planet
>> Earth is the centre of the universe.
>
>Ah, a new and interesting way to misunderstand relativity.
What other explanation is there? Same applies to the bloody Big bloody Bang
Bullshit.
It's just a christian conspiracy.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
You don't even know your own theory. Light unifuckates to c
in Wishy-WaShy Wilson's BaTh SoAp.
"The Pound and Rebka AUDIO experiment showed why gravity
was relevant." - Wilson the Einstein Dingleberry.
news:4r2kg5df673rgadip...@4ax.com
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:36:10 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:vk2kg5h2je597ophj...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:40:21 -0000, "Androcles"
>
>>>>>> Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
>>>>>>of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
>>>>>>by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
>>>>>
>>>>> ....silly old drunken pom....
>>>>
>>>>Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
>>>>of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
>>>>by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
>>>>Name just one and provide the spectrum, you lying old bastard.
>>>
>>> Don't blame me.
>>
>>I WILL blame you; it's your claim, you fuckin' Pound-Rebka
>>worshipping Einstein dingleberry.
I gave you the website and the reference. Email the bloke you
> wrote it and ask him.
There is not one spectrum in the reference YOU gave, you fuckin' Pound-Rebka
worshipping Einstein dingleberry. What you should have quoted is this one:
http://tinyurl.com/n9kq87
Or this one:
http://tinyurl.com/5v8cym
> What's so wrong with cepheids having companion stars anyway?
Because the period is measured in days, you drunken ignorant
Einstein dingleberry who can't read:
There are no close binary pairs, they'd break up if they existed.
The only probability you'll need is the line-of-sight aligned with
the major axis. Sirius is a binary, but the stars are so far apart the
period is 50 years. If we had another sun with its orbit as close
as Mercury's it would still take 88 days for an orbit, and if it took
70 hours like Algol it would collide.
Hell, Mercury could only just orbit the sun in 3 days without
falling in. It would be like the ISS, 200 miles up. Less than that
and it hits atmosphere. To have a star in close orbit with another
would be like the Moon orbiting the Earth in a day, where the
geostationary satellites are. Given the inverse square law the
fuckin' high tide would reach the Moon. Earth and Moon
would break apart, Earth would have rings like Saturn.
I can turn a cepheid into an eclipsing variable just by changing
a few orbital parameters.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
> They have to orbit
> something for your program to work....and it doesn't have to be a bloody
> planet.
What, are we back to fuckin' WCH's again?
Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
PD
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> simulation.
I'm sorry, Henry, I don't follow. How does matching an observation
with theory B prove that theory A is wrong?
>
> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>
> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
> making complete fools of themselves.
PD
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
> simulation.
>
> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>
> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
> making complete fools of themselves.
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
"Henry's" attempt at logic:
- Relativity correctly predicts experimental observations A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P.
- BaTh correctly predicts experimental observation F.
- Therefore BaTh proves relativity wrong.
eric gisse
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:02:15 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:45:28 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>Do you _really_ find it easier to believe Einstein has been tricking the
>>>>entire world of physics for the last century than accepting that you are
>>>>wrong?
>>>
>>> Since every known experiment supports Bath and there is absolutely no
>>> evidence in support of Einstein's silly theory, I found it quite easy to
>>> reach a conclusion.
>>
>>Ives-Stilwell, Philipas and Fox.
>>
>>That second reference has been given to you probably 100 times since you
>>first started posting. The first time was probably a month after you first
>>started emitting idiocies on this newsgroup, and you are yet to learn what
>>it says.
>
> yes we've been through all those before...all crap.
Except you have never actually read them, Ralph. And you haven't explained
why they are crap, beyond the usual "it says something I don't like" motif.
>
>>> Now, I have shown that most variable star curves are a simple
>>> consequence of variable light speed.
>>
>>Which doesn't match observation.
>
> I just showed you one that was such a good match you can hardly see the
> original OBSERVED curve.
> Have another look, dopey.
>
> www.scisite.info/R_Cru.jpg
>
> There are plenty more just as good as that one.
Which means they can all be rejected out of hand.
a) You do not source your program.
b) You do not include scales or axes on your plots.
c) You have a documented history of lying on this subject.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
"I FAKED THE LAST CURVE. (See how easy it is)."
Why should we take your results seriously?
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not the slightest bit concerned
>>
>>Which is why you've only spent the last decade posting to USENET instead
>>of actually doing something useful.
>
> One cannot change the course of scientific history without first learning
> how to deal with the indoctrinated idiots.
So all those years you claimed to have spent in university didn't prepare
you for dealing with people educated in a university?
How does that work?
When will you be ready to actually publish? And when that happens, how will
you deal with your documented lies about your degrees, name, and any number
of other things?
>
>>> that you and the rest of your
>>> relativist colleagues want to stick to the christian view that planet
>>> Earth is the centre of the universe.
>>
>>Ah, a new and interesting way to misunderstand relativity.
>
> What other explanation is there? Same applies to the bloody Big bloody
> Bang Bullshit.
You could always read the postulates of special relativity instead of making
up fantasies.
Just a thought.
>
> It's just a christian conspiracy.
I'm sure you have all sorts of self serving rationalizations as for why you
believe that's the case despite all rational logic telling you otherwise.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Even in their ignorance, astronomers recognize two types of cepheid. I suggest
that some are genuine huffpuffs with a short period and the others are mainly
stars with an orbiting companion.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
>
>
>
>> They have to orbit
>> something for your program to work....and it doesn't have to be a bloody
>> planet.
>
>What, are we back to fuckin' WCH's again?
Yes! or WHHs
>Mind you, the bullshitting bastard could not name one cepheid
>of the "many (he claims) that have a companion star identified
>by its spectrum" or provide the spectrum.
>Name just one and provide the spectrum, you lying old bastard,
>and yes, I'm blaming you for bluffing false data, you bullshitting
>Einstein dingleberry.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
..silly old pom...
Henry Wilson DSc
Diaper, relativity doesn't predict or explain anything about variable stars.
On the other hand, the exact curves are produceable on BaTh principles alone.
What does that suggest?
Paul B. Andersen
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
> simulation.
>
> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>
> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
> making complete fools of themselves.
Your "light curve drawing program" has so may variables which can
be manipulated that it can produce just about any periodic curve.
(You never state what the chosen variables are, because it then
would be obvious that they in most cases are physically impossible.
For example, what must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?)
But nothing else fits.
The emission theory predicts that the spectrum from a star
with a Cepheid like light curve (caused by orbital motion) should
be wildly different from what it is.
Cepheids are very well known, and the emission theory is unable
to predict any of its characteristics, but the light curve.
(and not even that, if only physical possible parameters
are allowed.)
There is no question about it, the spectra tell us without
a shred of doubt that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
You have to be either very ignorant or very stupid to claim otherwise.
Or - as in the case of Doctor Contrafactus Ralph Rabbidge - both.
--
Paul
eric gisse
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:22:22 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 21, 2:53 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with
>>> a BaTh simulation.
>>>
>>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted
>>> light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a
>>> large planet.
>>>
>>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids'
>>> are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up
>>> and stop making complete fools of themselves.
>>>
>>> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>>>
>>> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
>>
>>"Henry's" attempt at logic:
>>- Relativity correctly predicts experimental observations A, B, C, D,
>>E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P.
>>- BaTh correctly predicts experimental observation F.
>>- Therefore BaTh proves relativity wrong.
>
> Diaper, relativity doesn't predict or explain anything about variable
> stars.
GR actually makes highly testable predictions are the oscillatory modes of a
star. That's not even taking into account basic facts like constancy of
light speed.
> On the other hand, the exact curves are produceable on BaTh
> principles alone.
If the principle is "with enough free parameters I can replicate any plot",
then yes.
>
> What does that suggest?
That you are ignorant.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
Einstein suggested two types of time, t-time and tau-time.
He also wrote:
"...SUGGEST that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
SUGGEST rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small
quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for
all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
I SUGGEST you are no fuckin' different even in your ignorance of both fluid
and celestial dynamics.
You can stick your crank SUGGESTIONS up your arse.
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
PD
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:22:22 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 21, 2:53 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> >> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
> >> simulation.
>
> >> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
> >> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>
> >> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
> >> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
> >> making complete fools of themselves.
>
> >> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> >> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
>
> >"Henry's" attempt at logic:
> >- Relativity correctly predicts experimental observations A, B, C, D,
> >E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P.
> >- BaTh correctly predicts experimental observation F.
> >- Therefore BaTh proves relativity wrong.
>
> Diaper, relativity doesn't predict or explain anything about variable stars.
> On the other hand, the exact curves are produceable on BaTh principles alone.
>
> What does that suggest?
OK, so let's see if I have your logic right:
"Henry's" attempt at logic:
- Relativity correctly predicts experimental observations A, B, C, D,
E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P.
- BaTh correctly predicts experimental observation F.
- Therefore BaTh proves relativity wrong.
>
BradGuth
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:09:44 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
Gravity redshift/blueshift seems well enough peer replicated, as
matter of fact. Its sort of photon frequency modulation (PFM) via
gravity.
How about gravity affecting the wave front velocity?
~ BG
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:ksrlg5p2esm4o035d...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:16:10 -0000, "Androcles"
>>
>> Even in their ignorance, astronomers recognize two types of cepheid. I
>> suggest
>> that some are genuine huffpuffs with a short period and the others are
>> mainly
>> stars with an orbiting companion.
>
>Einstein suggested two types of time, t-time and tau-time.
>He also wrote:
>"...SUGGEST that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
>possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
>SUGGEST rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small
>quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for
>all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
>
>I SUGGEST you are no fuckin' different even in your ignorance of both fluid
>and celestial dynamics.
>You can stick your crank SUGGESTIONS up your arse.
>
>
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
>
>Name just one and provide the spectrum, you lying old bastard,
>and yes, I'm blaming you for bluffing false data, you bullshitting
>Einstein dingleberry.
>
Read the above message folks.
...convincing proof that Andro the Anti is raving MAD!!!!
Henry Wilson DSc
It's just a speed change.
>How about gravity affecting the wave front velocity?
Photons accelerate down a gravity well like any other matter.
GR and NM have the same equation, supported by the Pound Rebka experiment.
> ~ BG
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Newton and Keppler described planetary motion perfectly. If Einstein's shit was
included, nothing would have happened as predicted.
>> On the other hand, the exact curves are produceable on BaTh
>> principles alone.
>
>If the principle is "with enough free parameters I can replicate any plot",
>then yes.
there is a very narrow range of possibilites, dopey.
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@utopia.no> wrote:
>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
>> simulation.
>>
>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
>> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>>
>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
>> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
>> making complete fools of themselves.
>
>Your "light curve drawing program" has so may variables which can
>be manipulated that it can produce just about any periodic curve.
>(You never state what the chosen variables are, because it then
>would be obvious that they in most cases are physically impossible.
>For example, what must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?)
As usual. you are totatlly wrong. You obviously haven't even looked at the
program...which is now greatly simplified.
Only TWO parameters determine the basic curve shape....yaw angle and
eccentricity.
Another combined factor, (distance x maximum velocity x cos(pitch)), determines
the magnitude change and the height of the curve.
What you fail to undestand is that the observed period of any variable star
might be very different from the true one because of time compression, which
can be of the same order as the linear magnitude change.
In Ballistic theory, there is a 'wavelength' shift due to the acceleration of
the source. Astronomers know nothing of this.
>But nothing else fits.
>The emission theory predicts that the spectrum from a star
>with a Cepheid like light curve (caused by orbital motion) should
>be wildly different from what it is.
No it does not. The spectrum will be shifted by the combined ADoppler and
VDoppler effect, which are 90 deg out. At any significant distance, ADoppler
will dominate and the velocity curve derived from conventional methods should
be somewhat similar in shape to the brightness curve and slightly lagging in
phase.
>Cepheids are very well known, and the emission theory is unable
>to predict any of its characteristics, but the light curve.
>(and not even that, if only physical possible parameters
>are allowed.)
>
>There is no question about it, the spectra tell us without
>a shred of doubt that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
>You have to be either very ignorant or very stupid to claim otherwise.
I said already, many probably ARE pulsating stars....but many might not be. The
pulsating motion gives radial speeds that should be similar to those of a star
that is in a moderately eccentric orbit (e = ~0.2).
I have modified my program to accommodate an expanding sphere. It divides the
disk into concentric circles of equal brightness and ascribes different radial
speeds to each. The approximation uses five circles....good enough. The inside
one, of area A= piR^2 expands at v. The next, of area 3A has radial velocity
vcos(pi/10), the next, 5A and vcos(pi/5)....etc...
The composite curve is only slightly different from one produced using a
constant radial velocity over the whole disk.
However, the observer distance is greatly increased for a certain magnitude
change, partly explaining the discrepancy that puzzled me before. Also, all
estimated radial speeds are likely to be greatly exaggerated because
astronomers use only VDoppler and not the main contributor, ADoppler.
I might even be able to drop my unification theory as a result of
this...something that would please Androcles greatly. I can almost hear him
gloating now...the silly old pommie drunk....
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
evidence for his crackpot theory of huff puff stars.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:56:37 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@utopia.no> wrote:
>
>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
>>> simulation.
>>>
>>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
>>> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>>>
>>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
>>> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
>>> making complete fools of themselves.
>> Your "light curve drawing program" has so may variables which can
>> be manipulated that it can produce just about any periodic curve.
>> (You never state what the chosen variables are, because it then
>> would be obvious that they in most cases are physically impossible.
>> For example, what must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?)
>
> As usual. you are totatlly wrong. You obviously haven't even looked at the
> program...which is now greatly simplified.
> Only TWO parameters determine the basic curve shape....yaw angle and
> eccentricity.
> Another combined factor, (distance x maximum velocity x cos(pitch)), determines
> the magnitude change and the height of the curve.
Eccentricity, yaw angle, orbital velocity, orbital period and distance
are only two parameters? :-)
But you forgot to answer my question:
What must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?
We both know that it would have to be 100+ solar masses, right?
Because I have told you this before:
If we assume a large mass with zero diameter
is orbiting the Cepheid, skimming its surface,
its mass would have to be M1 solar masses.
If we allow the companion it a little space,
assuming the distance between their centres to be
twice the radius of the Cepheid, its mass would have
to be M2 solar masses.
M1 and M2 are given for each example below.
SU Cas:
period = 1.9 days
radius = 30 solar radii
mass = 4.4 solar masses
M1 = 92 solar masses
M2 = 365 solar masses
Delta Cep:
period = 5.366270 days
radius = 41.6 solar radii
mass = 5 solar masses
M1 = 28 solar masses
M2 = 260 solar masses
X Cyg:
period = 16.5 days
radius = 118 solar radii
mass = 8 solar masses
M1 = 71 solar masses
M2 = 620 solar masses
RS Pup:
period = 41.4 days
radius = 262 solar radii
mass = 13 solar masses
M1 = 122 solar masses
M2 = 1050 solar masses
So we have an invisible star with hundreds of solar masses.
Such stars do not exist.
The most massive stars are in the order of 50 solar masses.
Their luminosity is in the order of 500000 times the Sun.
They would be brighter than the Cepheid.
In other words, it is utterly impossible that
Cepheids are binaries with orbital period
equal to their light curve period.
> What you fail to undestand is that the observed period of any variable star
> might be very different from the true one because of time compression, which
> can be of the same order as the linear magnitude change.
> In Ballistic theory, there is a 'wavelength' shift due to the acceleration of
> the source. Astronomers know nothing of this.
Quite.
I fail to understand that because it is plain nonsense.
The shift of the orbital frequency of a binary due to the radial
velocity is obviously the same as the Doppler shift, which
is the same (to a first order) for SR and the emission theory.
This is a well known effect, and the period of cepheids in
distant galaxies will be somewhat red shifted, but they will
not be 'very different from the true ones'. If the Cepheid
can be resolved, the Doppler shift is modest.
The emission theory predicts an additional shift of the orbital
period only if the the whole binary is accelerated. It is not.
(Not even if the binary is orbiting a third star will the acceleration
be big enough to make the period 'very different from the true one'.)
>> But nothing else fits.
>> The emission theory predicts that the spectrum from a star
>> with a Cepheid like light curve (caused by orbital motion) should
>> be wildly different from what it is.
>
> No it does not. The spectrum will be shifted by the combined ADoppler and
> VDoppler effect, which are 90 deg out. At any significant distance, ADoppler
> will dominate and the velocity curve derived from conventional methods should
> be somewhat similar in shape to the brightness curve and slightly lagging in
> phase.
Exactly. That is the very point. For once you got it right.
But why don't you realize the consequences of what you just said?
The emission theory predicts that the brightening and
the Doppler shift is the same!
An example:
Delta Cep varies between magnitudes 3.6 and 4.4, equivalent to
a brightness variation of 1.9 times.
So the emission theory predicts that if the brightening of
Delta Cep is due to orbital motion, the frequency of the received
light should vary by a factor of 1.9.
The observed frequency variation is ~1.014 which is wildly
different from what the emission theory predicts.
And the phase is wrong as well.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
The emission theory is stone dead.
>> Cepheids are very well known, and the emission theory is unable
>> to predict any of its characteristics, but the light curve.
>> (and not even that, if only physical possible parameters
>> are allowed.)
>>
>> There is no question about it, the spectra tell us without
>> a shred of doubt that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
>> You have to be either very ignorant or very stupid to claim otherwise.
>
> I said already, many probably ARE pulsating stars....but many might not be.
Cepheids are always pulsating stars.
Nothing else can give all the characteristics of a Cepheid.
> The
> pulsating motion gives radial speeds that should be similar to those of a star
> that is in a moderately eccentric orbit (e = ~0.2).
>
> I have modified my program to accommodate an expanding sphere. It divides the
> disk into concentric circles of equal brightness and ascribes different radial
> speeds to each. The approximation uses five circles....good enough. The inside
> one, of area A= piR^2 expands at v. The next, of area 3A has radial velocity
> vcos(pi/10), the next, 5A and vcos(pi/5)....etc...
> The composite curve is only slightly different from one produced using a
> constant radial velocity over the whole disk.
> However, the observer distance is greatly increased for a certain magnitude
> change, partly explaining the discrepancy that puzzled me before. Also, all
> estimated radial speeds are likely to be greatly exaggerated because
> astronomers use only VDoppler and not the main contributor, ADoppler.
So with this assumption, you will have to change the parameters
of your curve fitting drawing program. :-)
And if you do it properly, you will find that the emission theory
predicts that a pulsating star should look very different from
what we observe.
But you will of course ignore every prediction but the light curve.
>
> I might even be able to drop my unification theory as a result of
> this...something that would please Androcles greatly. I can almost hear him
> gloating now...the silly old pommie drunk....
>
>
>
>
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
--
Paul
Juan R.
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincaré and others [#]-
has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different experiments.
(...)
[#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
PD
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:09:03 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
Well, let's see. Mercury's orbit puts the lie to both those
statements.
But then again, you LIKE lying.
Androcles
"Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@canonicalscience.com...
> HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>
>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
> experiments.
Name just one. {***}
> (...)
>
> [#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
>
{***} i.e. you are a fuckin' stupid liar. :-D
eric gisse
[...]
>>>
>>> Diaper, relativity doesn't predict or explain anything about variable
>>> stars.
>>
>>GR actually makes highly testable predictions are the oscillatory modes of
>>a star. That's not even taking into account basic facts like constancy of
>>light speed.
>
> Newton and Keppler described planetary motion perfectly. If Einstein's
> shit was included, nothing would have happened as predicted.
Perihelion precession of Mercury.
Lense-Thirring effect.
Shaprio delay.
Nortdelvdt effect.
Newton and Kepler can't do it.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
I don't care if they are huff-puffs or not. It makes little difference. Their
brightness curves are a result of c+v whatever they are.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>
>>>> Diaper, relativity doesn't predict or explain anything about variable
>>>> stars.
>>>
>>>GR actually makes highly testable predictions are the oscillatory modes of
>>>a star. That's not even taking into account basic facts like constancy of
>>>light speed.
>>
>> Newton and Keppler described planetary motion perfectly. If Einstein's
>> shit was included, nothing would have happened as predicted.
>
>Perihelion precession of Mercury.
.....due to the finite speed of gravity. Einstein's calculation is way out...
>Lense-Thirring effect.
>Shaprio delay.
>Nortdelvdt effect.
BaTh has no problem with any.
>Newton and Kepler can't do it.
Crap...
Henry Wilson DSc
can't you read? Yaw and eccentricity define the basic shapes of the curves. The
others determine the magnitude change.
>But you forgot to answer my question:
>What must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?
any value you like....
You haven't been keeping up with the data. It is stated in most journal papers
that most cepheids have a companion star.
There are two types of 'cepheid'. Many have periods of 40 days or more and
could easily have an orbiting companion.
I have already agreed that the short period ones are most likely to be
huffpuffs, the brightness of which varies according to c+v. Their radial
velocities are similar to those of a star in elliptical orbit.
>> What you fail to undestand is that the observed period of any variable star
>> might be very different from the true one because of time compression, which
>> can be of the same order as the linear magnitude change.
>> In Ballistic theory, there is a 'wavelength' shift due to the acceleration of
>> the source. Astronomers know nothing of this.
>
>Quite.
>I fail to understand that because it is plain nonsense.
It would appear to be to an indoctrinated relativist.
>The shift of the orbital frequency of a binary due to the radial
>velocity is obviously the same as the Doppler shift, which
>is the same (to a first order) for SR and the emission theory.
>This is a well known effect, and the period of cepheids in
>distant galaxies will be somewhat red shifted, but they will
>not be 'very different from the true ones'. If the Cepheid
>can be resolved, the Doppler shift is modest.
That is not what ADoppler is all about.
It is dominant over VDoppler.
>The emission theory predicts an additional shift of the orbital
>period only if the the whole binary is accelerated. It is not.
>(Not even if the binary is orbiting a third star will the acceleration
> be big enough to make the period 'very different from the true one'.)
You don't get it. The relativist the late George Dishman did....why can't you?
If a cyclical event occurs along an elliptical path, its period will appear
compressed or expanded to a distant observer DUE TO ITS ACCELERATION.
This effect is 90 out of phase wrt the conventional VDoppler associated with
its radial velocity.
>>> But nothing else fits.
>>> The emission theory predicts that the spectrum from a star
>>> with a Cepheid like light curve (caused by orbital motion) should
>>> be wildly different from what it is.
>>
>> No it does not. The spectrum will be shifted by the combined ADoppler and
>> VDoppler effect, which are 90 deg out. At any significant distance, ADoppler
>> will dominate and the velocity curve derived from conventional methods should
>> be somewhat similar in shape to the brightness curve and slightly lagging in
>> phase.
>
>Exactly. That is the very point. For once you got it right.
>But why don't you realize the consequences of what you just said?
>
>The emission theory predicts that the brightening and
>the Doppler shift is the same!
>
>An example:
>Delta Cep varies between magnitudes 3.6 and 4.4, equivalent to
>a brightness variation of 1.9 times.
>So the emission theory predicts that if the brightening of
>Delta Cep is due to orbital motion, the frequency of the received
>light should vary by a factor of 1.9.
Nope. I have explained all that....the 'rubber photon' theory
>The observed frequency variation is ~1.014 which is wildly
>different from what the emission theory predicts.
>And the phase is wrong as well.
Nope. You still don't get it. ADoppler is limited whilst the relative movement
between traveling photons goes on forever or until unification reduces it to
near zero.
>We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>The emission theory is stone dead.
You don't understand BaTh. You aren't even trying to understand Bath. You are
as bad as Androcles.
>>> Cepheids are very well known, and the emission theory is unable
>>> to predict any of its characteristics, but the light curve.
>>> (and not even that, if only physical possible parameters
>>> are allowed.)
>>>
>>> There is no question about it, the spectra tell us without
>>> a shred of doubt that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
>>> You have to be either very ignorant or very stupid to claim otherwise.
>>
>> I said already, many probably ARE pulsating stars....but many might not be.
>
>Cepheids are always pulsating stars.
>Nothing else can give all the characteristics of a Cepheid.
Rubbish.
>> The
>> pulsating motion gives radial speeds that should be similar to those of a star
>> that is in a moderately eccentric orbit (e = ~0.2).
>>
>> I have modified my program to accommodate an expanding sphere. It divides the
>> disk into concentric circles of equal brightness and ascribes different radial
>> speeds to each. The approximation uses five circles....good enough. The inside
>> one, of area A= piR^2 expands at v. The next, of area 3A has radial velocity
>> vcos(pi/10), the next, 5A and vcos(pi/5)....etc...
>> The composite curve is only slightly different from one produced using a
>> constant radial velocity over the whole disk.
>> However, the observer distance is greatly increased for a certain magnitude
>> change, partly explaining the discrepancy that puzzled me before. Also, all
>> estimated radial speeds are likely to be greatly exaggerated because
>> astronomers use only VDoppler and not the main contributor, ADoppler.
>
>So with this assumption, you will have to change the parameters
>of your curve fitting drawing program. :-)
>
>And if you do it properly, you will find that the emission theory
>predicts that a pulsating star should look very different from
>what we observe.
>
>But you will of course ignore every prediction but the light curve.
A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between about 50
and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
...convincing proof that Wilson the Bullshitter is ranting DRUNK!!!
eric gisse
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:04:49 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diaper, relativity doesn't predict or explain anything about variable
>>>>> stars.
>>>>
>>>>GR actually makes highly testable predictions are the oscillatory modes
>>>>of a star. That's not even taking into account basic facts like
>>>>constancy of light speed.
>>>
>>> Newton and Keppler described planetary motion perfectly. If Einstein's
>>> shit was included, nothing would have happened as predicted.
>>
>>Perihelion precession of Mercury.
>
> .....due to the finite speed of gravity. Einstein's calculation is way
> out...
Except the speed of gravitation is infinite in Newton.
But let's consider your claim. Please show how a finite speed of gravitation
gives the correct perihelion advance of Mercury.
>
>>Lense-Thirring effect.
>>Shaprio delay.
>>Nortdelvdt effect.
>
> BaTh has no problem with any.
Great! Let's see the calculations.
Henry Wilson DSc
<now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>
>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
>This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincar� and others [#]-
They believed in an aether, dopey.
>has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different experiments.
No believable experiment has measured te OWLS from a moving source.
It is only NOW that variable star curves are being used by Andro and I to show
that light speed is source dependent.
>
>[#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
BURT
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." Gonz lez- lvarez
>
You knock the greatest thinker of history Henry?
You can get behind light and ahead.
Mitch Raemsch
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:m2nog5lu8rfhpbb53...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:13:09 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>news:ji6ng5dvsn9a4m8nt...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:03:49 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
>>>>>
>>>>>Name just one and provide the spectrum, you lying old bastard,
>>>>>and yes, I'm blaming you for bluffing false data, you bullshitting
>>>>>Einstein dingleberry.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read the above message folks.
>>>>
>>>> ...convincing proof that Andro the Anti is raving MAD!!!!
>>>>
>>>Wanker Wilson the ozzie sheep shagger can provide NO
>>>evidence for his crackpot theory of huff puff stars.
>>
>> I don't care if they are huff-puffs or not. It makes little difference.
>> Their
>> brightness curves are a result of c+v whatever they are.
>>
> Read the above message folks.
>
>...convincing proof that Wilson the Bullshitter is ranting DRUNK!!!
...silly old pom.....
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:04:49 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Newton and Keppler described planetary motion perfectly. If Einstein's
>>>> shit was included, nothing would have happened as predicted.
>>>
>>>Perihelion precession of Mercury.
>>
>> .....due to the finite speed of gravity. Einstein's calculation is way
>> out...
>
>Except the speed of gravitation is infinite in Newton.
>
>But let's consider your claim. Please show how a finite speed of gravitation
>gives the correct perihelion advance of Mercury.
That should be obvious
>>>Lense-Thirring effect.
>>>Shaprio delay.
>>>Nortdelvdt effect.
>>
>> BaTh has no problem with any.
>
>Great! Let's see the calculations.
>
Henry Wilson DSc
I AM the greatsest thinker in history.
>You can get behind light and ahead.
You will get behind the whole human race the way you rave...
>Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:33:46 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:04:49 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Newton and Keppler described planetary motion perfectly. If Einstein's
>>>>> shit was included, nothing would have happened as predicted.
>>>>
>>>>Perihelion precession of Mercury.
>>>
>>> .....due to the finite speed of gravity. Einstein's calculation is way
>>> out...
>>
>>Except the speed of gravitation is infinite in Newton.
>>
>>But let's consider your claim. Please show how a finite speed of
>>gravitation gives the correct perihelion advance of Mercury.
>
> That should be obvious
Sorry Henri, it isn't. Why don't you show the calculations?
YBM
> HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:33:46 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:04:49 -0800, eric gisse
>>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Newton and Keppler described planetary motion perfectly. If Einstein's
>>>>>> shit was included, nothing would have happened as predicted.
>>>>> Perihelion precession of Mercury.
>>>> .....due to the finite speed of gravity. Einstein's calculation is way
>>>> out...
>>> Except the speed of gravitation is infinite in Newton.
>>>
>>> But let's consider your claim. Please show how a finite speed of
>>> gravitation gives the correct perihelion advance of Mercury.
>> That should be obvious
>
> Sorry Henri, it isn't. Why don't you show the calculations?
Taking in account that a binary .exe, designed for an outdated operating
system, does NOT count as a calculation.
Henry Wilson DSc
Hey idiot, you can write a similar program in any language you choose and it
will produce the same curves, proving Einstein completely wrong.
...but I know you are like geesey, believing the Earth is the centre of the
universe.
YBM
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:52:17 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>> eric gisse a �crit :
>>> HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:33:46 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:04:49 -0800, eric gisse
>>>>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Newton and Keppler described planetary motion perfectly. If Einstein's
>>>>>>>> shit was included, nothing would have happened as predicted.
>>>>>>> Perihelion precession of Mercury.
>>>>>> .....due to the finite speed of gravity. Einstein's calculation is way
>>>>>> out...
>>>>> Except the speed of gravitation is infinite in Newton.
>>>>>
>>>>> But let's consider your claim. Please show how a finite speed of
>>>>> gravitation gives the correct perihelion advance of Mercury.
>>>> That should be obvious
>>> Sorry Henri, it isn't. Why don't you show the calculations?
>> Taking in account that a binary .exe, designed for an outdated operating
>> system, does NOT count as a calculation.
>
> Hey idiot, you can write a similar program in any language you choose and it
> will produce the same curves, proving Einstein completely wrong.
Every program written by sane people, applying SR or GR, providing full
source code in order to allow people to check how it really apply SR or
GR, so far, matched with reality.
You didn't even understand what I meant when I first, years ago, asked
you for source code of you programs.
> ...but I know you are like geesey, believing the Earth is the centre of the
> universe.
Nobody but you, Ralph Rabbidge, think that.
eric gisse
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:52:17 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>>eric gisse a �crit :
>>> HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:33:46 -0800, eric gisse
>>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:04:49 -0800, eric gisse
>>>>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Newton and Keppler described planetary motion perfectly. If
>>>>>>>> Einstein's shit was included, nothing would have happened as
>>>>>>>> predicted.
>>>>>>> Perihelion precession of Mercury.
>>>>>> .....due to the finite speed of gravity. Einstein's calculation is
>>>>>> way out...
>>>>> Except the speed of gravitation is infinite in Newton.
>>>>>
>>>>> But let's consider your claim. Please show how a finite speed of
>>>>> gravitation gives the correct perihelion advance of Mercury.
>>>> That should be obvious
>>>
>>> Sorry Henri, it isn't. Why don't you show the calculations?
>>
>>Taking in account that a binary .exe, designed for an outdated operating
>>system, does NOT count as a calculation.
>
> Hey idiot, you can write a similar program in any language you choose and
> it will produce the same curves, proving Einstein completely wrong.
Since when does a visual basic program prove anything, much less prove a
theory wrong?
You do know that theories are only testable by observation, right?
[snip rest]
eric gisse
[...]
>> ...but I know you are like geesey, believing the Earth is the centre of
>> the universe.
>
> Nobody but you, Ralph Rabbidge, think that.
Have you seen his hilarious explanation for why his website is registered to
Ralph Rabbidge? Apparently that's Ralph Rabbidge the second - the original's
kid.
Why Henri likes to make himself look like an invalid who needs the support
of friends just to use a computer is beyond my understanding...
Juan R.
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>>HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>>
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>>This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincaré and others
>>[#]-
>
> They believed in an aether, dopey.
As Einstein in latter times [#]... but their concept of aether was not the
absolute aether but one verifying the principle of relativity, which was
introduced in physics by Poincaré in 1902.
>>has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
>>experiments.
>
> No believable experiment has measured te OWLS from a moving source. It
> is only NOW that variable star curves are being used by Andro and I to
> show that light speed is source dependent.
Both are *only* showing your mutual ignorance and unability to learn even
the basic stuff :-D
>> [#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
Juan R.
> "Juan R. González-Álvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
> message news:pan.2009.11...@canonicalscience.com...
>> HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>>
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>> This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincaré and
>> others [#]-
>> has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
>> experiments.
>
> Name just one. {***}
Choose yourself :-D
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> (...)
>>
>> [#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
>>
>>
> {***} i.e. you are a fuckin' stupid liar. :-D
--
Androcles
"Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@canonicalscience.com...
> Androcles wrote on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:56:14 +0000:
>
>> message news:pan.2009.11...@canonicalscience.com...
>>> HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>>>
>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> others [#]-
>>> has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
>>> experiments.
>>
>> Name just one. {***}
>
> Choose yourself :-D
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
A list validates nothing, you fuckin' stupid imbecile.
I said name just one, moron, you choose.
PD
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:03:24 -0800 (PST), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 5:50 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." Gonz lez- lvarez
>
> >> <nowh...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> >HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>
> >> >> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> >> >This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincar and others [#]-
>
> >> They believed in an aether, dopey.
>
> >> >has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different experiments.
>
> >> No believable experiment has measured te OWLS from a moving source.
> >> It is only NOW that variable star curves are being used by Andro and I to show
> >> that light speed is source dependent.
>
> >> >[#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
>
> >> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> >> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
>
> >You knock the greatest thinker of history Henry?
>
> I AM the greatsest thinker in history.
:>)
Ralph will say just about anything.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
If you knew anything about physics you would be able to answer these questions
yourself. But you are a total moron.
Hasn't your pea sized brain been able to work out that I am using a program to
test BaTh against OBSERVATION?...and guess what? OBSERVATION backs BaTh.
>[snip rest]
Henry Wilson DSc
<now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>HW wrote on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:50:40 +0000:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
>> <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>
>>>HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>>>
>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>>This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincar� and others
>>>[#]-
>>
>> They believed in an aether, dopey.
>
>As Einstein in latter times [#]... but their concept of aether was not the
>absolute aether but one verifying the principle of relativity, which was
>introduced in physics by Poincar� in 1902.
>
>>>has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
>>>experiments.
>>
>> No believable experiment has measured te OWLS from a moving source. It
>> is only NOW that variable star curves are being used by Andro and I to
>> show that light speed is source dependent.
>
>Both are *only* showing your mutual ignorance and unability to learn even
>the basic stuff :-D
The 'basic stuff' is that Einstein has completely misled physics and that all
astronomical observations are willusional.
>>> [#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
eric gisse
[...]
> Hasn't your pea sized brain been able to work out that I am using a
> program to test BaTh against OBSERVATION?...and guess what? OBSERVATION
> backs BaTh.
Yet nobody else agrees. I'm sure it is the case that you are smarter than
everyone else. So lonely at the top...