EINSTEIN'S TIME DILATION IS ABSURD

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

This means that, according to special relativity, if a single clock faces a series of clocks go by with uniform speed, then observers in both frames will see the difference between the time shown on the multiple comoving clocks and the time shown on the single clock increase (this is obvious if the multiple clocks are synchronous; if they are not, the statement remains valid but may need elaboration if the opponents are not very intelligent):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/clocks.gif

Let us assume that the ants moving along the rectangular line are travelling at 87% the speed of light:

http://www.wpclipart.com/page_frames/animal/ant/ant_border_rectangle_portrait.png

In accordance with what was said above, a single stationary ant watching its brothers go by at 87% the speed of light ages half as fast as them. According to the original twin paradox scenario, however, the single stationary ant must age faster than the moving ants.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum which means that the underlying postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is false. The speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of the emitter, as established by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 3:43:15 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105:
> "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other
> case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to
> find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his
> own."
>
> This means that, according to special relativity, if a single clock faces a
> series of clocks go by with uniform speed, then observers in both frames
> will see the difference between the time shown on the multiple comoving
> clocks and the time shown on the single clock increase

Hi Pentcho,

First of all, I'm glad you took my advice and decided to attack time dilation
instead of length contraction :-)

But I'm having trouble parsing your lo-o-o-ng sentence and trying to figure
out what "faces" means. The whole thing seems overly obtuse and Hoffmann
said it better: "the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

This should be sufficient grist to discuss the phenomenon of time dilation.

> In accordance with what was said above, a single stationary ant watching its
> brothers go by at 87% the speed of light ages half as fast as them.

You misread what Hoffmann said, probably because of your bollaxed-up mess
of a sentence you wrote.

> According to the original twin paradox scenario, however, the single
> stationary ant must age faster than the moving ants.

The moving ant AND the stationary ant see themselves aging faster than the
other. Ya gotta get it straight before ya launch into your conclusion:

> Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum which means that the underlying
> postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is false.

You BELIEVE it is reducto ad absurdum, but your faith is misplaced. Light-
speed invariance is a FACT of the world we live in. No anount of arm-
waving and sophist argument can change that. Experimental evidence is king,
not mental gyrations.

> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf John Norton:

> "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory
> of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

The emission theory IS fully compatible with the MMX, but Norton is dead
wrong in his assertion that it contradicts the light postulate. Anyone
with a smattering of rationality can work it out for himself. The MMX
is fully compatible with the emission theory, lightspeed invariance, the
Lorentz aether theory and an entrained aether theory. The problem is that
it agrees with TOO MANY theories and is useless in deciding among them.

You should pay more attention to what Hoffmann says and a LOT less to Norton.

Gary

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:99d295d6-172e-40c4...@googlegroups.com...

|But I'm having trouble parsing your lo-o-o-ng sentence and trying to figure
|out what "faces" means. The whole thing seems overly obtuse and Hoffmann
|said it better: "the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."
|This should be sufficient grist to discuss the phenomenon of time dilation.

Not quite. By Your Great Guru personal definition of time (maybe the only
wise
thing he ever wrote) time is what clocks are indicating. Whether they go
more or less slowly, doesn't matter. What matters, are the numbers on their
faces.
Thus, as we all can check on GPS, there is no phenomenon of time dilation
outside the sick imagination of some idiots, just like You.

[Pentcho Valev]

Time dilation is mutual, according to special relativity. Yet the retardation of a clock can only be demonstrated (calculated) if that clock is allowed to change location, that is, to be at point A and then at point B in the opposite reference frame. If the scenario craftily precludes such a displacement, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the opposite clock's retardation can be demonstrated.

This is the whole secret behind the twin paradox. The travelling twin/clock is allowed to be at point A and then at point B in the sedentary twin/clock's system, but the reverse is impossible for the simple reason that the travelling twin/clock's system is reduced, in the scenario taught by relativists, to a single point (where the travelling twin and/or the travelling clock are located).

As soon as the relativistic scenario is changed and the sedentary twin/clock is seen at point A and then at point B in the travelling twin/clock's system, Einstein's relativity dismally falls apart.

Pentcho Valev

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 7:17:34 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:

A bunch of nonsense that is hopelessly faulty in reasoning and logic.

[Pentcho Valev]

The gist of the argument:

A single clock passes a series of clocks and is consecutively compared with them:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/clocks.gif

According to special relativity, if the single clock is moving and the series of clocks stationary, the consecutive comparison shows that the single clock runs slower than the series of clocks. If the single clock is stationary and the series of clocks moving, the consecutive comparison shows that, AGAIN, the single clock runs slower than the series of clocks.

Pentcho Valev

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 8:33:33 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The gist of the argument: A single clock passes a series of clocks and is
> consecutively compared with them:
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/clocks.gif
>
> According to special relativity, if the single clock is moving and the series
> of clocks stationary,

That is, the observer (the guy making the measurements) is in the same frame
as the series of clocks and the single clock is moving relative to him,

> the consecutive comparison shows that the single clock runs slower than the
> series of clocks.

That is, indeed, what the series of observers at the series of clocks would
measure.

> If the single clock is stationary

That is, the observer is in the same frame as the single clock,

> and the series of clocks moving,

That is, moving relative to the observer and the single clock,

> the consecutive comparison shows that, AGAIN, the single clock runs slower
> than the series of clocks. Pentcho Valev

NO! The observer stationed with the single clock sees the series of clocks
running slower.

Ya got that one backwards. Thus the "paradox": Measurements from each frame
measure clocks in the other frame running slower.

Gary

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:ac238da1-73d7-4b48...@googlegroups.com...

> the consecutive comparison shows that the single clock runs slower than
> the
> series of clocks.

|That is, indeed, what the series of observers at the series of clocks would
|measure.

And, surely, while walking through the forest, they would see they're
immobile and the trees are running around. Idiot relativist said - must
be true.

|Ya got that one backwards. Thus the "paradox": Measurements from each
frame
|measure clocks in the other frame running slower.

Idiot relativist said - who would dare to doubt?

[Pentcho Valev]

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 8:40:29 PM UTC+2, gary hitlong wrote:
> On Saturday, May 10, 2014 8:33:33 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > the consecutive comparison shows that, AGAIN, the single clock runs slower
> > than the series of clocks. Pentcho Valev
>
> NO! The observer stationed with the single clock sees the series of clocks
> running slower.

Look at the picture gain, gary cockroach:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/clocks.gif

Now repeat: "The single clock always runs slower that the series of clocks, according to special relativity, because the principle of relativity is valid in special relativity, and this principle says that it is immaterial whether the single clock is stationary or moving."

If you still have doubts, gary cockroach, ask Honest Master Tom Roberts. I think even the other insect, bodkin, can explain this to you.

Pentcho Valev

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/10/14 5/10/14 9:33 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> According to special relativity, if the single clock is moving and the series
> of clocks stationary, the consecutive comparison shows that the single clock
> runs slower than the series of clocks. If the single clock is stationary and
> the series of clocks moving, the consecutive comparison shows that, AGAIN,
> the single clock runs slower than the series of clocks.

As usual, you word things so ambiguously that it's difficult to understand what
you are actually trying to say -- you yourself are completely unaware of your
own ambiguities, because YOU do not understand this.

With the following clarifications, for the first time you have actually said
something that is correct!

1. the series of clocks must all be at rest in an inertial frame, and they
must all be synchronized in that frame.
2. The single clock must also be at rest in an inertial frame (this is
not essential, but makes my description easier).
3. everywhere you say "runs slower", replace that with "compares to the
other clocks as having less elapsed time from the previous comparison".

All too many elementary textbooks to the contrary, moving
clocks DO NOT "RUN SLOWER"; clocks always tick at their
usual rate. But comparisons between stationary clocks
and a moving clock (note carefully the plurals) show the
moving clock to experience less elapsed time. This is
simply a direct example of this.

It OUGHT to be obvious that regardless of which frame one considers to be
"stationary", the COMPARISONS between clocks will be the same. After all, the
clocks themselves don't care how you happen to label their frames.

If you look carefully into this using the math of SR, you
will find that the synchronization of those multiple clocks
is essential to this result (hence my remark about plurals).
Indeed it is clock synchronization that is at the base of
the "mutual time dilation" in SR (remember it's only mutual
for two inertial frames, and that requires multiple clocks
in each frame).

Of course once again you have failed to show any "absurdity" in SR.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/10/14 5/10/14 1:40 PM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 10, 2014 8:33:33 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:

>>[...]

>
> NO! The observer stationed with the single clock sees the series of clocks
> running slower.

Don't fall into Valev's fallacy of thinking "moving clocks run slow", because
they don't. He repeatedly uses ambiguous language to confuse himself, and unwary
readers. But he is too stupid to recognize his own ambiguities and errors.

As the observer with the single clock successively passes each clock in the
series, he will notice that his clock shows less elapsed time than the clocks
going past (comparing his clock to each clock of the series, as it passes).

You correctly realized this earlier in your article. The comparison of adjacent
clocks is independent of frame, so you ought to realize that the observer at
rest relative to the single clock will see them compare the same way as does the
observer at rest with the series of clocks (who needs an assistant stationed at
each clock in the series).

This is the first time I have seen Valev actually make a correct statement
(well, it's correct after adding the clarifications of my previous post).


Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

Bravo, Honest Roberts, and thanks (I had problems with my English this time)! As for the synchronization of the clocks in the series, it is not essential of course - with or without synchronization, the ticking of the single stationary clock lags behind the ticking of the moving clocks in the series (according to special relativity) which means that the single stationary twin remains younger than multiple moving brothers. Special relativity is contradictory.

Pentcho Valev

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:oMGdnX2oWpe...@giganews.com...

|Don't fall into Valev's fallacy of thinking "moving clocks run slow",
because
|they don't.

Experiment shows, that most of Your fellow idiots write oppositely.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Those who find experimentally confirmed phenomena
to be 'absurd' have a serious problem with their sense of reality.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Pentcho Valev]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:56:36 AM UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Those who find experimentally confirmed phenomena
> to be 'absurd' have a serious problem with their sense of reality.

Don't cry, Clever Andersen. Divine Albert is gone but you could worship something else.

Pentcho Valev

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Paul B. Andersen" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:lkne0f$lbc$1...@dont-email.me...

|Those who find experimentally confirmed phenomena
|to be 'absurd' have a serious problem with their sense of reality.

Oppositely, poor idiot. Those, who find an absurd experimentally
confirmed phenomena, have a serious problem with their sense
of reality.
But, of course, serious problems with sense of reality sometimes
happen. As we all can see.

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 9:14:26 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> On 5/10/14 5/10/14 1:40 PM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > NO! The observer stationed with the single clock sees the series of clocks
> > running slower.
>
> Don't fall into Valev's fallacy of thinking "moving clocks run slow",

Hi Tom,

I don't, although there are several k's, c's and naive novices in this group
that do.

> because they don't.

Which is why I used the word "sees" (a synonym for "observes" or "measures").
It is important that this be emphasized from time to time. At least the
nn's may learn :-)

> He repeatedly uses ambiguous language to confuse himself, and unwary readers.
> But he is too stupid to recognize his own ambiguities and errors.

I don't know if he is stupid or a conniving troll.

> As the observer with the single clock successively passes each clock in the
> series, he will notice that his clock shows less elapsed time than the
> clocks going past (comparing his clock to each clock of the series, as it
> passes).

Wait a minute, wait a minute! The observer with the single clock considers
himself at rest, so the series of moving clocks are parading past him. THEY
will appear to be running slower and THEY will show less elapsed time, won't
they?

> You correctly realized this earlier in your article.

I did?

> The comparison of adjacent clocks is independent of frame, so you ought to
> realize that the observer at rest relative to the single clock will see
> them compare the same way as does the observer at rest with the series of
> clocks (who needs an assistant stationed at each clock in the series).
>
> This is the first time I have seen Valev actually make a correct statement
> (well, it's correct after adding the clarifications of my previous post).
>
> Tom Roberts

Yes, I saw what I thought was a correct statement in there. I'm just not
sure it's the same one you saw :-|

Gary

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:2265b5dc-2099-42a9...@googlegroups.com...

|Wait a minute, wait a minute! The observer with the single clock considers
|himself at rest

Of course! and he considers trees are running around him.
Idiot relativist said he considers, so he considers. These
are The Laws Of Physics! Howgh!!!!!!

[kefischer]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 05:16:45 -0700 (PDT), hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Saturday, May 10, 2014 9:14:26 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>>
>> On 5/10/14 5/10/14 1:40 PM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> > NO! The observer stationed with the single clock sees the series of clocks
>> > running slower.
>>
>> Don't fall into Valev's fallacy of thinking "moving clocks run slow",
>
>Hi Tom,
>
>I don't, although there are several k's, c's and naive novices in this group
>that do.

Right, you have your own special
quirks to defend. :-)

>> because they don't.
>
>Which is why I used the word "sees" (a synonym for "observes" or "measures").
>It is important that this be emphasized from time to time. At least the
>nn's may learn :-)
>
>
>> He repeatedly uses ambiguous language to confuse himself, and unwary readers.
>> But he is too stupid to recognize his own ambiguities and errors.
>
>I don't know if he is stupid or a conniving troll.
>
>> As the observer with the single clock successively passes each clock in the
>> series, he will notice that his clock shows less elapsed time than the
>> clocks going past (comparing his clock to each clock of the series, as it
>> passes).
>
>Wait a minute, wait a minute! The observer with the single clock considers
>himself at rest, so the series of moving clocks are parading past him. THEY
>will appear to be running slower and THEY will show less elapsed time, won't
>they?

Observer with one clock "passes each clock"
"so the moving clocks are parading past him"
"comparing his to each clock of the series,
as it passes".

Who is moving the single clock, or
the series of clocks?

>> You correctly realized this earlier in your article.
>
>I did?

Sure you did, you just didn't realize it. :-)

>> The comparison of adjacent clocks is independent of frame, so you ought to
>> realize that the observer at rest relative to the single clock will see
>> them compare the same way as does the observer at rest with the series of
>> clocks (who needs an assistant stationed at each clock in the series).
>>
>> This is the first time I have seen Valev actually make a correct statement
>> (well, it's correct after adding the clarifications of my previous post).
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
>Yes, I saw what I thought was a correct statement in there. I'm just not
>sure it's the same one you saw :-|
>
>Gary

Which clock were you next to?

[Pentcho Valev]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 2:16:45 PM UTC+2, gary hitlong wrote:

> On Saturday, May 10, 2014 9:14:26 PM UTC-6, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > As the observer with the single clock successively passes each clock in the
> > series, he will notice that his clock shows less elapsed time than the
> > clocks going past (comparing his clock to each clock of the series, as it
> > passes).
>
> Wait a minute, wait a minute! The observer with the single clock considers
> himself at rest, so the series of moving clocks are parading past him. THEY
> will appear to be running slower and THEY will show less elapsed time, won't
> they?

Don't contradict your Master, gary cockroach!

Pentcho Valev

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 11:18:56 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Don't contradict your Master, gary cockroach!
>
> Pentcho Valev

All I care about is the truth. Don't you, Pentcho Gnat?

[Pentcho Valev]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 9:04:40 PM UTC+2, gary hitlong wrote:
> On Sunday, May 11, 2014 11:18:56 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > Don't contradict your Master, gary cockroach!
>

> All I care about is the truth. Don't you, Pentcho Gnat?

Here is the truth:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/clocks.gif

Tom Roberts: "As the observer with the single clock successively passes each clock in the series, he will notice that his clock shows less elapsed time than the clocks going past (comparing his clock to each clock of the series, as it passes). You correctly realized this earlier in your article. The comparison of adjacent clocks is independent of frame, so you ought to realize that the observer at rest relative to the single clock will see them compare the same way as does the observer at rest with the series of clocks (who needs an assistant stationed at each clock in the series). This is the first time I have seen Valev actually make a correct statement (well, it's correct after adding the clarifications of my previous post)."

The truth is sad sometimes, isn't it, gary cockroach?

http://www.spectraspeaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sad-Harmless-Nigerian-Cockroach.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[Odell G. Kreiger]

No matter where the truth leads you, shitlong?

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Odell G. Kreiger wrote:

>
> hitlong wrote:
> >
> > All I care about is the truth. Don't you, Pentcho Gnat?
>
> No matter where the truth leads you, shitlong?

Exactly, Kooky Kreiger. Wouldn't you do that too? Or are you one of these
cuckoo crackpots who ceaselessly excrete their irrational dogma?

Gary

[kefischer]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 05:16:45 -0700 (PDT), hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

I asked who is moving, and does
it matter, isn't motion relative, and in
which cases does it matter who is
moving, the change in distance is
the same for both, isn't it?

This seems to be an issue with
all the odd impressions, like in the
case of relativistic mass, too.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 8:43:56 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 5/10/14 5/10/14 9:33 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > According to special relativity, if the single clock is moving and the series
>
> > of clocks stationary, the consecutive comparison shows that the single clock
>
> > runs slower than the series of clocks. If the single clock is stationary and
>
> > the series of clocks moving, the consecutive comparison shows that, AGAIN,
>
> > the single clock runs slower than the series of clocks.
>
>
>
> As usual, you word things so ambiguously that it's difficult to understand what
>
> you are actually trying to say -- you yourself are completely unaware of your
>
> own ambiguities, because YOU do not understand this.
>
>
>
> With the following clarifications, for the first time you have actually said
>
> something that is correct!
>
>
>
> 1. the series of clocks must all be at rest in an inertial frame, and they
>
> must all be synchronized in that frame.
>
> 2. The single clock must also be at rest in an inertial frame (this is
>
> not essential, but makes my description easier).
>
> 3. everywhere you say "runs slower", replace that with "compares to the
>
> other clocks as having less elapsed time from the previous comparison".
>
>
>
> All too many elementary textbooks to the contrary, moving
> clocks DO NOT "RUN SLOWER";

Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates
That means one of the clocks is running slower than the other.

> clocks always tick at their
> usual rate. But comparisons between stationary clocks
> and a moving clock (note carefully the plurals) show the
> moving clock to experience less elapsed time. This is
> simply a direct example of this.

Clock always ticks at their usual rate have no meaning unless a clock
second is a universal interval of time.....it is not.
Also there is no such thing as a stationary clock. Every SR observer
assumes that his clock is the stationary clock is a wrong assumption.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 7:16:45 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 10, 2014 9:14:26 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > Don't fall into Valev's fallacy of thinking "moving clocks run slow",
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I don't, although there are several k's, c's and naive novices in this group
> that do.
>
> > because they don't.
>
> Which is why I used the word "sees" (a synonym for "observes" or "measures").
> It is important that this be emphasized from time to time. At least the
> nn's may learn :-)

I would avoid using the term "sees" because, as has been very well understood since the 50's, what one "sees" with photons is very different with what one "measures".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, May 12, 2014 10:02:42 AM UTC-6, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> I would avoid using the term "sees" because, as has been very well understood
> since the 50's, what one "sees" with photons is very different with what
> one "measures".
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation

That is good advice, and I will use "measures" from now on, even though it
takes fewer keystrokes to type "sees" ... and Sees is really good candy :-)

Gary

[kenseto]

The word measure is also wrong.....why? because there is no such measurements. The correct word is "PREDICT".

[kefischer]

What is it you will be talking about
measuring, and what is there about SR
or GR where "measure" is actually done,
or where SR or GR experiments can be
done with actual measurements?

Can you get two guys to run fast
enough with each one holding one
end of a tape measure?

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, May 12, 2014 12:09:52 PM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 May 2014 09:06:32 -0700 (PDT), hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > That is good advice, and I will use "measures" from now on, even though it
> > takes fewer keystrokes to type "sees" ... and Sees is really good candy :-)
> >
> > Gary
>
> What is it you will be talking about measuring, and what is there about SR
> or GR where "measure" is actually done, or where SR or GR experiments can
> be done with actual measurements?

Hi Fishy,

Besides thought experiments, there are the measurements made by NASA and its
spacecraft, measurements made in particle accelerators and measurements
made with the GPS.

> Can you get two guys to run fast enough with each one holding one end of a
> tape measure?

Silly boy! That's what happens when you've been retired too long :-)

Gary

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 11.05.2014 11:45, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Paul B. Andersen" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:lkne0f$lbc$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> |Those who find experimentally confirmed phenomena
> |to be 'absurd' have a serious problem with their sense of reality.
>
> Oppositely, poor idiot. Those, who find an absurd experimentally
> confirmed phenomena, have a serious problem with their sense
> of reality.

Thanks for the demonstration of how a crank's mind works! :-D

"What I find absurd can't be true, even if it is
experimentally confirmed".

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Odell G. Kreiger]

Then you contradict yourself longy. Sometimes the search for truth leads
one towards the unseen, undetected, sometimes called metaphysics.

Modern Science just won't go far enough. Sometimes yes, see Big Bang and
Black Holes. But NEVER farther than that!

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Monday, May 12, 2014 11:24:55 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>
> The word measure is also wrong.....why? because there is no such measurements. The correct word is "PREDICT".

Sorry, you are VERY confused. The word "predict" implies performing an estimate before the actual event of the values that will be recorded.

Trillions (probably an extreme underestimate) of post-event MEASUREMENTS are made every day at accelerators around the globe of phenomena which require special relativity for their interpretation. Likewise billions (probably an extreme underestimate) of post-event MEASUREMENTS of timing signals from GPS satellites are made by receivers around the globe. Likewise millions (probably an extreme underestimate) of data points from astronomical MEASUREMENTS are analyzed every day with the aid of general relativity analyzing observed phenomena ranging from galaxy dynamics to supernova explosions.

Nobody in their right minds should confuse measurements with predictions.

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, May 12, 2014 2:31:56 PM UTC-6, Odell G. Kreiger wrote:
>
> hitlong wrote:
> >

> > exactly, Kooky Kreiger. Wouldn't you do that too? Or are you one of

> > these cuckoo crackpots who ceaselessly excrete their irrational dogma?
>
> Then you contradict yourself longy. Sometimes the search for truth leads
> one towards the unseen, undetected, sometimes called metaphysics.

If it's unseen and undetected, how do you know it's truth?

> Modern Science just won't go far enough. Sometimes yes, see Big Bang and
> Black Holes. But NEVER farther than that!

I've seen neither the Big Bang nor black holes, so I have an open mind about
them. And metaphysics is a bunch of doddering fools fooling themselves and
trying to fool others.

I accept experimental evidence and Divine inspiration as truth. Have you
ever considered either of them?

Gary

[kenseto]

On Monday, May 12, 2014 5:23:10 PM UTC-4, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Monday, May 12, 2014 11:24:55 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > The word measure is also wrong.....why? because there is no such measurements. The correct word is "PREDICT".
>
>
>
> Sorry, you are VERY confused. The word "predict" implies performing an estimate before the actual event of the values that will be recorded.

No the word predict is the correct word use in these discussions in these NGs.....Why? because the word measure suggest that actually measurements were made whereas there is no such measurements were made

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:4669b0e4-3a0d-4eb7...@googlegroups.com...

|Trillions (probably an extreme underestimate) of post-event MEASUREMENTS
are made every day at accelerators around the globe of phenomena which
require special relativity for their |interpretation.

Bull shit. That Your capability of interpretation is limited to this
idiotism,
doesn't mean it's required.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:fd298656-6820-4b5a...@googlegroups.com...

> Then you contradict yourself longy. Sometimes the search for truth leads
> one towards the unseen, undetected, sometimes called metaphysics.

|If it's unseen and undetected, how do you know it's truth?

That's far, far too complicated for a tiny brain of an idiot relativist,
Gary.

> Modern Science just won't go far enough. Sometimes yes, see Big Bang and
> Black Holes. But NEVER farther than that!

|I've seen neither the Big Bang nor black holes, so I have an open mind
about
|them.

:)

|And metaphysics is a bunch of doddering fools fooling themselves and
|trying to fool others.

And what about metamathemathics, poor idiot?

[Odell G. Kreiger]

hitlong wrote:

>> Then you contradict yourself longy. Sometimes the search for truth
>> leads one towards the unseen, undetected, sometimes called metaphysics.
>
> If it's unseen and undetected, how do you know it's truth?

You said it, a search may leads toward. Or it may not? Or you are not that
sure.

>> Modern Science just won't go far enough. Sometimes yes, see Big Bang
>> and Black Holes. But NEVER farther than that!
>
> I've seen neither the Big Bang nor black holes, so I have an open mind
> about them. And metaphysics is a bunch of doddering fools fooling
> themselves and trying to fool others.
>
> I accept experimental evidence and Divine inspiration as truth. Have
> you ever considered either of them?

I beg you to reconsider, Mr. Einstine just did that, built a theory around
something unseen, kind of metaphysics at that time, even today.

Namely, is hard to imagine a space that contracts, a time that dilates, a
"fabric of space/spacetime/cosmos" :) LOL

Make sure you understand what you wish!

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

Even the simplest kinematic computations go awry if special relativity is not taken into account.

Consider the elastic collision of a fast-moving proton with a statonary proton (a hydrogen nucleus).

Newtonian kinematics tells us that the two rebounding protons from this elastic collision always shoot off at right angles with respect to each other. In other words (please view with a non-proportional font):

-
-
-
------* paths are 90 degrees apart
-
-

What is actually observed is that the two rebounding protons shoot off at a considerably more acute angle with respect to each other than predicted by Newtonian kinematics:


-
-
-
------* paths are less than 90 degrees apart
-
-
-

The paths taken by rebounding particles is accounted for exactly by special relativity.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:3356ce9f-cf70-4a46...@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:48:13 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:4669b0e4-3a0d-4eb7...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
> |Trillions (probably an extreme underestimate) of post-event MEASUREMENTS
> are made every day at accelerators around the globe of phenomena which
> require special relativity for their |interpretation.
>
> Bull shit. That Your capability of interpretation is limited to this
> idiotism, doesn't mean it's required.

|Even the simplest kinematic computations go awry if special relativity is
not taken into account.

Once again: that Your capability of interpretation is limited to
this idiotism, doesn't mean it's the only way.
More, I've watched Your work close enough and long enough
to know, that You're faking. When it comes to REAL computation
of a REAL problem, We all can be almost sure, that Your
revolutionary assumptions will be highly "adapted", and
the only relativistic thing in the whole procedure will be
some empty rhetoric.
Fortunately for You, Your reflexes are smarter.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:35:58 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" napisał w wiadomości grup

> dyskusyjnych:3356ce9f-cf70-4a46...@googlegroups.com...

> |Even the simplest kinematic computations go awry if special relativity is
> not taken into account.
>
> Once again: that Your capability of interpretation is limited to
> this idiotism, doesn't mean it's the only way.
> More, I've watched Your work close enough and long enough
> to know, that You're faking. When it comes to REAL computation
> of a REAL problem, We all can be almost sure, that Your
> revolutionary assumptions will be highly "adapted", and
> the only relativistic thing in the whole procedure will be
> some empty rhetoric.
> Fortunately for You, Your reflexes are smarter.

There are only two crackpots in this newsgroup who are capable of more than the simplest algebra. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are DEFINITELY not one of those two.

I have no intention of wasting my time translating a set of "REAL" computations into ascii which you will simply reject in your ignorance. Instead, here is a slide for you to look at (and totally misunderstand):
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/061213Roberts/sld014.htm

[kefischer]

On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:42:11 -0700 (PDT), Ignorant Raving Crackpot
<ignorantrav...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:35:58 PM UTC-5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> Uzytkownik "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" napisal w wiadomosci grup

Can anybody comment on slide 11
that seems to say that light from novas
5 Billion light years away reaches us
in about 10 days?

[Lord Androcles]

"kefischer" wrote in message
news:a9u5n91jnnu4k6p5f...@4ax.com...

====================================
Roberts has senile dementia.


http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/
Directory Listing Denied

This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[kefischer]

On Wed, 14 May 2014 06:59:19 +0100, "Lord Androcles" <Ey...@Medway.Cstl>
wrote:

Never mind, whacko earl, my question
was about the time dilation which the
Divergent Matter model requires to be
a function of distance, and also the
rate of energy production should also
show a like increase with distance.

I don't expect the answer to be
that, but it is what the model requires.

[Lord Androcles]

"kefischer" wrote in message
news:80n6n9hsnhjdbgcv3...@4ax.com...

===================================================
No it wasn't, you deranged moron, you asked for a comment on slide 11,
clearly that is Roberts' crap and the only possible answers to your question
are "yes, I can comment" or "no, I can't comment".

[kefischer]

On Wed, 14 May 2014 13:38:07 +0100, "Lord Androcles" <Ey...@Medway.Cstl>

Obviously your reading comprehension
is twisted as bad as your manners, my
question was about an apparent time
dilation seen in experiments, which is
what I thought slide 11 described.

The Divergent Matter model requires
a constant slowing of time, which should
cause processes occurring at a distance
to appear to run faster than local time flow.


So yes, your comment should have
been, "no, I can't comment".

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

When a supernova explodes, the shell of gases expands at a rate of ~5,000 km/s (obtained by Doppler broadening).

The near parts of the remnants approach us with a speed of ~5,000 km/s, and the far parts of the remnants recede from us with a speed of ~5,000 km/s, for a total velocity spread of ~10,000 km/s.

If light were ballistic, light from the supernova would travel towards us at speeds ranging from ~305,000 km/s to ~295,000 km/s.

If light were ballistic, after traveling a distance of ~5 billion light years, the leading edges of the pulse of light emitted by the explosion would reach us ~200,000,000 years before the trailing edges of the pulse of light.

Instead, light from the supernova reaches us after a trip of ~5 billion light years with a spread in time of no more than ~10 days.

The value of k implied by this is less than 10^-9

-------------------------------------------------------------

Note: As a matter of fact, the light curves of distant supernovae ARE spread out, but the effect is due to relativistic Doppler redshift. At a distance of 5 billion light years, the light curve of a Type 1a supernova will rise and fall over a 45 percent greater time than the light curve of a nearby supernova. The furthest Type 1a supernova ever observed, over 10 billion light years distant, had a light curve which rose and fell over a period which was 2.5 times greater than the light curve of a nearby supernova.

I might note that the close correspondence between supernova light curves and redshift is evidence against the "tired light" hypothesis.

Tired light advocates may wish to argue that the shift of a Hydrogen red line from, say, 656 nm to 954 nm is due to light turning tired over a 5 billion years distance, but why should Type 1a supernova light curves show the same percentage of tiredness for the same distance?

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:59:19 AM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:

> http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/
> Directory Listing Denied
>
> This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed.

I think the link that you want is on this page:
http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/

On the left-hand side of the grid, you will see a link to current and past colloquia. Many of the videos are fascinating!

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:503b1d87-b75a-47f0...@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:35:58 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:3356ce9f-cf70-4a46...@googlegroups.com...

> |Even the simplest kinematic computations go awry if special relativity is
> not taken into account.
>
> Once again: that Your capability of interpretation is limited to
> this idiotism, doesn't mean it's the only way.
> More, I've watched Your work close enough and long enough
> to know, that You're faking. When it comes to REAL computation
> of a REAL problem, We all can be almost sure, that Your
> revolutionary assumptions will be highly "adapted", and
> the only relativistic thing in the whole procedure will be
> some empty rhetoric.
> Fortunately for You, Your reflexes are smarter.

|There are only two crackpots in this newsgroup who are capable of more than
the simplest algebra. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are DEFINITELY not
one of those two.

:)
First, You don't have ANY argument for this.
Second, capability of recognizing a fake has
nothing in common with neither simplest
algebra, nor any other mathematics.
Third, Your idiotism is NOT a part of mathematics
too, though You love to pretend it is.

[Lord Androcles]

"kefischer" wrote in message
news:41s6n9t8db45oojh4...@4ax.com...

=================================================
You lying bastard, you asked for a comment. Your writing comprehension needs
seeing to.

[kefischer]

On Wed, 14 May 2014 17:37:21 +0100, "Lord Androcles" <Ey...@Medway.Cstl>

Right, I asked for a comment about
the slide, I don't know if k is the time
dilation factor, I am not sure if the
10 days is the time it takes for the
entire event to arrive, or if it only
takes that long for light to arrive
from 5 Billion light years distance. :-)


But since you only know a little
GR math and not much else, it's ok
that you can't comment.

[Lord Androcles]

"kefischer" wrote in message
news:58b7n91hlfv2ke6cj...@4ax.com...

========================================================
Which is what I gave you. The author was Roberts and Roberts is an idiot
trying to disguise his own nonsense as government sanctioned nonsense.
As it's such obvious nonsense he'll claim it's a typo or remain silent.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:55:16 PM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:

> Right, I asked for a comment about
> the slide, I don't know if k is the time
> dilation factor,

No. Light clearly doesn't follow a c' = c + v rule.
The question is whether c' = c + kv where k is some very small number.

> I am not sure if the
> 10 days is the time it takes for the
> entire event to arrive,

No.

> or if it only
> takes that long for light to arrive
> from 5 Billion light years distance. :-)

No.

You apparently missed my response to you from a few hours ago.

If light from a supernova "pulse" travels at different speeds towards Earth due to ballistic effects, the amount that the "pulse" spreads over 5 billion years is less than about 10 days.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 3:28:35 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "kefischer" wrote in message

> news:58b7n91hlfv2ke6cj...@4ax.com...

> Right, I asked for a comment about
> the slide,
> ========================================================
> Which is what I gave you. The author was Roberts and Roberts is an idiot
> trying to disguise his own nonsense as government sanctioned nonsense.
> As it's such obvious nonsense he'll claim it's a typo or remain silent.

The wording could have been a bit better, but the comment nevertheless makes perfect sense when read in context. See my responses to kefischer.

[kefischer]

On Wed, 14 May 2014 21:28:35 +0100, "Lord Androcles" <Ey...@Medway.Cstl>

You're crazy as a loon, but everybody
knew that.

[kefischer]

On Wed, 14 May 2014 13:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Ignorant Raving Crackpot
<ignorantrav...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:55:16 PM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:
>
>> Right, I asked for a comment about
>> the slide, I don't know if k is the time
>> dilation factor,
>
>No. Light clearly doesn't follow a c' = c + v rule.
>The question is whether c' = c + kv where k is some very small number.
>
>> I am not sure if the
>> 10 days is the time it takes for the
>> entire event to arrive,
>
>No.
>
>> or if it only
>> takes that long for light to arrive
>> from 5 Billion light years distance. :-)
>
>No.
>
>You apparently missed my response to you from a few hours ago.

I didn't miss it, but it still isn't clear to me,
I ignore all the c + v stuff.

>If light from a supernova "pulse" travels at different speeds towards Earth due to ballistic effects, the amount that the "pulse" spreads over 5 billion years is less than about 10 days.

I'm guessing there was a lecture with
the slides, so the slides are not the whole
story.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:28:03 PM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:

> I'm guessing there was a lecture with
> the slides, so the slides are not the whole
> story.

Yes. Here it is. You need RealPlayer.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/061213Roberts/index.htm

[Lord Androcles]

"kefischer" wrote in message
news:vnn7n9l0ui383lafp...@4ax.com...

On Wed, 14 May 2014 13:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Ignorant Raving Crackpot
<ignorantrav...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:55:16 PM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:
>
>> Right, I asked for a comment about
>> the slide, I don't know if k is the time
>> dilation factor,
>
>No. Light clearly doesn't follow a c' = c + v rule.
>The question is whether c' = c + kv where k is some very small number.
>
>> I am not sure if the
>> 10 days is the time it takes for the
>> entire event to arrive,
>
>No.
>
>> or if it only
>> takes that long for light to arrive
>> from 5 Billion light years distance. :-)
>
>No.
>
>You apparently missed my response to you from a few hours ago.

I didn't miss it, but it still isn't clear to me,
I ignore all the c + v stuff.

======================================================
Fucking idiots ignore mathematics because fucking idiots don't understand
it.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif --
Einstein.

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message
news:7bb411eb-1b70-4ec1...@googlegroups.com...

========================================================
See Einstein's responses to Roberts and kefischer then the fucking wording
won't matter:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/14/14 5/14/14 12:05 AM, kefischer wrote:
>> http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/061213Roberts/sld014.htm
>
> Can anybody comment on slide 11
> that seems to say that light from novas
> 5 Billion light years away reaches us
> in about 10 days?

I meant that from start to finish all of the light arrives within ~ 10 days, so
the spread of velocities is less than 10 days divided by ~ 5 billion years, or k
< 10^-9.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/14/14 5/14/14 10:30 AM, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/
> On the left-hand side of the grid, you will see a link to current and past
> colloquia. Many of the videos are fascinating!

Yes. This is an amazing resource!

Full disclaimer: One of my colloquiums is included.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

Absolutely. My style is to put only the basic facts on the slides; this is a
LECTURE, not merely a set of slides.


Tom Roberts

[Lord Androcles]

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:k7KdnVWX36j...@giganews.com...

============================================
Hilarious...
This one took from July to September:
http://www.theastronomer.org/vars/2007/v1493aql_LC_V2.gif
http://www.aavso.org/aavso-alert-notice-261
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Einstein
July to September is 10 days, folks.

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:48:05 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles wrote:

> "Tom Roberts" wrote:
> >
> > I meant that from start to finish all of the light arrives
> > within ~ 10 days, so the spread of velocities is less than
> > 10 days divided by ~ 5 billion years, or k < 10^-9.

============================================
> Hilarious... This one took from July to September:
> http://www.theastronomer.org/vars/2007/v1493aql_LC_V2.gif
> http://www.aavso.org/aavso-alert-notice-261
> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
> "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
> - Einstein
> July to September is 10 days, folks.
> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Apparently, Lunkhead Analgel doesn't know the difference
between a nova a few thousand lightyears away and a supernova
five BILLION lightyears away :-)))

Save us from these trollish nincompoops!

Gary

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:48:05 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:

> Hilarious...
> This one took from July to September:
> http://www.theastronomer.org/vars/2007/v1493aql_LC_V2.gif
> http://www.aavso.org/aavso-alert-notice-261
> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
>
> "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Einstein
> July to September is 10 days, folks.

Idiot. Those are not supernova light curves that you have presented.

Different supernova light curves take different forms.

Type 1a supernovae have light curves with a peak lasting around 10-15 days (depending on where you measure, of course!), followed by an extended decay with complex dynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SNIacurva.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparative_supernova_type_light_curves.png

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message

news:a3d21d7f-9516-4f06...@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:48:05 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:

> Hilarious...
> This one took from July to September:
> http://www.theastronomer.org/vars/2007/v1493aql_LC_V2.gif
> http://www.aavso.org/aavso-alert-notice-261
> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
>
> "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Einstein
> July to September is 10 days, folks.

Idiot. Those are not supernova light curves that you have presented.

====================================================================
Don't call me names, you fucking useless cunt. It is one REAL nova's light
curve, delta magnitude of 6. A useless fuckwit like you obviously has no
clue what that is, you fucking imbecile.

Different supernova light curves take different forms.

Type 1a supernovae have light curves with a peak lasting around 10-15 days
(depending on where you measure, of course!), followed by an extended decay
with complex dynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SNIacurva.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparative_supernova_type_light_curves.png

======================================================================
Shithead. Those are not light curves of any real star that you have
presented, they are theoretical. What a clueless arsehole you are.

[Lord Androcles]

wrote in message
news:87b2d78f-a993-4de6...@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:48:05 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" wrote:
> >
> > I meant that from start to finish all of the light arrives
> > within ~ 10 days, so the spread of velocities is less than
> > 10 days divided by ~ 5 billion years, or k < 10^-9.
============================================
> Hilarious... This one took from July to September:
> http://www.theastronomer.org/vars/2007/v1493aql_LC_V2.gif
> http://www.aavso.org/aavso-alert-notice-261
> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
> "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
> - Einstein
> July to September is 10 days, folks.
> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Apparently, Lunkhead Analgel

=============================================================
Obviously fuckwit Shitlong still can't compute speed.

Funny how the two radar guns agree with NM but don't agree with relativity,
imbecile shitlong.
beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
for v = 0.9994c,
beta = 1/sqrt(1-0.9994^2)
= 28.87184456102242327529861961622
Clever shitlong agrees!

Speed of Astronaut in the frame of Sirius = distance /time
= 8.6 ly / 8.605 years = 0.9994c
Clever shitlong agrees!

Speed of Sirius in the frame of Astronaut =( 8.6 * beta ) / ( 8.605/beta)
= 0.9994 * beta^2
= 834.7c
"Nothing can exceed the speed of light"


incompetent moron longshit drivels v' = -v but v' = g*(x-vt) /[ t/g] which
the cunt is too stupid to understand.


Stupid shitlong doesn't like it. Stupid shitlong wants his own relativity to
replace Einstein's. Stupid shitlong ran away.

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:10:39 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles wrote:
>
> Funny how the two radar guns agree with NM but don't agree
> with relativity,

Funny how Lardbutt Analgel repeatedly lies about that and
all things relativity-related.

Why does he persist in this obvious prostitution of his mind?
Why does he insist on being a destructive troll?
Why can't he open his mind to the wonders of existence?

The second question answers the third.

Gary

[Lord Androcles]

shitlong
wrote in message
news:4921fbb3-a328-4e0d...@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:10:39 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles wrote:
>
> Funny how the two radar guns agree with NM but don't agree
> with relativity,

and shitlong is still fucked by Roberts' 10 day long novae.
Snip and run away, cowardly shitlong, you are fucked by the simplest
mathematics.

Funny how the two radar guns agree with NM but don't agree with relativity,

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:23:31 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:

> Shithead. Those are not light curves of any real star that you have
> presented, they are theoretical. What a clueless arsehole you are.

Apparently you do not know the difference between ordinary novae and supernovae.

Here are some real light curves of Type 1a supernovae. There is a certain range of variation in their light curves which depends on their absolute magnitude. Brighter Type Ia supernovae wax and wane more slowly than fainter ones.

The fainter ones wax and wane in about 10 days (depending on where you measure, of course.) The brightest ones take double that time.

The correlation between peak absolute magnitude and sharpness of the peak is very close, so that you can determine the peak absolute magnitude of the supernova provided you have an accurate light curve.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/October/04-supernovae.html

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message

news:8da31228-44b4-48ab...@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:23:31 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:

> Shithead. Those are not light curves of any real star that you have
> presented, they are theoretical. What a clueless arsehole you are.

Apparently you do not know the difference between ordinary novae and
supernovae.

==================================================================
Obviously you don't know the difference between a real cow and a spherical
cow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

Fuck off, you IDIOT, I'm not interested in your crackpot theories, I live in
the real world.

[kefischer]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:43:46 +0100, "Lord Androcles" <Ey...@Medway.Cstl>
wrote:

>
>

Yeah, but it is only one room with
padded walls.

[Lord Androcles]

"kefischer" wrote in message
news:fuuan9tlvi9v4jojd...@4ax.com...

==============================================
I'm sure you find it very comfortable. Enjoy it.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:07:31 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Apparently, Lunkhead Analgel doesn't know the difference
> between a nova a few thousand lightyears away and a supernova
> five BILLION lightyears away :-)))
>
> Save us from these trollish nincompoops!

Androcles doesn't believe in the generally accepted explanation that novas represent nuclear flashes on the surface of white dwarf stars resulting from compression and heating of accreted material from parasitized companion stars.

To Androcles, light curves such as the following represent the overtaking of fast light overtaking slow light by stars in orbital motion.

http://www.theastronomer.org/vars/2007/v1493aql_LC_V2.gif
http://www.aavso.org/aavso-alert-notice-261
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif

The effect that Androcles believes in is illustrated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_Sitter_argument_against_emission_theory.gif

I would imagine that Androcles believes that supernovae are nothing more than scaled-up versions of the same phenomenon.

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message

news:7821d9da-f14e-446f...@googlegroups.com...

==================================================================
Your imagination is accurate, except the wackypedia model is a simple
circular orbit that a jeering idiot would create rather than a correctly
modelled Keplerian ellipse.
Highly amusingly, wackypedia claims "unusually shaped variable star light
curves such as have never been seen".
Make sure you have never seen V1493 Aql or Nova Herculis 1934.


SN 1987A is the result of a collision between two stars as its after-effects
show.
"The close proximity and early detection of SN 1987A make it by far the
best-studied supernova of all time."
http://www.aavso.org/vsots_sn1987a

Androcles doesn't believe in generally accepted explanations authored by
fucking idiots and believed by mainstream sheep all bleating the same
rumour.

[kefischer]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 18:05:50 +0100, "Lord Androcles" <Ey...@Medway.Cstl>
wrote:

>
>

Why should anybody care what the
nothing earl believes as long as the
sewer drippings keep coming out of
s mouth.

[Lord Androcles]

"kefischer" wrote in message
news:jfrcn9tle2pp4i5gh...@4ax.com...

=======================================================
Typical moron, has to get personal when he has no physics or mathematics to
argue. Fuck off, you stupid cunt, believe whatever you want, nobody gives a
shit what a nymshifting fuckwit like you believes except another moron.

[kefischer]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 21:43:45 +0100, "Lord Androcles" <Ey...@Medway.Cstl>

I don't shift my nym to hide, I was
using emoneyjoe because I had been
proposing that all the nations so far
in debt should quit borrowing and
change the tax laws so they could
print the money co cover spending
instead of borrowing more and more.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:05:50 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:

> Your imagination is accurate, except the wackypedia model is a simple
> circular orbit that a jeering idiot would create rather than a correctly
> modelled Keplerian ellipse.

There is nothing wrong with using a circular orbit to illustrate basic principles.

The only problem with the Wikipedia illustration is that the integration period that the author used is too long. Correctly modeled, the beginning rise and the trailing fall should both be infinitely steep rather than spread over two pixels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_Sitter_argument_against_emission_theory.gif

> Highly amusingly, wackypedia claims "unusually shaped variable star light
> curves such as have never been seen".

They haven't been seen. Where are the light curves with infinitely steep rises and falls?

> Make sure you have never seen V1493 Aql or Nova Herculis 1934.

Unfortunately, neither V1493 Aql nor Nova Herculis 1934 have light curves resembling those predicted by emission theory except in the most superficial sense.

Have you ever actually tried to fit them with your program? Can you tell me what combination of orbital parameters and distance are necessary? Do you have an actual magnitude scale on your diagrams? Do you use a sufficiently short integration period to eliminate artifactual broadening of your peaks?

V1493 Aql was not very well observed during its eruption, and is too distant (estimated 4.5 kpc) for the nova remnants to have been clearly observed, but Doppler measurements showed that the envelope was expanding at a rate of approximately 1660 km/s, and its light curve showed interesting periodic variations.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004RMxAC..20..236D
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-5027-5_79
(click on "Look inside" if the preview doesn't pop up automatically)

The nova remnant of Nova Herculis 1934 has been observed and extensively studied. Its light curve showed a "dust dip."
http://jumk.de/astronomie/special-stars/nova-herculis.shtml
http://www.garypoyner.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/JBAA-%20George%20Alcock%20Lecture.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981ApJ...244.1022F
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978ApJ...224..171W
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972MNRAS.159..321W
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0305132.pdf

Other novae with interesting light curves that you should try fitting are V2362 Cyg, V2491 Cyg, Nova Cas 1993 and Nova Serpentis 1970.

When presenting me your fitted light curve for Nova Herculis 1934, be sure to include the long slow decline from 1935 to 1949, as well as the eclipses that occur every 4.6 hours (scroll to bottom of the page):
http://www.britastro.org/vss/00191a.html

> SN 1987A is the result of a collision between two stars as its after-effects
> show.
> "The close proximity and early detection of SN 1987A make it by far the
> best-studied supernova of all time."
> http://www.aavso.org/vsots_sn1987a

"Single-degenerate" Type 1a supernovae result where the white dwarf member of a binary pair gradually accretes matter from a parasitized companion star. The white dwarf reaches the Chandrasekhar limit and then implodes. This is the classic scenario for their origin.

Two white dwarf stars colliding will result in a "supersize" or "double-degenerate" Type 1a. The two progenitor white dwarfs may merge by the inspiraling (due to gravitational radiation) of a close binary pair, or they may directly collide (it is believed that this scenario may occur frequently in dense globular clusters).

One example of a Type 1a generally believed to be of double-degenerate origin is SNR 0509-67.5
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2195

Other Type 1a supernovae with a suspected (but not proven) double-degenerate origin include SN 2003fg and SN 2011fe.

Collisions between two non-degenerate stars will not generally result in a supernova.

SN 1987A was a Type II, or "core-collapse" supernova. Core-collapse supernovae originate from the collapse of giant precursor stars that have run out of nuclear fuel.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 3:00:01 PM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:

> Why should anybody care what the
> nothing earl believes as long as the
> sewer drippings keep coming out of
> s mouth.

He gives me a good excuse to lounge back in my recliner chair with a half-dozen printouts of astronomy papers to enjoy. I've been an amateur astronomer for over fifty years, and twenty years ago actually published an article in a major amateur astronomy magazine. Nowadays, I contribute a lot to my local club newsletter (mostly deep sky photos).

So no, I don't care what he says, but he IS rather amusing.

[kefischer]

I bored a hole in a 12.25 inch mirror,
and made a tube for a college telescope,
but that doesn't mean I want to read such
hostile and insane garbage as he writes.

Funny or not, it doesn't belong on
the internet.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

Different strokes for different folks, of course!

Clear skies!

:-)

[shuba]

kefischer wrote:

> Funny or not,
> it doesn't belong on the internet.

Luckily, freedom-hating wannabe fascist dictator Kenneth Edmund
Fischer has no control over what gets placed online by others.
Instead of dreaming of quashing others' freedoms, the detestable,
feeble-minded old buffoon might consider joining or starting a
moderated forum, or at least learning how to use filters here.


---Tim Shuba---

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message

news:d96cf750-a49d-4398...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:05:50 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:

> Your imagination is accurate, except the wackypedia model is a simple
> circular orbit that a jeering idiot would create rather than a correctly
> modelled Keplerian ellipse.

so that basic principle has not been illustrated.There is nothing wrong with

using a circular orbit to illustrate basic principles.

===============================================================
Oh yes there is.
The shape of the light curve changes dramatically with distance so that
basic principle has not been illustrated.
The horns are too widely separated and of equal height, whereas an
elliptical orbit will make them uneven so that basic principle has not been
illustrated.
The horns are travelling, gawd only knows why.
At shorter distances there are no horns, you have cepheids and eclipsing
variables so that basic principle has not been illustrated.
There is nothing wrong with Santa delivering toys at Easter.

The only problem with the Wikipedia illustration is that the integration
period that the author used is too long. Correctly modeled, the beginning
rise and the trailing fall should both be infinitely steep rather than
spread over two pixels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_Sitter_argument_against_emission_theory.gif

==================================================================
Two pixels? The fucking width of the entire gif is 1000 light years, you
can't illustrate both the flea on the elephant's arse and the elephant in
the same picture.

> Highly amusingly, wackypedia claims "unusually shaped variable star light
> curves such as have never been seen".

They haven't been seen.

=============================================================
Not by you, you are as blind as a soccer referee at a tennis match.

Where are the light curves with infinitely steep rises and falls?

======================================================
The fall is your imagination, you haven't modelled it.
As to the rise, well... astronomer looks up and sees a nova... it wasn't
there last night. That's about as infinitely steep as it gets, you dumb
bastard.
As I said, you are as blind as a mole in a cave at midnight.

> Make sure you have never seen V1493 Aql or Nova Herculis 1934.

Unfortunately, neither V1493 Aql nor Nova Herculis 1934 have light curves
resembling those predicted by emission theory except in the most superficial
sense.

========================================
There is nothing wrong with using a Keplerian elliptical orbit to piss all
over your superficial two pixel senselessness.

Have you ever actually tried to fit them with your program?

=================================================
Have you ever actually opened your eyes wider than two pixels? Go away,
moron, you are incredibly stupid to think I would not.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:31:55 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message
> news:d96cf750-a49d-4398...@googlegroups.com...

> There is nothing wrong with

> using a circular orbit to illustrate basic principles.
> ===============================================================
> Oh yes there is.
> The shape of the light curve changes dramatically with distance so that
> basic principle has not been illustrated.
> The horns are too widely separated and of equal height, whereas an
> elliptical orbit will make them uneven so that basic principle has not been
> illustrated.
> The horns are travelling, gawd only knows why.
> At shorter distances there are no horns, you have cepheids and eclipsing
> variables so that basic principle has not been illustrated.
> There is nothing wrong with Santa delivering toys at Easter.

At the distance of the SMC, LMC, M31, M33, NGC 6822, IC 1613 and other galaxies of the local group, emission theory predicts that variable light curves should practically ALL have horns, yet thousands of Cepheids and eclipsing binaries have been cataloged in these galaxies, and no periodic horned novae.

According to emission theory, the only way multiple star systems in these galaxies could display Cepheid and eclipsing binary light curves is if they are oriented practically face-on with respect to us. Why should virtually all multiple star systems in these galaxies be face-on to us? Your population statistics are way off.

> Where are the light curves with infinitely steep rises and falls?
> ======================================================
> The fall is your imagination, you haven't modelled it.

It is quite simple to demonstrate why BOTH rises and falls must be practically instantaneous.
http://tinyurl.com/le6zklu
When fast light overtakes slow light, one stream of light becomes three streams of light. It is logically impossible for an observer to see one stream of light gradually transition to three streams of light. Likewise, it is logically impossible for the transition from three streams of light back down to one stream of light to be a gradual process. The transition is necessarily all or nothing.

> As to the rise, well... astronomer looks up and sees a nova... it wasn't
> there last night. That's about as infinitely steep as it gets, you dumb
> bastard.
> As I said, you are as blind as a mole in a cave at midnight.

Although I do have a strong prescription in my glasses, it is YOU who refuse to read any research papers with results contrary to your religion:

Who is blind?

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message

news:de6fe814-a105-428b...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:31:55 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message
> news:d96cf750-a49d-4398...@googlegroups.com...

> There is nothing wrong with
> using a circular orbit to illustrate basic principles.
> ===============================================================
> Oh yes there is.
> The shape of the light curve changes dramatically with distance so that
> basic principle has not been illustrated.
> The horns are too widely separated and of equal height, whereas an
> elliptical orbit will make them uneven so that basic principle has not
> been
> illustrated.
> The horns are travelling, gawd only knows why.
> At shorter distances there are no horns, you have cepheids and eclipsing
> variables so that basic principle has not been illustrated.
> There is nothing wrong with Santa delivering toys at Easter.

At the distance of the SMC, LMC, M31, M33, NGC 6822, IC 1613 and other
galaxies of the local group, emission theory predicts
that variable light curves should practically ALL have horns, yet thousands
of Cepheids and eclipsing binaries have been cataloged in these galaxies,
and no periodic horned novae.

===========================================================
You have no fucking idea what emission theory predicts, you've never
modelled it and are mathematically illiterate and stupid.

According to emission theory, the only way multiple star systems in these
galaxies could display Cepheid and eclipsing binary light curves is if they
are oriented practically face-on with respect to us.

=========================================================
As of course some will be.

Why should virtually all multiple star systems in these galaxies be face-on
to us?

==========================================================
They are not, so they don't look like cepheids and eclipsing binaries.
Which "multiple star systems" have you identified in the SMC, LMC, M31,
M33, NGC 6822, IC 1613 and other galaxies of the local group?

Your population statistics are way off.

=================================
I have not provided any population statistics so they can't be. Your neuron
density is way off.

> Where are the light curves with infinitely steep rises and falls?
> ======================================================
> The fall is your imagination, you haven't modelled it.

It is quite simple to demonstrate why BOTH rises and falls must be
practically instantaneous.
http://tinyurl.com/le6zklu

============================================================
So according to you all orbits are perfectly circular.
It is quite simple to demonstrate you are talking out of your arse and
farting with your mouth.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm

When fast light overtakes slow light, one stream of light becomes three
streams of light. It is logically impossible for an observer to see one
stream of light gradually transition to three streams of light.
Likewise, it is logically impossible for the transition from three streams
of light back down to one stream of light to be a gradual process. The
transition is necessarily all or nothing.

=======================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosting_(television)
Tell wackypedia ghosting is logically impossible.
You really are fucking insane, aren't you?

> As to the rise, well... astronomer looks up and sees a nova... it wasn't
> there last night. That's about as infinitely steep as it gets, you dumb
> bastard.
> As I said, you are as blind as a mole in a cave at midnight.

Although I do have a strong prescription in my glasses, it is YOU who refuse
to read any research papers with results contrary to your religion:

=================================================
I did my own research after I read
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
thoroughly and found it led to impossibilities. The speed of light is source
dependent. You can fuck about with all the time dilation and length
contractions you want to, I live in the real world.

According to you it is quite simple to demonstrate why BOTH rises and falls
must be practically instantaneous from a circular orbit, so all orbits must
be circular.
I suppose I could be fascinated by your incredible blustering stupidity, but
actually I'm bored by it. Produce the mathematics or fuck off.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:15:49 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message

> news:de6fe814-a105-428b...@googlegroups.com...

>
> At the distance of the SMC, LMC, M31, M33, NGC 6822, IC 1613 and other
> galaxies of the local group, emission theory predicts
> that variable light curves should practically ALL have horns, yet thousands
> of Cepheids and eclipsing binaries have been cataloged in these galaxies,
> and no periodic horned novae.
> ===========================================================
> You have no fucking idea what emission theory predicts, you've never
> modelled it and are mathematically illiterate and stupid.

Of course I've modeled it. I have hundreds of Matlab simulations on an old desktop machine in the garage with a blown power supply that I don't care to replace, and I am quite thoroughly familiar with your buggy, amateurish piece of "Copernicus" crap, which I have running on a virtual 32-bit XP machine. I prepared this image for you last night:
http://tinyurl.com/ovo4jq2
As seen above, at the distance of M31, it takes only the TINIEST deviation of a star's orbit from being directly face-on for emission theory to predict a horned light curve.

For larger inclinations of the star from face-on, you get a forest of spikes:
http://tinyurl.com/nhparvt
Due to severe limitations in your program (it crashes using more than about 2,000,000 or so photons, and you don't have enough horizontal bins), it is not easy to see that the horns have infinitely steep sides. With my Matlab scripts, I ran sequenced sets of runs of fifty million photons in sixty-four thousand bins, automatically varying a single parameter (for example, pitch) while holding the other parameters constant. My scripts generated distinctly named csv files for each choice of parameters. I'd set it to run overnight, and I'd import the files into a separate visualization program to see the results. I could even import into Excel if I wanted to. (That's the reason why I had a maximum of sixty-four thousand bins.) I could vary filter width, could alter the vertical scale, and could display multiple curves on a single graph. Your program doesn't generate a data file, so you are stuck with the filter width that you choose at the start of the run, and it only generates one curve at a time.

Now, why would I spend so much time in such a ridiculous pursuit, you ask? As I've explained before, I am an active member of my local astronomy club. It's one of the largest clubs in the country, and over the years, it has included in its membership various crackpots. One was an Arp fanatic and tired light advocate, and another a believer in emission theory. I've discovered that in real life, crackpots are often quite nice people, sane in almost all respects except for a single idee fixe. I had various personal reasons for wanting to correct his misconceptions.

> Why should virtually all multiple star systems in these galaxies be face-on
> to us?
> ==========================================================
> They are not, so they don't look like cepheids and eclipsing binaries.

Emission theory predicts that the VAST MAJORITY of variable star light curves in these galaxies will be spiked. In reality, the vast majority of variable star light curves look like ordinary variable star light curves. Therefore, emission theory concludes that the vast majority of multiple star systems in these galaxies are almost face-on to us.

> Which "multiple star systems" have you identified in the SMC, LMC, M31,
> M33, NGC 6822, IC 1613 and other galaxies of the local group?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0511045.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9812348
http://cds.cern.ch/record/322686/files/9703124.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0606279
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.3168
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...418L..67S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978ApJ...223..730D
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0204033
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992AJ....104.1072S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1971ApJ...166...13S
...and so on and so forth.

> > Where are the light curves with infinitely steep rises and falls?
> > ======================================================
> > The fall is your imagination, you haven't modelled it.

Come on, BOTH you and I have modeled horned light curves with infinitely steep rises and falls. Here are some of YOUR figures:
http://tinyurl.com/ne8wqj8

> When fast light overtakes slow light, one stream of light becomes three
> streams of light. It is logically impossible for an observer to see one
> stream of light gradually transition to three streams of light.
> Likewise, it is logically impossible for the transition from three streams
> of light back down to one stream of light to be a gradual process. The
> transition is necessarily all or nothing.
> =======================================================
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosting_(television)
> Tell wackypedia ghosting is logically impossible.
> You really are fucking insane, aren't you?

Since I am wasting so much time trying to educate you, maybe.

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message

news:0a8bfc2f-c348-4d8a...@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:15:49 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message
> news:de6fe814-a105-428b...@googlegroups.com...
>
> At the distance of the SMC, LMC, M31, M33, NGC 6822, IC 1613 and other
> galaxies of the local group, emission theory predicts
> that variable light curves should practically ALL have horns, yet
> thousands
> of Cepheids and eclipsing binaries have been cataloged in these galaxies,
> and no periodic horned novae.
> ===========================================================
> You have no fucking idea what emission theory predicts, you've never
> modelled it and are mathematically illiterate and stupid.

Of course I've modeled it. I have hundreds of Matlab simulations on an old
desktop machine in the garage with a blown power supply that I don't care to
replace, and I am quite thoroughly familiar with your buggy, amateurish
piece of "Copernicus" crap, which I have running on a virtual 32-bit XP
machine. I prepared this image for you last night:
http://tinyurl.com/ovo4jq2
As seen above, at the distance of M31, it takes only the TINIEST deviation
of a star's orbit from being directly face-on for emission theory to predict
a horned light curve.

===================================================
Twinkle, twinkle.... just noise with no significant change in magnitude. So
what is your point?

For larger inclinations of the star from face-on, you get a forest of
spikes:
http://tinyurl.com/nhparvt

===================================================
Twinkle, twinkle.... just noise with no significant change in magnitude. So
what is your point?

Due to severe limitations in your program (it crashes using more than about
2,000,000 or so photons, and you don't have enough horizontal bins),

==============================================
Guilty as charged, but GIGO <shrug>. What do you need 2,000,000 photons for?
I'm modelling instant light curves with 100 photons in a spreadsheet
nowadays.

it is not easy to see that the horns have infinitely steep sides.

=======================================================
Not for 6 magnitudes like V 1493 Aql they don't.

With my Matlab scripts, I ran sequenced sets of runs of fifty million
photons in sixty-four thousand bins, automatically varying a single
parameter (for example, pitch) while holding the other parameters constant.

===================================
And circular orbits?

My scripts generated distinctly named csv files for each choice of
parameters. I'd set it to run overnight, and I'd import the files into a
separate visualization program to see the results. I could even import into
Excel if I wanted to. (That's the reason why I had a maximum of sixty-four
thousand bins.) I could vary filter width, could alter the vertical scale,
and could display multiple curves on a single graph. Your program doesn't
generate a data file, so you are stuck with the filter width that you choose
at the start of the run, and it only generates one curve at a time.

========================================
Guilty as charged. Copernicus.exe was written fro Winsowsa in 1993 on a 12
MHz '386 with a math coprocessor and 4 Mbytes of RAM. Don't expect flat
screen TV in the Wright "Flyer".
Nevertheless wackypedia is lying with its "never been seen" bullshit.

Now, why would I spend so much time in such a ridiculous pursuit, you ask?

=================================================================
Because you now suspect emission theory must be correct but it hasn't sunk
in yet, the alternative is aether and that went out with MMX.

As I've explained before, I am an active member of my local astronomy club

============================================================
Your hobby is of no interest to me or science.
Either light's speed is source dependent, like a bullet, or aether
dependent, like sound, the only other choice is observer dependent and that
is ridiculous.
MMX says it can't be aether dependent, the Earth is being carried through
the aether and the apparatus carried with it can be rotated into and out of
the aether wind.

Cepheids, so-called "eclipsing" variables and recurrent novae are all
modelled using emission theory. Even Einstein realised this when he wrote
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that
\begin{displaymath}\frac{x'}{c-v}=t. \end{displaymath} " -- Einstein.

Minor defects in any computer program can't change that. The spikes that
concern you are less than 0.1 magnitude, just noise, you'll get more
variation from atmosphere than that.

If you want to "educate" me with your fairy tales you'll have to explain
what makes the speed of light observer dependent, since you've ruled out
source dependence and MMX ruled out aether dependence; there is not much
else left.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:59:33 AM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:

> Minor defects in any computer program can't change that. The spikes that
> concern you are less than 0.1 magnitude, just noise, you'll get more
> variation from atmosphere than that.

Liar. From base magnitude to the bottom of the "saddle" is generally around 1.5 magnitudes or so, and the spikes run several times that. The denser your integration steps, the higher the spikes.

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message

news:d42fc11a-d67f-40dd...@googlegroups.com...

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

Either light's speed is source dependent, like a bullet, or aether
dependent, like sound, the only other choice is observer dependent and that
is ridiculous.
MMX says it can't be aether dependent, the Earth is being carried through
the aether and the apparatus carried with it can be rotated into and out of
the aether wind.

Cepheids, so-called "eclipsing" variables and recurrent novae are all
modelled using emission theory. Even Einstein realised this when he wrote
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that
\begin{displaymath}\frac{x'}{c-v}=t. \end{displaymath} " -- Einstein.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:27:21 AM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:

> Either light's speed is source dependent, like a bullet, or aether
> dependent, like sound, the only other choice is observer dependent and that
> is ridiculous.

FALSE DICHOTOMY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message

news:8a5d2f80-f99a-4315...@googlegroups.com...

========================================================
Nothing false about it at all.
You stop at a red light and you go on a green light. Going on red and
stopping on green will result in catastrophe; there are no other choices.
What middle did I exclude?
What conjunct did I deny?
If there is a third choice, say what it is.
C'mon, smart arse, educate me on how the speed of light is observer
dependent with your Mathlab.
Educate me in your religion, teach me the holy word of the prophet deSitter
whose claim is emission theory is absurd because he doesn't like it and you
don't like it. What's absurd about it?
BTW, my spreadsheet program doesn't use bins. Instead it uses the delta time
of arrival between successive photons. The smaller that is the greater the
frequency and the greater the number of photons per second arrive and the
brighter the object appears; then apply the magnitude function to that,
although I used the natural logarithm for simplicity as magnitude is an
arbitrary choice that varies from eyeball to eyeball and was only
standardised when the photo-electric cell was invented.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:17:33 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message
> news:8a5d2f80-f99a-4315...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:27:21 AM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:
>
> > Either light's speed is source dependent, like a bullet, or aether
> > dependent, like sound, the only other choice is observer dependent and
> > that
> > is ridiculous.
>
> FALSE DICHOTOMY
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
> ========================================================
> Nothing false about it at all.
> You stop at a red light and you go on a green light. Going on red and
> stopping on green will result in catastrophe; there are no other choices.
> What middle did I exclude?
> What conjunct did I deny?
> If there is a third choice, say what it is.

The third choice is that we live in a local environment that, to a good approximation, has the geometry of Minkowski spacetime.

> C'mon, smart arse, educate me on how the speed of light is observer
> dependent with your Mathlab.
> Educate me in your religion, teach me the holy word of the prophet deSitter
> whose claim is emission theory is absurd because he doesn't like it and you
> don't like it. What's absurd about it?
> BTW, my spreadsheet program doesn't use bins. Instead it uses the delta time
> of arrival between successive photons. The smaller that is the greater the
> frequency and the greater the number of photons per second arrive and the
> brighter the object appears; then apply the magnitude function to that,
> although I used the natural logarithm for simplicity as magnitude is an
> arbitrary choice that varies from eyeball to eyeball and was only
> standardised when the photo-electric cell was invented.

So you would record the photon arrival times from one loop of the orbit, adding or subtracting an integral number of orbital period times so that all of the photons are adjusted to arrive in one period interval, sort the array by adjusted arrival time, and then use the inverse delta times as a measure of the magnitude.

Nice!

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message

news:5f7af653-3245-4360...@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:17:33 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:
> "Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message
> news:8a5d2f80-f99a-4315...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:27:21 AM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:
>
> > Either light's speed is source dependent, like a bullet, or aether
> > dependent, like sound, the only other choice is observer dependent and
> > that
> > is ridiculous.
>
> FALSE DICHOTOMY
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
> ========================================================
> Nothing false about it at all.
> You stop at a red light and you go on a green light. Going on red and
> stopping on green will result in catastrophe; there are no other choices.
> What middle did I exclude?
> What conjunct did I deny?
> If there is a third choice, say what it is.

The third choice is that we live in a local environment that, to a good
approximation, has the geometry of Minkowski spacetime.

======================================================
Oh, ok.
How many centimetres are there in a hour, Ignorant Raving Crackpot?

> C'mon, smart arse, educate me on how the speed of light is observer
> dependent with your Mathlab.
> Educate me in your religion, teach me the holy word of the prophet
> deSitter
> whose claim is emission theory is absurd because he doesn't like it and
> you
> don't like it. What's absurd about it?
> BTW, my spreadsheet program doesn't use bins. Instead it uses the delta
> time
> of arrival between successive photons. The smaller that is the greater the
> frequency and the greater the number of photons per second arrive and the
> brighter the object appears; then apply the magnitude function to that,
> although I used the natural logarithm for simplicity as magnitude is an
> arbitrary choice that varies from eyeball to eyeball and was only
> standardised when the photo-electric cell was invented.

So you would record the photon arrival times from one loop of the orbit,
adding or subtracting an integral number of orbital period times so that all
of the photons are adjusted to arrive in one period interval, sort the array
by adjusted arrival time, and then use the inverse delta times as a measure
of the magnitude.

Nice!

=====================================================
I didn't say that. What I said was:

BTW, my spreadsheet program doesn't use bins.
C'mon, smart arse, educate me on how the speed of light is observer
dependent with your Mathlab.
Educate me in your religion, teach me the holy word of the prophet deSitter
whose claim is emission theory is absurd because he doesn't like it and you
don't like it. What's absurd about it?

To which I'll now add: show me how to divide apples by oranges and miles by
days in spacetime Mathlab.
C'mon, I'm eager to learn how to be a real wanker like you and Minkowski.

[Odell G. Kreiger]

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> Can anybody comment on slide 11
>> that seems to say that light from novas 5 Billion light years away
>> reaches us in about 10 days?
>
> I meant that from start to finish all of the light arrives within ~ 10
> days, so the spread of velocities is less than 10 days divided by ~ 5
> billion years, or k < 10^-9.

Yes, but from the light self point of view it took ZERO days, since no
time passes for a light pulse of 10 days :)