How much more proof does one need?
Henry Wilson DSc
Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
simulation.
The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
making complete fools of themselves.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Henry Wilson DSc
Sorry, here's the website:
www.scisite.info/R Cru2.jpg
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:jvafg5t0r28oros6h...@4ax.com...
There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a
couple of days I was getting worried about ya.
If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this:
www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg
Dirk Van de moortel
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
Wilson's degrees are clearly forged:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ForgedDegree.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
Dirk Vdm
eric gisse
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a
> BaTh simulation.
>
> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted
> light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large
> planet.
Cephids aren't planetary systems.
>
> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids'
> are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and
> stop making complete fools of themselves.
Around the time you post under your real name.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
OK Try this: http://www.scisite.info/r_cru.jpg
Pretty convincing, eh?
Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I
haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different
values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product
(distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a particular
factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same curve, as
you should know.
BURT
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:39:14 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The speed of light is a constant until inside the atom.
Mitch Raemsch
Henry Wilson DSc
...idiot..
>Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
Inertial
news:4mjgg5pm74d7f4i74...@4ax.com...
> Pretty convincing, eh?
Nothing a known liar such as yourself posts would be convincing
Greg Hennessy
> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I
> haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
> because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different
> values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively.
I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it
past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho
catalog does not include parallax.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:39:14 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:jvafg5t0r28oros6h...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 GMT, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> Sorry, here's the website:
>>> www.scisite.info/R Cru2.jpg
>>>
>>> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>>>
>>> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
>>
>>
>>There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a
>>couple of days I was getting worried about ya.
>>If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this:
>> www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg
>
> OK Try this: http://www.scisite.info/r_cru.jpg
>
> Pretty convincing, eh?
Not bad. Now do it with 100 points as I did.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
Eccentricity .25
Yaw angle 82
Pitch angle 0
Distance 280
Phase 1
Sample 0
> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch.
> I
> haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
> because I cannot find reliable figures.
EXACTLY!
Distance is the Holy Grail of Astronomy, that's why Hipparcos
and Tycho were launched.
> Hipparcos and Tycho give different
> values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product
> (distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a
> particular
> factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same
> curve, as
> you should know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hipparcos-accuracies.gif
I have a question, though.
Why does your program refer to more than one star?
A cepheid is a star and a planet, not a double star.
Androcles
"Greg Hennessy" <greg.h...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%V%Nm.17396$gd1....@newsfe05.iad...
http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/catalogs/tycho2.html
The Tycho-2 positions and magnitudes are based on precisely the same
observations as the Tycho-1 Catalogue (ESA SP-1200, 1997) collected by the
star mapper of the ESA Hipparcos satellite, but Tycho-2 is much bigger and
slightly more precise, owing to a more advanced reduction technique.
I shall ignore Hennessy's farting, he has his head up his arse.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Henry Wilson DSc
What is this then?
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_scripts/HIPcatalogueSearch.pl
Catogue T(ycho), parallax = 3.1
Here's the Hipparcos one:
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_scripts/HIPcatalogueSearch.pl
trig parallx = 1.97
So who is the dickhead now?
Henry Wilson DSc
Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
Inertial
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>
> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
Wrong
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:atdhg514lb7kne2ul...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>
> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
>
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
Why do you bother with fuckwits?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
Hennessy is the dickhead with his cock up his own arse.
Inertial
news:y_2Om.130211$9M4....@newsfe03.ams2...
>
> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> news:atdhg514lb7kne2ul...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>>
>> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
>>
> Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
Of course, there is no third postulate
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
That doesn't show anything wrong apart from you
> Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
> Why do you bother with fuckwits?
Because you are entertaining.
BradGuth
Photons or quantum strings if you like can not coexist inside the
atom.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
> >> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> >Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>
> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
subjective = objective (it's the mainstream new math = cosmology
that's politically and faith-based correct)
~ BG
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:atdhg514lb7kne2ul...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>>
>> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
>>
>Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
So was his second.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
yes, not bad
>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
Inertial
Seeing you're a total moron and a liar, you could use as much boosting as
you can get. Though how being continually shown that you are wrong boost
your ego is anyone's guess. But then, you are a moron.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
It gives me an ego boost to rub your nose in it, dopey.
(Not really -- I don't have your ego, Henry Wilson 'D'opey 'Sc'um. )
Inertial
>
> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> news:ol4ig5ta71aug24mv...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:20:37 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>news:atdhg514lb7kne2ul...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>>>news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oa...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
>>>>
>>>> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the
>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>> So was his second.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
>>
>> yes, not bad
>>
>>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
>>>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
>>
>> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
>
> You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
> travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
As the second postulate says the speed from A to B is the same as the speed
from B to A, and as the distance is the same for two fixed points, then it
must be the same time.
You've never shown it to be otherwise .. and you can't.
Even ballistic theory says that light travelling from A to B and B to A will
behave that way (if A is the source) and you get the same time taken.
> It gives me an ego boost to rub your nose in it, dopey.
So .. Ralph was correct once upon a time. Must have been a fluke :)
> (Not really -- I don't have your ego, Henry Wilson 'D'opey 'Sc'um. )
> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..>
Oh .. I think you do.
Greg Hennessy
On 2009-11-22, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). <HW@> wrote:
> What is this then?
>
> http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_scripts/HIPcatalogueSearch.pl
It is a link to a perl script, that does not work as an independant
link.
Greg Hennessy
> I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it
> past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho
> catalog does not include parallax.
I was incorrect with this claim.
Henry Wilson DSc
Thank you.
You win a prize for being the first relativist to admit to being wrong.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:ol4ig5ta71aug24mv...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:20:37 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>>>>
>>>Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>> So was his second.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
>>
>> yes, not bad
>>
>>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
>>>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
>>
>> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
>
>You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
>travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
It IS correct if the source is at rest with the mirror....as in any TWLS
experiment.
Even YOU should be able to work that out.
Einstein, who obviously still believed in an aether, concocted the idea of
adjusting clocks so that tAB would always equal tBA even if it wasn't true. He
was a cheating idiot.
>It gives me an ego boost to rub your nose in it, dopey.
>(Not really -- I don't have your ego, Henry Wilson 'D'opey 'Sc'um. )
Your inabililty to read properly doesn't worry me at all.
> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..>
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:ol4ig5ta71aug24mv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:20:37 -0000, "Androcles"
>>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>
>>>>>
>>>>Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> So was his second.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
>>>
>>> yes, not bad
>>>
>>>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
>>>>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
>>>
>>> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
>>
>>You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
>>travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
>
> It IS correct if the source is at rest with the mirror....as in any TWLS
> experiment.
I just did a TWLS experiment and it obviously isn't correct.
Wanna see it again?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
> Even YOU should be able to work that out.
The whole point of relativity is to have a v in 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A
and it is seldom correct. Even a used car saleman like YOU should be
able to work that out.
> Einstein, who obviously still believed in an aether, concocted the idea
> of
> adjusting clocks so that tAB would always equal tBA even if it wasn't
> true. He
> was a cheating idiot.
Yes, but it was YOU that said his ``time'' required by light to travel from
A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A was correct.
How much more proof does one need?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:07:16 GMT, Greg Hennessy <greg.h...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>["Followup-To:" header set to sci.astro.]
>>On 2009-11-22, Greg Hennessy <greg.h...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it
>>> past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho
>>> catalog does not include parallax.
>>
>>I was incorrect with this claim.
>
> Thank you.
>
> You win a prize for being the first relativist to admit to being wrong.
You still haven't admitted to being wrong, D unifuckation Sc. guy .
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:bb5jg59g7tfaj3i1u...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>>
>>>> So was his second.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
>>>>
>>>> yes, not bad
>>>>
>>>>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
>>>>>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
>>>>
>>>> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
>>>
>>>You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
>>>travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
>>
>> It IS correct if the source is at rest with the mirror....as in any TWLS
>> experiment.
>
>I just did a TWLS experiment and it obviously isn't correct.
>Wanna see it again?
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
What's that? Androclearo Crapiro?
The source and mirror are not MAR....and you are using a rotating frame.
>> Even YOU should be able to work that out.
>
>The whole point of relativity is to have a v in 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>
>You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
>travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A
>and it is seldom correct. Even a used car saleman like YOU should be
>able to work that out.
It is always correct in flat gravity if the source, detector and mirror are
MAR. That's what W.E.T. (BaTh) says.
>
>> Einstein, who obviously still believed in an aether, concocted the idea
>> of
>> adjusting clocks so that tAB would always equal tBA even if it wasn't
>> true. He
>> was a cheating idiot.
>
>Yes, but it was YOU that said his ``time'' required by light to travel from
>A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A was correct.
>How much more proof does one need?
You don't read properly. I clearly stated that it is true if and only if the
source, detector and mirror are MAR and in flat gravity.
Einstein on the other hand thought that an 'aether flow' would cause the two
times to be different....so he cheated by fiddling his clocks and making them
equal.
....the amazing thing is that dopes like little eric and inertial still cannot
see the joke Einstein played on the whole scientific community.
BradGuth
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:45:39 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:bb5jg59g7tfaj3i1u...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0000, "Androcles"
These crazy guys have no proper sense of humor, especially of any
Einstein perpetrated ruse.
~ BG
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
"A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'...
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson
news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jg...@4ax.com
The source is Earth and the "mirror" is Mars.... and I am using a
rotating frame.
"ROTATING FRAMES FEATURE IMAGINARY EFFECTS.
DON'T TRY TO USE THEM."-- Wilson
news:drh9e553jdb7u87m7...@4ax.com
"DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it).
news:aqqqm35ka2ef6qhei...@4ax.com
>>> Even YOU should be able to work that out.
>>
>>The whole point of relativity is to have a v in 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>>
>>You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to
>>travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A
>>and it is seldom correct. Even a used car saleman like YOU should be
>>able to work that out.
>
> It is always correct in flat gravity if the source, detector and mirror
> are
> MAR. That's what W.E.T. (BaTh) says.
So a used car salesman like you could NOT work it out.
No surprise there. Got any more VW camper vans for sale?
>>
>>> Einstein, who obviously still believed in an aether, concocted the idea
>>> of
>>> adjusting clocks so that tAB would always equal tBA even if it wasn't
>>> true. He
>>> was a cheating idiot.
>>
>>Yes, but it was YOU that said his ``time'' required by light to travel
>>from
>>A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A was correct.
>>How much more proof does one need?
>
> You don't read properly. I clearly stated that it is true if and only if
> the
> source, detector and mirror are MAR and in flat gravity.
Not two years ago, you didn't. You are a fuckin' slow learner.
Besides, gravity is irrelevant.
> Einstein on the other hand thought that an 'aether flow' would cause the
> two
> times to be different....so he cheated by fiddling his clocks and making
> them
> equal.
>
> ....the amazing thing is that dopes like little eric and inertial still
> cannot
> see the joke Einstein played on the whole scientific community.
>
And you fell for it. At least now you are slowly catching on.
Little Eric is just a dope, the spitting image of a retard. He is
involuntarily stupid. Inertial is just a cunt, he's voluntarily a moron.
eric gisse
[...]
>
> ....the amazing thing is that dopes like little eric and inertial still
> cannot see the joke Einstein played on the whole scientific community.
Do you _really_ find it easier to believe Einstein has been tricking the
entire world of physics for the last century than accepting that you are
wrong?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:takjg5tvvu2o9hrv6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:45:39 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>
>>>Yes, but it was YOU that said his ``time'' required by light to travel
>>>from
>>>A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A was correct.
>>>How much more proof does one need?
>>
>> You don't read properly. I clearly stated that it is true if and only if
>> the
>> source, detector and mirror are MAR and in flat gravity.
>
>Not two years ago, you didn't. You are a fuckin' slow learner.
>Besides, gravity is irrelevant.
No it isn't.
Pound and Rebka showed why.
>> Einstein on the other hand thought that an 'aether flow' would cause the
>> two
>> times to be different....so he cheated by fiddling his clocks and making
>> them
>> equal.
>>
>> ....the amazing thing is that dopes like little eric and inertial still
>> cannot
>> see the joke Einstein played on the whole scientific community.
>>
>And you fell for it. At least now you are slowly catching on.
>Little Eric is just a dope, the spitting image of a retard. He is
>involuntarily stupid. Inertial is just a cunt, he's voluntarily a moron.
Inertial has to be a 'she'. No man could be that stupid.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:38:23 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:takjg5tvvu2o9hrv6...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:45:39 -0000, "Androcles"
>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but it was YOU that said his ``time'' required by light to travel
>>>>from
>>>>A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A was
>>>>correct.
>>>>How much more proof does one need?
>>>
>>> You don't read properly. I clearly stated that it is true if and only if
>>> the
>>> source, detector and mirror are MAR and in flat gravity.
>>
>>Not two years ago, you didn't. You are a fuckin' slow learner.
>>Besides, gravity is irrelevant.
>
> No it isn't.
> Pound and Rebka showed why.
Bwahahahaha!
v ~= gh/c = 7.5E-07 m/s??
That's a keeper, I'll add it to my collection.
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:4r2kg5df673rgadip...@4ax.com
"The Pound and Rebka audio experiment showed why gravity
was relevant." -- Wilson the Einstein Dingleberry.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:4r2kg5df673rgadip...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:38:23 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>>
>>>> You don't read properly. I clearly stated that it is true if and only if
>>>> the
>>>> source, detector and mirror are MAR and in flat gravity.
>>>
>>>Not two years ago, you didn't. You are a fuckin' slow learner.
>>>Besides, gravity is irrelevant.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>> Pound and Rebka showed why.
>
>Bwahahahaha!
>
> v ~= gh/c = 7.5E-07 m/s??
>
>That's a keeper, I'll add it to my collection.
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:4r2kg5df673rgadip...@4ax.com
>"The Pound and Rebka audio experiment showed why gravity
>was relevant." -- Wilson the Einstein Dingleberry.
You don't even know your own theory.
The Pound Rebka experiment showed that light accelerates due to gravity like
anything else.
The idiot Einstein said it doesn't. He put a gradient in space instead.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
You don't even know your own theory. Light unifuckates to c
in Wishy-WaShy Wilson's BaTh SoAp.
"The Pound and Rebka AUDIO experiment showed why gravity
was relevant." - Wilson the Einstein Dingleberry.
news:4r2kg5df673rgadip...@4ax.com
PD
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> simulation.
I'm sorry, Henry, I don't follow. How does matching an observation
with theory B prove that theory A is wrong?
>
> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>
> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
> making complete fools of themselves.
PD
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
> simulation.
>
> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>
> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
> making complete fools of themselves.
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
"Henry's" attempt at logic:
- Relativity correctly predicts experimental observations A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P.
- BaTh correctly predicts experimental observation F.
- Therefore BaTh proves relativity wrong.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
..silly old pom...
Henry Wilson DSc
Diaper, relativity doesn't predict or explain anything about variable stars.
On the other hand, the exact curves are produceable on BaTh principles alone.
What does that suggest?
Paul B. Andersen
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
> simulation.
>
> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>
> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
> making complete fools of themselves.
Your "light curve drawing program" has so may variables which can
be manipulated that it can produce just about any periodic curve.
(You never state what the chosen variables are, because it then
would be obvious that they in most cases are physically impossible.
For example, what must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?)
But nothing else fits.
The emission theory predicts that the spectrum from a star
with a Cepheid like light curve (caused by orbital motion) should
be wildly different from what it is.
Cepheids are very well known, and the emission theory is unable
to predict any of its characteristics, but the light curve.
(and not even that, if only physical possible parameters
are allowed.)
There is no question about it, the spectra tell us without
a shred of doubt that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
You have to be either very ignorant or very stupid to claim otherwise.
Or - as in the case of Doctor Contrafactus Ralph Rabbidge - both.
--
Paul
eric gisse
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:22:22 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 21, 2:53 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with
>>> a BaTh simulation.
>>>
>>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted
>>> light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a
>>> large planet.
>>>
>>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids'
>>> are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up
>>> and stop making complete fools of themselves.
>>>
>>> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>>>
>>> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
>>
>>"Henry's" attempt at logic:
>>- Relativity correctly predicts experimental observations A, B, C, D,
>>E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P.
>>- BaTh correctly predicts experimental observation F.
>>- Therefore BaTh proves relativity wrong.
>
> Diaper, relativity doesn't predict or explain anything about variable
> stars.
GR actually makes highly testable predictions are the oscillatory modes of a
star. That's not even taking into account basic facts like constancy of
light speed.
> On the other hand, the exact curves are produceable on BaTh
> principles alone.
If the principle is "with enough free parameters I can replicate any plot",
then yes.
>
> What does that suggest?
That you are ignorant.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
yes, I'm blaming you for bluffing false data, you bullshitting Einstein
dingleberry.
PD
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:22:22 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 21, 2:53 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> >> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
> >> simulation.
>
> >> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
> >> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>
> >> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
> >> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
> >> making complete fools of themselves.
>
> >> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> >> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
>
> >"Henry's" attempt at logic:
> >- Relativity correctly predicts experimental observations A, B, C, D,
> >E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P.
> >- BaTh correctly predicts experimental observation F.
> >- Therefore BaTh proves relativity wrong.
>
> Diaper, relativity doesn't predict or explain anything about variable stars.
> On the other hand, the exact curves are produceable on BaTh principles alone.
>
> What does that suggest?
OK, so let's see if I have your logic right:
"Henry's" attempt at logic:
- Relativity correctly predicts experimental observations A, B, C, D,
E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P.
- BaTh correctly predicts experimental observation F.
- Therefore BaTh proves relativity wrong.
>
BradGuth
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:09:44 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
Gravity redshift/blueshift seems well enough peer replicated, as
matter of fact. Its sort of photon frequency modulation (PFM) via
gravity.
How about gravity affecting the wave front velocity?
~ BG
Henry Wilson DSc
It's just a speed change.
>How about gravity affecting the wave front velocity?
Photons accelerate down a gravity well like any other matter.
GR and NM have the same equation, supported by the Pound Rebka experiment.
> ~ BG
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@utopia.no> wrote:
>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
>> simulation.
>>
>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
>> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>>
>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
>> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
>> making complete fools of themselves.
>
>Your "light curve drawing program" has so may variables which can
>be manipulated that it can produce just about any periodic curve.
>(You never state what the chosen variables are, because it then
>would be obvious that they in most cases are physically impossible.
>For example, what must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?)
As usual. you are totatlly wrong. You obviously haven't even looked at the
program...which is now greatly simplified.
Only TWO parameters determine the basic curve shape....yaw angle and
eccentricity.
Another combined factor, (distance x maximum velocity x cos(pitch)), determines
the magnitude change and the height of the curve.
What you fail to undestand is that the observed period of any variable star
might be very different from the true one because of time compression, which
can be of the same order as the linear magnitude change.
In Ballistic theory, there is a 'wavelength' shift due to the acceleration of
the source. Astronomers know nothing of this.
>But nothing else fits.
>The emission theory predicts that the spectrum from a star
>with a Cepheid like light curve (caused by orbital motion) should
>be wildly different from what it is.
No it does not. The spectrum will be shifted by the combined ADoppler and
VDoppler effect, which are 90 deg out. At any significant distance, ADoppler
will dominate and the velocity curve derived from conventional methods should
be somewhat similar in shape to the brightness curve and slightly lagging in
phase.
>Cepheids are very well known, and the emission theory is unable
>to predict any of its characteristics, but the light curve.
>(and not even that, if only physical possible parameters
>are allowed.)
>
>There is no question about it, the spectra tell us without
>a shred of doubt that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
>You have to be either very ignorant or very stupid to claim otherwise.
I said already, many probably ARE pulsating stars....but many might not be. The
pulsating motion gives radial speeds that should be similar to those of a star
that is in a moderately eccentric orbit (e = ~0.2).
I have modified my program to accommodate an expanding sphere. It divides the
disk into concentric circles of equal brightness and ascribes different radial
speeds to each. The approximation uses five circles....good enough. The inside
one, of area A= piR^2 expands at v. The next, of area 3A has radial velocity
vcos(pi/10), the next, 5A and vcos(pi/5)....etc...
The composite curve is only slightly different from one produced using a
constant radial velocity over the whole disk.
However, the observer distance is greatly increased for a certain magnitude
change, partly explaining the discrepancy that puzzled me before. Also, all
estimated radial speeds are likely to be greatly exaggerated because
astronomers use only VDoppler and not the main contributor, ADoppler.
I might even be able to drop my unification theory as a result of
this...something that would please Androcles greatly. I can almost hear him
gloating now...the silly old pommie drunk....
Paul B. Andersen
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:56:37 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@utopia.no> wrote:
>
>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh
>>> simulation.
>>>
>>> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's
>>> speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
>>>
>>> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are
>>> not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop
>>> making complete fools of themselves.
>> Your "light curve drawing program" has so may variables which can
>> be manipulated that it can produce just about any periodic curve.
>> (You never state what the chosen variables are, because it then
>> would be obvious that they in most cases are physically impossible.
>> For example, what must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?)
>
> As usual. you are totatlly wrong. You obviously haven't even looked at the
> program...which is now greatly simplified.
> Only TWO parameters determine the basic curve shape....yaw angle and
> eccentricity.
> Another combined factor, (distance x maximum velocity x cos(pitch)), determines
> the magnitude change and the height of the curve.
Eccentricity, yaw angle, orbital velocity, orbital period and distance
are only two parameters? :-)
But you forgot to answer my question:
What must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?
We both know that it would have to be 100+ solar masses, right?
Because I have told you this before:
If we assume a large mass with zero diameter
is orbiting the Cepheid, skimming its surface,
its mass would have to be M1 solar masses.
If we allow the companion it a little space,
assuming the distance between their centres to be
twice the radius of the Cepheid, its mass would have
to be M2 solar masses.
M1 and M2 are given for each example below.
SU Cas:
period = 1.9 days
radius = 30 solar radii
mass = 4.4 solar masses
M1 = 92 solar masses
M2 = 365 solar masses
Delta Cep:
period = 5.366270 days
radius = 41.6 solar radii
mass = 5 solar masses
M1 = 28 solar masses
M2 = 260 solar masses
X Cyg:
period = 16.5 days
radius = 118 solar radii
mass = 8 solar masses
M1 = 71 solar masses
M2 = 620 solar masses
RS Pup:
period = 41.4 days
radius = 262 solar radii
mass = 13 solar masses
M1 = 122 solar masses
M2 = 1050 solar masses
So we have an invisible star with hundreds of solar masses.
Such stars do not exist.
The most massive stars are in the order of 50 solar masses.
Their luminosity is in the order of 500000 times the Sun.
They would be brighter than the Cepheid.
In other words, it is utterly impossible that
Cepheids are binaries with orbital period
equal to their light curve period.
> What you fail to undestand is that the observed period of any variable star
> might be very different from the true one because of time compression, which
> can be of the same order as the linear magnitude change.
> In Ballistic theory, there is a 'wavelength' shift due to the acceleration of
> the source. Astronomers know nothing of this.
Quite.
I fail to understand that because it is plain nonsense.
The shift of the orbital frequency of a binary due to the radial
velocity is obviously the same as the Doppler shift, which
is the same (to a first order) for SR and the emission theory.
This is a well known effect, and the period of cepheids in
distant galaxies will be somewhat red shifted, but they will
not be 'very different from the true ones'. If the Cepheid
can be resolved, the Doppler shift is modest.
The emission theory predicts an additional shift of the orbital
period only if the the whole binary is accelerated. It is not.
(Not even if the binary is orbiting a third star will the acceleration
be big enough to make the period 'very different from the true one'.)
>> But nothing else fits.
>> The emission theory predicts that the spectrum from a star
>> with a Cepheid like light curve (caused by orbital motion) should
>> be wildly different from what it is.
>
> No it does not. The spectrum will be shifted by the combined ADoppler and
> VDoppler effect, which are 90 deg out. At any significant distance, ADoppler
> will dominate and the velocity curve derived from conventional methods should
> be somewhat similar in shape to the brightness curve and slightly lagging in
> phase.
Exactly. That is the very point. For once you got it right.
But why don't you realize the consequences of what you just said?
The emission theory predicts that the brightening and
the Doppler shift is the same!
An example:
Delta Cep varies between magnitudes 3.6 and 4.4, equivalent to
a brightness variation of 1.9 times.
So the emission theory predicts that if the brightening of
Delta Cep is due to orbital motion, the frequency of the received
light should vary by a factor of 1.9.
The observed frequency variation is ~1.014 which is wildly
different from what the emission theory predicts.
And the phase is wrong as well.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
The emission theory is stone dead.
>> Cepheids are very well known, and the emission theory is unable
>> to predict any of its characteristics, but the light curve.
>> (and not even that, if only physical possible parameters
>> are allowed.)
>>
>> There is no question about it, the spectra tell us without
>> a shred of doubt that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
>> You have to be either very ignorant or very stupid to claim otherwise.
>
> I said already, many probably ARE pulsating stars....but many might not be.
Cepheids are always pulsating stars.
Nothing else can give all the characteristics of a Cepheid.
> The
> pulsating motion gives radial speeds that should be similar to those of a star
> that is in a moderately eccentric orbit (e = ~0.2).
>
> I have modified my program to accommodate an expanding sphere. It divides the
> disk into concentric circles of equal brightness and ascribes different radial
> speeds to each. The approximation uses five circles....good enough. The inside
> one, of area A= piR^2 expands at v. The next, of area 3A has radial velocity
> vcos(pi/10), the next, 5A and vcos(pi/5)....etc...
> The composite curve is only slightly different from one produced using a
> constant radial velocity over the whole disk.
> However, the observer distance is greatly increased for a certain magnitude
> change, partly explaining the discrepancy that puzzled me before. Also, all
> estimated radial speeds are likely to be greatly exaggerated because
> astronomers use only VDoppler and not the main contributor, ADoppler.
So with this assumption, you will have to change the parameters
of your curve fitting drawing program. :-)
And if you do it properly, you will find that the emission theory
predicts that a pulsating star should look very different from
what we observe.
But you will of course ignore every prediction but the light curve.
>
> I might even be able to drop my unification theory as a result of
> this...something that would please Androcles greatly. I can almost hear him
> gloating now...the silly old pommie drunk....
>
>
>
>
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
--
Paul
Juan R.
> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincaré and others [#]-
has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different experiments.
(...)
[#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
John Polasek
Wilson:
No, photons don't act like mass. The waves from a source in the well
have a lower frequency to start with, and stretch on the way up out of
the well. The speed of light is increasing on the way so the
wavelength stretches while the frequency remains the same lower value.
(This is according to my theory-relativity is still na�ve about time
dilation. It is c that changes).
You would observe a red shift up top. Pounds and Rebka in their paper
"On the Weight of Photons" used this invalid gravity effect.
I think relativity uses in this same gravity effect for half of the
light bending, but it is illegal to do so.
John Polasek
Androcles
"Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@canonicalscience.com...
> HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>
>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
> experiments.
Name just one. {***}
> (...)
>
> [#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
>
{***} i.e. you are a fuckin' stupid liar. :-D
Henry Wilson DSc
can't you read? Yaw and eccentricity define the basic shapes of the curves. The
others determine the magnitude change.
>But you forgot to answer my question:
>What must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?
any value you like....
You haven't been keeping up with the data. It is stated in most journal papers
that most cepheids have a companion star.
There are two types of 'cepheid'. Many have periods of 40 days or more and
could easily have an orbiting companion.
I have already agreed that the short period ones are most likely to be
huffpuffs, the brightness of which varies according to c+v. Their radial
velocities are similar to those of a star in elliptical orbit.
>> What you fail to undestand is that the observed period of any variable star
>> might be very different from the true one because of time compression, which
>> can be of the same order as the linear magnitude change.
>> In Ballistic theory, there is a 'wavelength' shift due to the acceleration of
>> the source. Astronomers know nothing of this.
>
>Quite.
>I fail to understand that because it is plain nonsense.
It would appear to be to an indoctrinated relativist.
>The shift of the orbital frequency of a binary due to the radial
>velocity is obviously the same as the Doppler shift, which
>is the same (to a first order) for SR and the emission theory.
>This is a well known effect, and the period of cepheids in
>distant galaxies will be somewhat red shifted, but they will
>not be 'very different from the true ones'. If the Cepheid
>can be resolved, the Doppler shift is modest.
That is not what ADoppler is all about.
It is dominant over VDoppler.
>The emission theory predicts an additional shift of the orbital
>period only if the the whole binary is accelerated. It is not.
>(Not even if the binary is orbiting a third star will the acceleration
> be big enough to make the period 'very different from the true one'.)
You don't get it. The relativist the late George Dishman did....why can't you?
If a cyclical event occurs along an elliptical path, its period will appear
compressed or expanded to a distant observer DUE TO ITS ACCELERATION.
This effect is 90 out of phase wrt the conventional VDoppler associated with
its radial velocity.
>>> But nothing else fits.
>>> The emission theory predicts that the spectrum from a star
>>> with a Cepheid like light curve (caused by orbital motion) should
>>> be wildly different from what it is.
>>
>> No it does not. The spectrum will be shifted by the combined ADoppler and
>> VDoppler effect, which are 90 deg out. At any significant distance, ADoppler
>> will dominate and the velocity curve derived from conventional methods should
>> be somewhat similar in shape to the brightness curve and slightly lagging in
>> phase.
>
>Exactly. That is the very point. For once you got it right.
>But why don't you realize the consequences of what you just said?
>
>The emission theory predicts that the brightening and
>the Doppler shift is the same!
>
>An example:
>Delta Cep varies between magnitudes 3.6 and 4.4, equivalent to
>a brightness variation of 1.9 times.
>So the emission theory predicts that if the brightening of
>Delta Cep is due to orbital motion, the frequency of the received
>light should vary by a factor of 1.9.
Nope. I have explained all that....the 'rubber photon' theory
>The observed frequency variation is ~1.014 which is wildly
>different from what the emission theory predicts.
>And the phase is wrong as well.
Nope. You still don't get it. ADoppler is limited whilst the relative movement
between traveling photons goes on forever or until unification reduces it to
near zero.
>We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>The emission theory is stone dead.
You don't understand BaTh. You aren't even trying to understand Bath. You are
as bad as Androcles.
>>> Cepheids are very well known, and the emission theory is unable
>>> to predict any of its characteristics, but the light curve.
>>> (and not even that, if only physical possible parameters
>>> are allowed.)
>>>
>>> There is no question about it, the spectra tell us without
>>> a shred of doubt that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
>>> You have to be either very ignorant or very stupid to claim otherwise.
>>
>> I said already, many probably ARE pulsating stars....but many might not be.
>
>Cepheids are always pulsating stars.
>Nothing else can give all the characteristics of a Cepheid.
Rubbish.
>> The
>> pulsating motion gives radial speeds that should be similar to those of a star
>> that is in a moderately eccentric orbit (e = ~0.2).
>>
>> I have modified my program to accommodate an expanding sphere. It divides the
>> disk into concentric circles of equal brightness and ascribes different radial
>> speeds to each. The approximation uses five circles....good enough. The inside
>> one, of area A= piR^2 expands at v. The next, of area 3A has radial velocity
>> vcos(pi/10), the next, 5A and vcos(pi/5)....etc...
>> The composite curve is only slightly different from one produced using a
>> constant radial velocity over the whole disk.
>> However, the observer distance is greatly increased for a certain magnitude
>> change, partly explaining the discrepancy that puzzled me before. Also, all
>> estimated radial speeds are likely to be greatly exaggerated because
>> astronomers use only VDoppler and not the main contributor, ADoppler.
>
>So with this assumption, you will have to change the parameters
>of your curve fitting drawing program. :-)
>
>And if you do it properly, you will find that the emission theory
>predicts that a pulsating star should look very different from
>what we observe.
>
>But you will of course ignore every prediction but the light curve.
A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between about 50
and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that.
Henry Wilson DSc
<now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>
>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
>This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincar� and others [#]-
They believed in an aether, dopey.
>has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different experiments.
No believable experiment has measured te OWLS from a moving source.
It is only NOW that variable star curves are being used by Andro and I to show
that light speed is source dependent.
>
>[#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
BURT
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." Gonz lez- lvarez
>
You knock the greatest thinker of history Henry?
You can get behind light and ahead.
Mitch Raemsch
Henry Wilson DSc
I AM the greatsest thinker in history.
>You can get behind light and ahead.
You will get behind the whole human race the way you rave...
>Mitch Raemsch
Juan R.
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>>HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>>
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>>This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincaré and others
>>[#]-
>
> They believed in an aether, dopey.
As Einstein in latter times [#]... but their concept of aether was not the
absolute aether but one verifying the principle of relativity, which was
introduced in physics by Poincaré in 1902.
>>has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
>>experiments.
>
> No believable experiment has measured te OWLS from a moving source. It
> is only NOW that variable star curves are being used by Andro and I to
> show that light speed is source dependent.
Both are *only* showing your mutual ignorance and unability to learn even
the basic stuff :-D
>> [#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
Juan R.
> "Juan R. González-Álvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
> message news:pan.2009.11...@canonicalscience.com...
>> HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>>
>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>
>> This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincaré and
>> others [#]-
>> has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
>> experiments.
>
> Name just one. {***}
Choose yourself :-D
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> (...)
>>
>> [#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
>>
>>
> {***} i.e. you are a fuckin' stupid liar. :-D
--
Androcles
"Juan R. Gonz�lez-�lvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@canonicalscience.com...
> Androcles wrote on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:56:14 +0000:
>
>> message news:pan.2009.11...@canonicalscience.com...
>>> HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>>>
>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> others [#]-
>>> has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
>>> experiments.
>>
>> Name just one. {***}
>
> Choose yourself :-D
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
A list validates nothing, you fuckin' stupid imbecile.
I said name just one, moron, you choose.
PD
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:03:24 -0800 (PST), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 5:50 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." Gonz lez- lvarez
>
> >> <nowh...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> >HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>
> >> >> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>
> >> >This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincar and others [#]-
>
> >> They believed in an aether, dopey.
>
> >> >has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different experiments.
>
> >> No believable experiment has measured te OWLS from a moving source.
> >> It is only NOW that variable star curves are being used by Andro and I to show
> >> that light speed is source dependent.
>
> >> >[#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
>
> >> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> >> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
>
> >You knock the greatest thinker of history Henry?
>
> I AM the greatsest thinker in history.
:>)
Ralph will say just about anything.
Henry Wilson DSc
<now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>HW wrote on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:50:40 +0000:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
>> <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>
>>>HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>>>
>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>
>>>This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincar� and others
>>>[#]-
>>
>> They believed in an aether, dopey.
>
>As Einstein in latter times [#]... but their concept of aether was not the
>absolute aether but one verifying the principle of relativity, which was
>introduced in physics by Poincar� in 1902.
>
>>>has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
>>>experiments.
>>
>> No believable experiment has measured te OWLS from a moving source. It
>> is only NOW that variable star curves are being used by Andro and I to
>> show that light speed is source dependent.
>
>Both are *only* showing your mutual ignorance and unability to learn even
>the basic stuff :-D
The 'basic stuff' is that Einstein has completely misled physics and that all
astronomical observations are willusional.
>>> [#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
Juan R.
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:44:21 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>>HW wrote on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:50:40 +0000:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>>> <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>HW wrote on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 +0000:
>>>>
>>>>> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>>>>
>>>>This postulate -already found in prior literature by Poincaré and
>>>>others [#]-
>>>
>>> They believed in an aether, dopey.
>>
>>As Einstein in latter times [#]... but their concept of aether was not
>>the absolute aether but one verifying the principle of relativity, which
>>was introduced in physics by Poincaré in 1902.
>>
>>>>has been perfectly validated in hundred and hundred of different
>>>>experiments.
>>>
>>> No believable experiment has measured te OWLS from a moving source. It
>>> is only NOW that variable star curves are being used by Andro and I to
>>> show that light speed is source dependent.
>>
>>Both are *only* showing your mutual ignorance and unability to learn
>>even the basic stuff :-D
>
> The 'basic stuff' is that Einstein has completely misled physics and
> that all astronomical observations are willusional.
That is your own 'willusion' :-D
>>>> [#] I.e. you are also ignorant of the history of the subject :-D
>
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
--
PD
>
> The 'basic stuff' is that Einstein has completely misled physics and that all
> astronomical observations are willusional.
>
Henri's basic stance about science:
1. Einstein is wrong about reality.
2. Experiment can't settle the issue because experiment only measures
illusion, not reality.
3. What is right about reality is determined by assertion.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Nov 25, 2:17�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>>
>> The 'basic stuff' is that Einstein has completely misled physics and that all
>> astronomical observations are willusional.
>>
>
>Henri's basic stance about science:
>1. Einstein is wrong about reality.
...and so are his followers...
>2. Experiment can't settle the issue because experiment only measures
>illusion, not reality.
Correct.
>3. What is right about reality is determined by assertion.
No, you don't understand how science works.
The correct approach is to try various theories about possible 'realities' in
an attempt to simulate the willusion.
Variable star curves are one good method.
BradGuth
"How much more proof does one need?"
I'm not sure if Jesus Christ returned along with a dozen eye witnesses
and a load of forensic evidence, that anyone would believe their own
eyes.
Max Planck once said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by
convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with it."
~ BG
Henry Wilson DSc
good one...
But I would replace 'familiar' with 'indoctrinated'.
> ~ BG
BradGuth
True enough, because from the very beginnings of public or private
education we are systematically indoctrinated by those in charge, and
so forth.
~ BG
Henry Wilson DSc
....yes. Intellectual inbreeding....a very weak system..
YBM
> ....yes. Intellectual inbreeding....a very weak system..
By the way, what's nice with you, Ralph, is that there is
nothing intellectual, and no breed.
BradGuth
"Intellectual inbreeding" is a good analogy. Also we have those with
the means, motives and opportunity to perpetrate crimes upon their
opposition, and to tell only their side of a given story by way of
their mandated infomercial publications (naturally as entirely public
funded).
~ BG
Paul B. Andersen
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:09:31 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
[..]
>> But you will of course ignore every prediction but the light curve.
>
> A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between about 50
> and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that.
>
QED
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote in message
news:4B167056...@somewhere.no...
> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:09:31 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>> But you will of course ignore every prediction but the light curve.
>>
>> A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between
>> about 50
>> and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that.
>>
>
> QED
>
Good grief, Tusseladd.
You are seriously demented.
eric gisse
[...]
>>But you forgot to answer my question:
>>What must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?
>
> any value you like....
Really? Any value?
Seriously?
[...]
> You haven't been keeping up with the data. It is stated in most journal
> papers that most cepheids have a companion star.
Please name two such journals and cite relevant articles.
>
> There are two types of 'cepheid'. Many have periods of 40 days or more and
> could easily have an orbiting companion.
>
> I have already agreed that the short period ones are most likely to be
> huffpuffs, the brightness of which varies according to c+v. Their radial
> velocities are similar to those of a star in elliptical orbit.
Gosh, I wonder what would happen if you considered evidence that isn't tied
to this incredibly narrow focus. Or even the evidence from this narrow focus
fully.
[...]
>
> It would appear to be to an indoctrinated relativist.
Thankfully you weren't burdened with an education, so you are free to say
whatever you want.
[...]
> A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between
> about 50 and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that.
Like this, for example.
An eccentricity around 2 to 3? Really, Ralph? Are you SURE? I only ask
because the last time I checked, an eccentricity of larger than 1 was a
hyperbolic orbit which - as you may not know - isn't a closed orbit.
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:09:31 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>> But you will of course ignore every prediction but the light curve.
>>
>> A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between about 50
>> and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that.
>>
>
>QED
I thought you had hibernated..
e = 0.2-0.3, naturally.
.......now go back to your igloo...and don't forget the box of vodka..
BradGuth
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:37:57 GMT, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> dilation. It is c that changes).
> You would observe a red shift up top. Pounds and Rebka in their paper
> "On the Weight of Photons" used this invalid gravity effect.
> I think relativity uses in this same gravity effect for half of the
> light bending, but it is illegal to do so.
> John Polasek
>
> >> ~ BG
>
> >Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> > Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
What if photons are like anti matter, and run only in reverse?
~ BG