info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Spiraling Frame Confusion of the Andersen/Androcles Team.
132 views
Skip to first unread message
Henry Wilson
Sep 29, 2012, 7:36:28 PM9/29/12
to
This message is actually about the Sagnac effect although our immediate concern relates to a jet of water emitted from a rotating hose. We will take some snapshots of the jet from above, using firstly a camera at rest and secondly, one that rotates with the hose.
In the first instance...the inertial frame... each water droplet radiates outward from the hose nozzle along a straight line. A snapshot will reveal the type of pattern shown here:
http://www.scisite.info/AtheA5.jpg
in which the spiral represents an instantaneous plot of the positions of all the droplets. A snapshot taken moments later will show an expanded spiral, an increased separation between droplets and a rotation of the point of emission of the jet. A movie shows an ever expanding spiral with each droplet moving along a unique straight path, which is approximately normal to the spiral.
We now arrange for the camera to rotate with the nozzle and determine what a subsequent snapshot will reveal? It must and will show a spiral that is identical to the former but which will vary in orientation depending on when the snapshot is taken. As before, all droplets lie along the spiral. A second snapshot will reveal a spiral of exactly the same shape and orientation as the first BUT with a displacement of the droplets away from the origin. A movie taken by the rotating camera will give the impression that ALL the droplets are moving along that spiral path...and what is more, they ALL appear to be ACCELERATING away from each other. (Note, this imaginary effect would have relevance to the BB theory, if it were true, since we are on a rotating planet). Once every turn, when both cameras are aligned, their snapshots are absolutely identical, with the spiral at what might be called its 'minimal' position.
We will now consider that the above water jet analysis can be equally applied to light emitted by a rotating source. The individual photons emitted by a rotating laser behave just as did the droplets of the water. ....which brings us to Paul Andersen's recent Sagnac article:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Here, in section 2.3, he draws what he believes is the curved shape of a light ray IN THE NON ROTATING FRAME. He is correct in that such a curve does represent the positions of the photons at a particular instant, as it did in the case of the water droplets. However, he then assumes that ALL the photons in that ray are moving ALONG that curve, as they would appear to do in a ROTATING frame movie. Of course, in the NON rotating frame, the photons move in straight lines. In that state of confusion, he then calculates the additional path length attributed to the curvature to see if can explain then Sagnac effect.
Paul has already made several mistakes. Firstly, he should have realised that the whole rotating interferometer could rightly be considered from the rotating frame point of view, in which case, the photons would indeed appear to move along the curve as he claimed. So whilst he insisted his drawing represented a snapshot taken by a NON ROTATING camera, his analysis actually applied to a rotating
one. Even if we accept this error, ie., that he would have been somewhat justified in trying to use the ROTATING frame, his second mistake was to assume that the photons would then travel along the whole curve at speed c. They don't. They travel initially at c+v and their velocity changes in both magnitude and direction as they go, as did the water droplets.
The use of rotating frames is fraught with danger. For instance, if Paul used the rotating frame to analyse a ring gyro Einstein style, he would see that the rays must move at c+v and c-v in that frame.
Androcles doesn't know then difference between a rotating and an inertial frame and frequently jumps from one to the other, like kids on a whirlygig. He therefore doesn't deserve more than a mention.
Further discussion of this matter will be welcomed.
In the first instance...the inertial frame... each water droplet radiates outward from the hose nozzle along a straight line. A snapshot will reveal the type of pattern shown here:
http://www.scisite.info/AtheA5.jpg
in which the spiral represents an instantaneous plot of the positions of all the droplets. A snapshot taken moments later will show an expanded spiral, an increased separation between droplets and a rotation of the point of emission of the jet. A movie shows an ever expanding spiral with each droplet moving along a unique straight path, which is approximately normal to the spiral.
We now arrange for the camera to rotate with the nozzle and determine what a subsequent snapshot will reveal? It must and will show a spiral that is identical to the former but which will vary in orientation depending on when the snapshot is taken. As before, all droplets lie along the spiral. A second snapshot will reveal a spiral of exactly the same shape and orientation as the first BUT with a displacement of the droplets away from the origin. A movie taken by the rotating camera will give the impression that ALL the droplets are moving along that spiral path...and what is more, they ALL appear to be ACCELERATING away from each other. (Note, this imaginary effect would have relevance to the BB theory, if it were true, since we are on a rotating planet). Once every turn, when both cameras are aligned, their snapshots are absolutely identical, with the spiral at what might be called its 'minimal' position.
We will now consider that the above water jet analysis can be equally applied to light emitted by a rotating source. The individual photons emitted by a rotating laser behave just as did the droplets of the water. ....which brings us to Paul Andersen's recent Sagnac article:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Here, in section 2.3, he draws what he believes is the curved shape of a light ray IN THE NON ROTATING FRAME. He is correct in that such a curve does represent the positions of the photons at a particular instant, as it did in the case of the water droplets. However, he then assumes that ALL the photons in that ray are moving ALONG that curve, as they would appear to do in a ROTATING frame movie. Of course, in the NON rotating frame, the photons move in straight lines. In that state of confusion, he then calculates the additional path length attributed to the curvature to see if can explain then Sagnac effect.
Paul has already made several mistakes. Firstly, he should have realised that the whole rotating interferometer could rightly be considered from the rotating frame point of view, in which case, the photons would indeed appear to move along the curve as he claimed. So whilst he insisted his drawing represented a snapshot taken by a NON ROTATING camera, his analysis actually applied to a rotating
one. Even if we accept this error, ie., that he would have been somewhat justified in trying to use the ROTATING frame, his second mistake was to assume that the photons would then travel along the whole curve at speed c. They don't. They travel initially at c+v and their velocity changes in both magnitude and direction as they go, as did the water droplets.
The use of rotating frames is fraught with danger. For instance, if Paul used the rotating frame to analyse a ring gyro Einstein style, he would see that the rays must move at c+v and c-v in that frame.
Androcles doesn't know then difference between a rotating and an inertial frame and frequently jumps from one to the other, like kids on a whirlygig. He therefore doesn't deserve more than a mention.
Further discussion of this matter will be welcomed.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 29, 2012, 9:18:46 PM9/29/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d02c0da1-4860-4713...@googlegroups.com...
====================================
Lord Androcles cited
which is very easy for the chimpanzee Daisy Wilson
to understand intuitively but the self-proclaimed physicist
Henry Wilson doesn’t understand as he is incapable of
writing a coordinate transformation between the inertial
frame of reference and
the rotating frame of reference,
hence his lengthy verbal diarrhoea above.
He can’t get on
the pot and he can’t stop bullshitting his cow patties
into
the fan which fly everywhere and coat everything.
Fortunately Lord Androcles has a rhinoceros hide
that
is impervious to Wilson’s sloppy cow patties.
The Sagnac Effect is the Coriolis Effect.
It has explained to Wilson that the coordinate
transformation
of a spiral in its simplest form is x = A.cos(A), y =
A.sin(A).
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Henry Wilson
Sep 30, 2012, 1:06:43 AM9/30/12
to
>
>
>
> The Sagnac Effect is the Coriolis Effect.
Gawd! Coriolis wont be happy if his effect has been stolen.
>
>
> The Sagnac Effect is the Coriolis Effect.
.
> It has explained to Wilson that the coordinate
> transformation
>
> of a spiral in its simplest form is x = A.cos(A), y =
> A.sin(A).
We know that.
> transformation
>
> of a spiral in its simplest form is x = A.cos(A), y =
> A.sin(A).
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 30, 2012, 2:48:06 AM9/30/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3805cc18-aefb-4b64...@googlegroups.com...
==============================================================
You
didn’t say anything with a coordinate transformation in it.
Daisy Wilson doesn't know the difference between a
rotating and an inertial frame and frequently jumps from one to the other, like
a chimp on monkey bars. She therefore doesn't deserve more than a
mention.--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
yosemite....@gmail.com
Sep 30, 2012, 7:46:16 AM9/30/12
to
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:18:57 PM UTC-5, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> The Sagnac Effect is the Coriolis Effect.
The Sagnac Effect is a first-order effect. Because of this, readily-available commercial FOGs can measure rotation rates of less than 1° per hour.
> The Sagnac Effect is the Coriolis Effect.
Path-lengthening due to Coriolis is a second-order effect. (shrug)
Yosemite Samuelson
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 30, 2012, 8:32:38 AM9/30/12
to
<yosemite....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30352b9c-f67f-42ed...@googlegroups.com...
*plonk* <shrug>
yosemite....@gmail.com
Sep 30, 2012, 5:50:50 PM9/30/12
to
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Sep 30, 2012, 6:03:49 PM9/30/12
to
Next he'll start screaming a string of vile abuse that could easily see him banned from this NG for life.
The only reason he has survived this long is that he is such a constant source of amusement.
> Yosemite Samuelson
yosemite....@gmail.com
Sep 30, 2012, 10:12:18 PM9/30/12
to
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 5:03:50 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> He plonks when its either too hard for him or he knows he's well and truly beaten.
>
> Next he'll start screaming a string of vile abuse that could easily see him banned from this NG for life.
>
> The only reason he has survived this long is that he is such a constant source of amusement.
Don't be so smug. Fortunately, you are unable to see yourself as others see you, or you would die from shame. This entire newsgroup is an insane asylum. Androcles is in the violent ward, while you are with the rest of the megalomaniacs. A few sadistic keepers stalk the halls enjoying the antics of the inmates.
> He plonks when its either too hard for him or he knows he's well and truly beaten.
>
> Next he'll start screaming a string of vile abuse that could easily see him banned from this NG for life.
>
> The only reason he has survived this long is that he is such a constant source of amusement.
So far as I can tell, your variant of emission theory consists of one fundamental postulate plus a host of excuses to explain why experimental observation never seems to match the predictions of your theory. In your own mind, you are VERY successful in finding excuses for your theory's failures, to the point that you consider the theory as being a success.
The sole support for your theory comes from variable star light curves. However, in addition to predicting Cepheid-like and Algol-like light curves, your variant of emission theory predicts a host of regularly repeating light curves that have never, ever been observed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory#Refutations_of_emission_theory
You explain away this failure of your theory as a result of observer bias. In a few years, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope will see first light, and within a few weeks from that moment, it will be IMPOSSIBLE EVEN FOR YOU to blame "observer bias" for the failures of your theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSST
Fortunately, you will probably be dead by that time, so you will not have to witness the total collapse of all of your flimsy excuses. Meanwhile, enjoy yourself.
Yosemite Samuelson
(Yes, I am one of the sadistic keepers... shrug)
Dirk Van de moortel
Oct 1, 2012, 5:37:55 AM10/1/12
to
When you say something he MUST reply to without being able
to piggyback someone else's reply, he'll say that he had to
replace his hard disk and recreate his killfile. Up to now he had
to replace 16 disks ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 1, 2012, 6:04:01 AM10/1/12
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message
news:k4bo9h$8n3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
==============================================
Dork Van de faggot, a queer of the third order, wants to talk
about people instead of physics.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Henry Wilson
Oct 1, 2012, 4:43:10 PM10/1/12
to
On Sunday, 30 September 2012 19:12:18 UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> On Sunday, September 30, 2012 5:03:50 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > He plonks when its either too hard for him or he knows he's well and truly beaten.
>
> >
>
> > Next he'll start screaming a string of vile abuse that could easily see him banned from this NG for life.
>
> >
>
> > The only reason he has survived this long is that he is such a constant source of amusement.
>
>
>
> Don't be so smug. Fortunately, you are unable to see yourself as others see you, or you would die from shame. This entire newsgroup is an insane asylum. Androcles is in the violent ward, while you are with the rest of the megalomaniacs. A few sadistic keepers stalk the halls enjoying the antics of the inmates.
...and the ínmates are trained in science whilst the keepers are brainless bullies.
> On Sunday, September 30, 2012 5:03:50 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > He plonks when its either too hard for him or he knows he's well and truly beaten.
>
> >
>
> > Next he'll start screaming a string of vile abuse that could easily see him banned from this NG for life.
>
> >
>
> > The only reason he has survived this long is that he is such a constant source of amusement.
>
>
>
> Don't be so smug. Fortunately, you are unable to see yourself as others see you, or you would die from shame. This entire newsgroup is an insane asylum. Androcles is in the violent ward, while you are with the rest of the megalomaniacs. A few sadistic keepers stalk the halls enjoying the antics of the inmates.
>
>
>
> So far as I can tell, your variant of emission theory consists of one fundamental postulate plus a host of excuses to explain why experimental observation never seems to match the predictions of your theory. In your own mind, you are VERY successful in finding excuses for your theory's failures, to the point that you consider the theory as being a success.
> The sole support for your theory comes from variable star light curves. However, in addition to predicting Cepheid-like and Algol-like light curves, your variant of emission theory predicts a host of regularly repeating light curves that have never, ever been observed.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory#Refutations_of_emission_theory
...all wrong, as explained in my thesis.
> You explain away this failure of your theory as a result of observer bias. In a few years, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope will see first light, and within a few weeks from that moment, it will be IMPOSSIBLE EVEN FOR YOU to blame "observer bias" for the failures of your theory.
In a few years YOU HOPE THAT JUST ONE TINY PIECE OF EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE MIGHT FINALLY APPEAR TO SUPPORT EINSTEIN'S SILLY THEORY. Sorry, it wont. The theory is flawed in the first few paragraphs and therefore cannot be right.
see: www.scisite.info/ros.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSST
So long as astronomers believe that the fairies adjust all the speed of every photon in the universe to be precisely c wrt little planet Earth, the findings will be just as meaningless as those of the Earth centrist theories.
>
>
>
> Fortunately, you will probably be dead by that time, so you will not have to witness the total collapse of all of your flimsy excuses. Meanwhile, enjoy yourself.
HAHAHAHHAHA! My place will sonn be taken by others. There are already millions of Chinese physicists who regard Einstein as a joke.
>
>
> Fortunately, you will probably be dead by that time, so you will not have to witness the total collapse of all of your flimsy excuses. Meanwhile, enjoy yourself.
> Yosemite Samuelson
>
> (Yes, I am one of the sadistic keepers... shrug)
You aren't related to our old friend 'Jerry' by any chance, are you?
yosemite....@gmail.com
Oct 1, 2012, 7:45:14 PM10/1/12
to
On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:43:11 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> Your ignorance is truly amazing. You have obviously not seen the huge Kepler collection of light curves?
I've read about them, yes.
> Your ignorance is truly amazing. You have obviously not seen the huge Kepler collection of light curves?
> BaTh is the only theory that can explain them.
Yosemite Samuelson
space...@gmail.com
Oct 1, 2012, 7:50:37 PM10/1/12
to
On Monday, October 1, 2012 4:45:14 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:43:11 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
A spiral is not a geodesic. Acretion discs orbit...
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:43:11 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
Mitchell Raemsch
Henry Wilson
Oct 1, 2012, 9:13:27 PM10/1/12
to
...and remember, too much shrugging can be dangerous.
>
> Yosemite Samuelson
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 2, 2012, 7:12:59 AM10/2/12
to
On 01.09.2012 01:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> A snapshot taken from above by a nonrotating camera reveals a spiral.
>
> A snapshot taken from above by a rotating camera reveals an even
> tighter spiral.
On 30.09.2012 01:36, Henry Wilson wrote:
> We will take some snapshots of the jet from above, using firstly
> a camera at rest and secondly, one that rotates with the hose.
>
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
> A snapshot taken from above by a nonrotating camera reveals a spiral.
>
> A snapshot taken from above by a rotating camera reveals an even
> tighter spiral.
On 30.09.2012 01:36, Henry Wilson wrote:
> We will take some snapshots of the jet from above, using firstly
> a camera at rest and secondly, one that rotates with the hose.
>
> We now arrange for the camera to rotate with the nozzle and determine
> what a subsequent snapshot will reveal?
> It must and will show a spiral that is identical to the former
:-)
> what a subsequent snapshot will reveal?
> It must and will show a spiral that is identical to the former
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
yosemite....@gmail.com
Oct 2, 2012, 1:21:53 PM10/2/12
to
When I perform MAST search using SIMBAD as the resolver, I could find data for Kepler 11, 12, 14, 15 but no data for "Kepler 13".
http://archive.stsci.edu/index.html
Show me that you can fit the topmost light curve for Kepler 12
KPLR011804465-2009131105131
In addition, show me that you can fit the topmost light curve for Kepler 14
KPLR010264660-2009131105131
Your fits will be crap, of course. (shrug)
Yosemite Samuelson
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 2, 2012, 2:27:06 PM10/2/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b00f24ac-e587-42a3...@googlegroups.com...
=============================================
Stands out like Southend Pier, doesn’t it, H? The cretin picks
itself out
a new cartoon name and says I plonked it after one post, it
really believes
it is someone different and not the same moron with the same
attitude
and different name. Oh, and Southend Pier sticks out well over
a mile
(7,080
feet). Kinda hard to
miss it.
Get Jeery Faggot to tell you about how the martial arts big
brother Tom
taught her prevented a date rape.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Henry Wilson
Oct 2, 2012, 6:24:26 PM10/2/12
to
On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 04:43:32 UTC+10, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b00f24ac-e587-42a3...@googlegroups.com...
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b00f24ac-e587-42a3...@googlegroups.com...
> You aren't related to our old friend 'Jerry' by any
> chance, are you?
>
>
> =============================================
>
>
>
> Stands out like Southend Pier, doesn’t it, H? The cretin picks
> itself out
>
> a new cartoon name and says I plonked it after one post, it
> really believes
>
> it is someone different and not the same moron with the same
> attitude
>
> and different name. Oh, and Southend Pier sticks out well over
> a mile
>
> (7,080
> feet). Kinda hard to
> miss it.
>
> http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Thames_Southend/Southend-Pier_20060604-011_900.jpg
>
> Get Jeery Faggot to tell you about how the martial arts big
> brother Tom taught her prevented a date rape.
She had me fooled for a while. 'Yosemite Samuelson' is a well known Iranian comedian.
> chance, are you?
>
>
> =============================================
>
>
>
> Stands out like Southend Pier, doesn’t it, H? The cretin picks
> itself out
>
> a new cartoon name and says I plonked it after one post, it
> really believes
>
> it is someone different and not the same moron with the same
> attitude
>
> and different name. Oh, and Southend Pier sticks out well over
> a mile
>
> (7,080
> feet). Kinda hard to
> miss it.
>
> http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Thames_Southend/Southend-Pier_20060604-011_900.jpg
>
> Get Jeery Faggot to tell you about how the martial arts big
> brother Tom taught her prevented a date rape.
Henry Wilson
Oct 2, 2012, 6:40:33 PM10/2/12
to
Do you DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THAT?
DO YOU?
As I said to Andro, "only a fool would claim that a normal snapshot of a cat is identical to the same image taken with a ROTATING camera and showing the cat upside down".
> --
> Paul
Do you now acknowledge the mistake in your Sagnac article?
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson
Oct 2, 2012, 7:24:34 PM10/2/12
to
On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 03:21:53 UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:13:28 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 09:45:14 UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:43:11 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Your ignorance is truly amazing. You have obviously not seen the huge Kepler collection of light curves?
>
> >
>
> > > I've read about them, yes.
>
> >
>
> > > > BaTh is the only theory that can explain them.
>
> >
>
> > > Post a link to your fits. Let's see how awful they are. (shrug)
>
> >
>
> > Sure: http://www.scisite.info/group1.jpg
>
> >
>
> > ...and remember, too much shrugging can be dangerous.
>
> >
>
>
>
> What sort of fast one are you trying to pull? You have only a SINGLE so-called Kepler fit in that image that you link to. (shrug)
Poor old Jerry still can't add to 2.
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:13:28 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 09:45:14 UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:43:11 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Your ignorance is truly amazing. You have obviously not seen the huge Kepler collection of light curves?
>
> >
>
> > > I've read about them, yes.
>
> >
>
> > > > BaTh is the only theory that can explain them.
>
> >
>
> > > Post a link to your fits. Let's see how awful they are. (shrug)
>
> >
>
> > Sure: http://www.scisite.info/group1.jpg
>
> >
>
> > ...and remember, too much shrugging can be dangerous.
>
> >
>
>
>
> What sort of fast one are you trying to pull? You have only a SINGLE so-called Kepler fit in that image that you link to. (shrug)
The one bottom right is another...(see the 'planet hunter's reference number.) The type of curve shown above that one is common in the Kepler catalogue.
I might point out that with so many variables to adjust, it sometimes takes hours to produce these matches. The presence of additional planets makes them even more complex.
>
>
>
> When I perform MAST search using SIMBAD as the resolver, I could find data for Kepler 11, 12, 14, 15 but no data for "Kepler 13".
Here is the full curve of MY 'Kepler 13' showing the planet orbits.
www.scisite.info/KM1.jpg
Not a bad match, eh?
There are two low eccentricity orbits and one with e about 0.8.
The orbits might not lie in the same plane. The projection in the 'edge-on' plane is all that is required. The precession of the green one is insigificant. It actually occured over hundreds of cycles not just the few shown here.
> http://archive.stsci.edu/index.html
>
>
>
> Show me that you can fit the topmost light curve for Kepler 12
>
> KPLR011804465-2009131105131
>
>
>
> In addition, show me that you can fit the topmost light curve for Kepler 14
>
> KPLR010264660-2009131105131
> Your fits will be crap, of course. (shrug)
> Yosemite Samuelson
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 2, 2012, 7:19:13 PM10/2/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9330e64b-2098-441d...@googlegroups.com...
================================================
As
I said to Wilson, only a chimpanzee would claim “
You poor old
bugger. You haven't the faintest understanding of what I said.”--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 2, 2012, 7:32:00 PM10/2/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9330e64b-2098-441d...@googlegroups.com...
============================================================================
As I said to Wilson, "You poor old bugger. You haven't the faintest said of
what I understanding.”
-- Henry Wilson: “ DID YOU READ WHAT I SAID? I'll repeat it. NO DROPLET
MOVES ALONG THAT SPIRAL.”
Daisy Wilson: “ In the ROTATING FRAME , the actual path of each droplet IS a spiral. “
Daisy Wilson: “ In the ROTATING FRAME , the actual path of each droplet IS a spiral. “
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 2, 2012, 7:51:50 PM10/2/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae371b4-f5c2-4e8d...@googlegroups.com...
============================================================
Not that it matters, it could have just as easily be Gisse.
The fuckwits imagine
they’ve outsmarted you if you didn’t investigate their new
name, as if anyone
could give a shit what a faggot thinks.
“Ha ha, I scored a point over Androcles, he plonked “Yosemite
Sam” with
just one post”.
“Ha ha, I scored a point over Androcles, it took him two posts
to plonk “Pig Dig Dog”.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 3, 2012, 8:37:39 AM10/3/12
to
On 03.10.2012 00:40, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 21:12:59 UTC+10, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 01.09.2012 01:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > A snapshot taken from above by a nonrotating camera reveals a spiral.
>> >
>> > A snapshot taken from above by a rotating camera reveals an even
>> > tighter spiral.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30.09.2012 01:36, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> We will take some snapshots of the jet from above, using firstly
>>
>>> a camera at rest and secondly, one that rotates with the hose.
>>> A snapshot will reveal the type of pattern shown here:
>>> http://www.scisite.info/AtheA5.jpg
>>>
>>> We now arrange for the camera to rotate with the nozzle and determine
>>> what a subsequent snapshot will reveal?
>> It must and will show a spiral that is identical to the former.
> On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 21:12:59 UTC+10, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 01.09.2012 01:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > A snapshot taken from above by a nonrotating camera reveals a spiral.
>> >
>> > A snapshot taken from above by a rotating camera reveals an even
>> > tighter spiral.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30.09.2012 01:36, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> We will take some snapshots of the jet from above, using firstly
>>
>>> a camera at rest and secondly, one that rotates with the hose.
>>> A snapshot will reveal the type of pattern shown here:
>>> http://www.scisite.info/AtheA5.jpg
>>>
>>> We now arrange for the camera to rotate with the nozzle and determine
>>> what a subsequent snapshot will reveal?
>>
>> :-)
>
> Paul, in using the word 'tighter' I was merely stating
> the fairly obvious fact thatthe first complete turn is
>> :-)
>
> Paul, in using the word 'tighter' I was merely stating
> always at its lowest level in the rotating camera case.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Tighter.pdf
It is indeed fairly obvious that since the lower snapshot
is taken with a rotating camera, it reveals an even
tighter spiral than the top image.
What else should 'tighter' mean?
> The two snapshots are absolutely identical only once
> per cycle even though the actual curves themselves
> differ only in their orientation.
>
> Do you DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THAT?
> DO YOU?
>
> As I said to Andro, "only a fool would claim that a normal snapshot of a cat is identical to the same image taken with a ROTATING camera and showing the cat upside down".
>
So the following statement is uttered by a fool:
"We now arrange for the camera to rotate with the nozzle and
determine what a subsequent snapshot will reveal?
It must and will show a spiral that is identical to the former."
determine what a subsequent snapshot will reveal?
Right? :-)
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
yosemite....@gmail.com
Oct 3, 2012, 10:04:32 AM10/3/12
to
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 6:24:34 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> Here is the full curve of MY 'Kepler 13' showing the planet orbits.
> www.scisite.info/KM1.jpg
>
> Not a bad match, eh?
Pretty dismal, actually. (shrug)
> Here is the full curve of MY 'Kepler 13' showing the planet orbits.
> www.scisite.info/KM1.jpg
>
> Not a bad match, eh?
> I can't find the curves. Nothing comes up. Where are they?
http://archive.stsci.edu/index.html
Enter Target name (or Coordinates): Kepler 12
Press the Search button
On the Cross Correlation Search Results screen
Check the first checkbox in the Mark Column
(This will be for Dataset Name KPLR011804465-2009131105131)
Press the Plot marked Light Curves button
Wait a few seconds
I have tried this on Chrome, Firefox and Internet Explorer, so you cannot blame the browser. (shrug)
Plot the PDCsap flux.
The PDCSAP light curve is the flux contained in the optimal aperture in electrons per second after the PDC module has applied its detrending algorithm to the PA light curve.
By the way, how do you like these images of Algol?
http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/162.fa1cn.asp
As you can see, eclipsing binaries are, indeed, eclipsing binaries, and your supposed abilty to fit them means totally zilch. (shrug)
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 3, 2012, 6:08:39 PM10/3/12
to
http://www.scisite.info/pa1.jpg
the right spiral is 'tighter' than the left for the particular camera orientation shown.
I do not wish to discuss this any further because you are using it as a distraction from the main point which is THAT YOU JUMPED FRAMES IN YOUR SAGNAC ARTICLE and came up with a way to see around corners.
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson
Oct 3, 2012, 6:29:04 PM10/3/12
to
On Thursday, 4 October 2012 00:04:32 UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 6:24:34 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here is the full curve of MY 'Kepler 13' showing the planet orbits.
>
> > www.scisite.info/KM1.jpg
>
> >
>
> > Not a bad match, eh?
>
>
>
> Pretty dismal, actually. (shrug)
>
>
>
> > I can't find the curves. Nothing comes up. Where are they?
>
>
>
> By any chance, are you are an incompetent idiot? (shrug)
>
>
>
> http://archive.stsci.edu/index.html
>
> Enter Target name (or Coordinates): Kepler 12
>
> Press the Search button
>
> On the Cross Correlation Search Results screen
>
> Check the first checkbox in the Mark Column
Ok, I didn't do that.
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 6:24:34 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here is the full curve of MY 'Kepler 13' showing the planet orbits.
>
> > www.scisite.info/KM1.jpg
>
> >
>
> > Not a bad match, eh?
>
>
>
> Pretty dismal, actually. (shrug)
>
>
>
> > I can't find the curves. Nothing comes up. Where are they?
>
>
>
> By any chance, are you are an incompetent idiot? (shrug)
>
>
>
> http://archive.stsci.edu/index.html
>
> Enter Target name (or Coordinates): Kepler 12
>
> Press the Search button
>
> On the Cross Correlation Search Results screen
>
> Check the first checkbox in the Mark Column
>
> (This will be for Dataset Name KPLR011804465-2009131105131)
>
> Press the Plot marked Light Curves button
>
> Wait a few seconds
>
>
>
> I have tried this on Chrome, Firefox and Internet Explorer, so you cannot blame the browser. (shrug)
>
>
>
> Plot the PDCsap flux.
>
>
>
> The PDCSAP light curve is the flux contained in the optimal aperture in electrons per second after the PDC module has applied its detrending algorithm to the PA light curve.
> By the way, how do you like these images of Algol?
>
> http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/162.fa1cn.asp
> As you can see, eclipsing binaries are, indeed, eclipsing binaries, and your supposed ability to fit them means totally zilch. (shrug)
No doubt some eclipsing binaries do exist...and my program can detect which possibly are and which are not. ...The two shown in my group1 graphic, U Sge and U Cep, have the characteristic downward dip predicted by BaTh and are probably not eclipsing at all.
> Yosemite Samuelson
yosemite....@gmail.com
Oct 3, 2012, 7:04:37 PM10/3/12
to
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:29:04 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > The PDCSAP light curve is the flux contained in the optimal aperture in electrons per second after the PDC module has applied its detrending algorithm to the PA light curve.
>
> Yes that type of curve is easy to simulate.
Show me.
> > The PDCSAP light curve is the flux contained in the optimal aperture in electrons per second after the PDC module has applied its detrending algorithm to the PA light curve.
>
> Yes that type of curve is easy to simulate.
> > By the way, how do you like these images of Algol?
> > http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/162.fa1cn.asp
>
> I have never claimed that Algol was not an eclipsing binary.
> Its curve has a rise between the eclipsing events whereas BaTh predicts an almost flat section or one with a slight dip.
>
> > As you can see, eclipsing binaries are, indeed, eclipsing binaries, and your supposed ability to fit them means totally zilch. (shrug)
>
> No doubt some eclipsing binaries do exist...and my program can detect which possibly are and which are not. ...The two shown in my group1 graphic, U Sge and U Cep, have the characteristic downward dip predicted by BaTh and are probably not eclipsing at all.
Yosemite Samuelson
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 3, 2012, 7:27:46 PM10/3/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4fa74ed-c36c-4eed...@googlegroups.com...
I do not wish to
discuss this any further because ...
...
I, Daisy Wilson, have been proven wrong by Tusseladd, resent it and refuse to
admit it.
Good
reason, Daisy.
Tightest
spiral: http://steelstrip.co.uk/springsteel/images/Coil%20Spring.jpg
It’s
only squares, Daisy, only squares...
Henry Wilson
Oct 3, 2012, 9:30:35 PM10/3/12
to
On Thursday, 4 October 2012 09:04:37 UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:29:04 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The PDCSAP light curve is the flux contained in the optimal aperture in electrons per second after the PDC module has applied its detrending algorithm to the PA light curve.
>
> >
>
> > Yes that type of curve is easy to simulate.
>
>
>
> Show me.
>
>
>
> > > By the way, how do you like these images of Algol?
>
> > > http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/162.fa1cn.asp
>
> >
>
> > I have never claimed that Algol was not an eclipsing binary.
>
>
>
> Liar.
You must be confusing me with Androcles.
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:29:04 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The PDCSAP light curve is the flux contained in the optimal aperture in electrons per second after the PDC module has applied its detrending algorithm to the PA light curve.
>
> >
>
> > Yes that type of curve is easy to simulate.
>
>
>
> Show me.
>
>
>
> > > By the way, how do you like these images of Algol?
>
> > > http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/162.fa1cn.asp
>
> >
>
> > I have never claimed that Algol was not an eclipsing binary.
>
>
>
> Liar.
I have always said it might be a genuinely eclipsing binary. I am quite aware of the evidence for that. however I haven't come across a decent light curve for Algol, let alone one that shows spectral shift as well.
I might also point out that if one star passes in front of another, it is the light from the one in front that is essentially lost, not that of the eclipsed one.
As for your K13 curve, it looks to me as though it is due to the transit of a very large planet. BaTh predictions tend to have a more pointed bottom on the dip.
However. there is a big question as to the nature of all the observed short period objects that are orbiting stars at very close range. According to my calculations, an object orbiting our own sun every 5 days, would lie only 6 solar diameters away from the sun. It must be made of very peculiar stuff. To orbit our sun in one day, the object would have to be inside the sun.
> > Its curve has a rise between the eclipsing events whereas BaTh predicts an almost flat section or one with a slight dip.
>
> >
>
> > > As you can see, eclipsing binaries are, indeed, eclipsing binaries, and your supposed ability to fit them means totally zilch. (shrug)
>
> >
>
> > No doubt some eclipsing binaries do exist...and my program can detect which possibly are and which are not. ...The two shown in my group1 graphic, U Sge and U Cep, have the characteristic downward dip predicted by BaTh and are probably not eclipsing at all.
>
>
>
> Algol is an eclipsing binary, and has the light curve of an eclipsing binary, but BaTh effects should distort the light curve such that it does not look like the light curve of an eclipsing binary at all. Baron's images fully support the orbital parameters that have long been established for Algol. If you plug in those numbers into your program, you will find that your program predicts that the Algol light curve could not possibly look like the Algol light curve. (BIG SHRUG AND CONTEMPTUOUS LAUGHTER)
Naturally, observations made on such a nonsensical basis will not support a theory that is very different.
Like the rest of those poor deluded astronomers, you cannot get into your head that you are observing a willusion. You cannot take anything for granted. The task is to extract some truths from that willusion.
> Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 3, 2012, 9:38:36 PM10/3/12
to
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 3, 2012, 10:09:28 PM10/3/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:94ebbbce-5db1-482d...@googlegroups.com...
On
Thursday, 4 October 2012 09:04:37 UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:29:04 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The PDCSAP light curve is the flux contained in the optimal aperture in electrons per second after the PDC module has applied its detrending algorithm to the PA light curve.
>
> >
>
> > Yes that type of curve is easy to simulate.
>
>
>
> Show me.
>
>
>
> > > By the way, how do you like these images of Algol?
>
> > > http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/162.fa1cn.asp
>
> >
>
> > I have never claimed that Algol was not an eclipsing binary.
>
>
>
> Liar.
You must be confusing me with Androcles.
I have always said it might be a genuinely eclipsing binary. I am quite aware of the evidence for that. however I haven't come across a decent light curve for Algol, let alone one that shows spectral shift as well.
I might also point out that if one star passes in front of another, it is the light from the one in front that is essentially lost, not that of the eclipsed one.
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:29:04 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The PDCSAP light curve is the flux contained in the optimal aperture in electrons per second after the PDC module has applied its detrending algorithm to the PA light curve.
>
> >
>
> > Yes that type of curve is easy to simulate.
>
>
>
> Show me.
>
>
>
> > > By the way, how do you like these images of Algol?
>
> > > http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/162.fa1cn.asp
>
> >
>
> > I have never claimed that Algol was not an eclipsing binary.
>
>
>
> Liar.
You must be confusing me with Androcles.
I have always said it might be a genuinely eclipsing binary. I am quite aware of the evidence for that. however I haven't come across a decent light curve for Algol, let alone one that shows spectral shift as well.
I might also point out that if one star passes in front of another, it is the light from the one in front that is essentially lost, not that of the eclipsed one.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Stop it, my sides are aching!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
I might also point out when the Moon eclipses the Sun it is the light
from the Moon that is lost!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 3, 2012, 10:22:36 PM10/3/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0f86172-3579-4fb2...@googlegroups.com...
=============================================
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:94ebbbce-5db1-482d...@googlegroups.com...
I might also point out that if one star passes in front of another, it is the light from the one in front that is essentially lost, not that of the eclipsed one.
--
"Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson,
28/8/2012
news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com, the
epitome of Wilson's "supidity".
news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com, the
epitome of Wilson's "supidity".
Henry Wilson
Oct 4, 2012, 12:37:00 AM10/4/12
to
On Thursday, 4 October 2012 12:22:50 UTC+10, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b0f86172-3579-4fb2...@googlegroups.com...
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:94ebbbce-5db1-482d...@googlegroups.com...
> I might also point out that if one star passes in front of another, it is the light from the
> one in front that is essentially lost, not that of the eclipsed
> one.
I just LUV being smarter than everyone else here.
>
>
>
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:94ebbbce-5db1-482d...@googlegroups.com...
> I might also point out that if one star passes in front of another, it is the light from the
> one in front that is essentially lost, not that of the eclipsed
> one.
Did you notice the word 'essentially'?
We are discussing two very close stars that must obviously be around the same luminosity. They appear as a point source.
IF the smaller one passes in front of the larger, the reduction in total light emitted is roughly equal to the amount normally emitted by the ECLIPSING one.
So during such an eclipse, the reduction in total brightness is a good indicator of the brightness contribution of the SMALLER STAR.
GET IT NOW?
> --
> "Mirages are not caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson,
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 4, 2012, 5:04:34 AM10/4/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9926f69-7603-4133...@googlegroups.com...
I might also point out that if our Moon passes in front of the Sun, it is the light from the Moon in front that is essentially lost, not that of the eclipsed Sun. So during such a normal common eclipse, the loss of daylight during totality is a good indicator of the brightness contribution of the Moon which is fucking zero. I’m pretending I’m as stupid as Wilson is soupid. Get it now?
There is one important thing you’ve forgotten in agreeing with the supid
faggot I plonked instantly, Wilson, but you are more supid
than she is.
The eclipse of the Sun by the Moon lasts minutes, the Moon is 0.5 degrees
wide and the period is a month.
The “eclipse” of Algol lasts for 10 hours and the period is 70 hours
(three days).
That’s 52 degrees out of 360.
Get it now?
No, of course you don’t.
Roche limit.
Get it now?
No, of course you don’t.
I’ll try to explain it to you.
As the Earth turns on its axis the tide rises and falls where you are,
and you
get two tides a day. The water bump, high tide,
points toward the Moon on
one side of the Earth and away from the Moon on the
other side, making an
ovoid, and the Earth turns inside the ovoid.
Under the crust of the Earth is the mantle where the hot molten rock
called
magma is, and the crust, that’s all the continents
and the thinner sea floor,
are floating on the magma. Gravity doesn’t pick and
choose what it operates
on, the Moon tries to lift the crust the same
way it lifts the oceans. The
crust sometimes breaks and moves, and we have earthquakes, usually
but
not always where the crust is thinnest, which is under the oceans.
Now imagine what would happen if the Moon had a period of three
days.
It would have to be much closer and that would mean much higher
tides.
So high that the continents would break up and the oceans go right
over
them? No, much more than that.
Enter Roche.
In 1850, the French astronomer E. A. Roche (1820 – 1883) stated “no satellite can exist closer to a planet than 2.44x its radius or 1.44x from its surface.”
If a satellite or comet that is held together solely by its gravitational force (no tensile strength) passes within the planet’s Roche limit, it will break apart.
This has already happened! Saturn has rings, Jupiter has rings,
the Sun
has an asteroid belt.
If the Moon were close to the Earth it would break apart and Earth
would
have a ring or rings.
So why hasn’t the dark companion that supposedly eclipses Algol broken
apart?
Because it isn’t there and never was.
“I have always said it might be a genuinely eclipsing
binary.” – Wilson.
I have always said Wilson is a no-nothing fucking idiot.
Get it now?
No, of course you
don’t.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Henry Wilson
Oct 4, 2012, 6:39:17 AM10/4/12
to
I'm talking about close stars, which must both be around about the same temperature.
> There is one important thing you’ve forgotten in agreeing with the supid
> faggot I plonked instantly, Wilson, but you are more supid
> than she is.
> The eclipse of the Sun by the Moon lasts minutes, the Moon is 0.5 degrees
> wide and the period is a month.
> Now imagine what would happen if the Moon had a period of three
> days.
>
> It would have to be much closer and that would mean much higher
> tides.
>
> So high that the continents would break up and the oceans go right
> over
>
> them? No, much more than that.
>
> Enter Roche.
>
> In 1850, the French astronomer E. A. Roche (1820 – 1883) stated
> “no satellite can exist closer to a planet than 2.44x its radius or 1.44x from
> its surface.”
>
>
>
>
> If a satellite or comet that is held together solely by its
> gravitational force (no tensile strength) passes within the planet’s Roche
> limit, it will break apart.
>
> This has already happened! Saturn has rings, Jupiter has rings,
> the Sun
>
> has an asteroid belt.
>
> If the Moon were close to the Earth it would break apart and Earth
> would
>
> have a ring or rings.
>
> So why hasn’t the dark companion that supposedly eclipses Algol broken
> apart?
>
> Because it isn’t there and never was.
As my calculations show, the orbiting of our sun with a period of one day is impossible.
> “I have always said it might be a genuinely eclipsing
> binary.” – Wilson.
>
> I have always said Wilson is a no-nothing fucking idiot.
In the absence of a consistent light curve and associated spectral data, I will keep an open mind about Algol. However the light curves of 'eclipsing binaries' U Cep and U Sge can be matched very accurately with BaTh.
> Get it now?
>
> No, of course you
> don’t.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 4, 2012, 9:03:54 AM10/4/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:266be775-c9d3-4365...@googlegroups.com...
=========================================
And I’m explaining why there aren’t any close
stars to a fucking idiot.
> There is one important thing you’ve forgotten in agreeing with the supid
> faggot I plonked instantly, Wilson, but you are more supid
> than she is.
'Supid' am I? Is that an old English word?...a type of soup, maybe?
Dunno, I learnt it from you. I
thought it was a new ozzie word.
As I use a spelling check it wouldn’t
escape my notice for more than
a week the way you miss it. I’ve been
saying
--
"Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson,
28/8/2012
news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com, the
epitome of Wilson's "supidity" for a month now.
news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com, the
epitome of Wilson's "supidity" for a month now.
Yes, Wilson, you ARE supid.
> The eclipse of the Sun by the Moon lasts minutes, the Moon is 0.5 degrees
> wide and the period is a month.
I don't care.
============================================
Of course you don’t, you are fucking
supid.
==========================
I know there are no close binaries,
I’ve studied physics.
You don’t care because you are
supid.
> Now imagine what would happen if the Moon had a period of three
> days.
>
> It would have to be much closer and that would mean much higher
> tides.
>
> So high that the continents would break up and the oceans go right
> over
>
> them? No, much more than that.
>
> Enter Roche.
>
> In 1850, the French astronomer E. A. Roche (1820 – 1883) stated
> “no satellite can exist closer to a planet than 2.44x its radius or 1.44x from
> its surface.”
>
>
>
>
> If a satellite or comet that is held together solely by its
> gravitational force (no tensile strength) passes within the planet’s Roche
> limit, it will break apart.
>
> This has already happened! Saturn has rings, Jupiter has rings,
> the Sun
>
> has an asteroid belt.
>
> If the Moon were close to the Earth it would break apart and Earth
> would
>
> have a ring or rings.
>
> So why hasn’t the dark companion that supposedly eclipses Algol broken
> apart?
>
> Because it isn’t there and never was.
Quite possibly. I haven't disagreed with you. I have no firm opinion about Algol.
Not “Quite possibly” at all. It’s
fucking IMPOSSIBLE to occult something as
big as a star for 10 hours in 70 hours
with body close enough to orbit it in 3
days without the body or the star
breaking up!
As my calculations show, the orbiting of our sun with a period of one day is impossible.
========================================
So what the fuck are you babbling
“Quite possibly” about, “don’t care SUPID”?
> “I have always said it might be a genuinely eclipsing
> binary.” – Wilson.
>
> I have always said Wilson is a no-nothing fucking idiot.
...just as you have always said "bullshitting is my favourite pastime".
===========================================
Bullshitting IS your favourite
pastime.
In the absence of a consistent light curve and associated spectral data, I will keep an open mind about Algol.
==========================================
If you had a mind at all you’d make it
up, because you can’t have your
cake and eat it too. If it’s eclipsing
then the speed of light in empty space
is c like Einstein said. You want some
stars with c+v and others with
c only. Bullshitting IS your favourite pastime, AND you are
supid.
However the light curves of 'eclipsing binaries' U Cep and U Sge can be
matched very accurately with BaTh.
========================================
But Algol, the first eclipsing variable
ever theorised by the 18 year old
punk
kid Goodricke with a wooden telescope), can’t? You are really
supid.
> Get it now?
>
> No, of course you
> don’t.
I HAVE IT. yOU DON'T.
=============================================
This
night looked at Beta-Persei (Algol) and was much amazed to find
its
brightness altered. It now appears to be fourth magnitude... I observed
it
diligently for about an hour upwards...hardly believing that it changed
its
brightness, because I had never heard of any star varying so quick in
its
brightness. I thought it might be perhaps owing to an optical
illusion,
a defect in my eyes or bad air, but the sequel will show that its
change
is true and that it was not mistaken.
(John
Goodricke, journal entry November 12, 1782)
YOU are SUPID.
Henry Wilson
Oct 4, 2012, 2:58:53 PM10/4/12
to
You can say what there is NOT but have no idea what there IS!
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ALGOL'S SHORT PERIOD?
If a star cannot orbit it so closely, what can?
As far as I'm concerned, there is a big question mark over ALL short period
variables.
> As my calculations show, the orbiting of our sun with a period of one
> day is impossible.
> ========================================
>
> So what the fuck are you babbling
> “Quite possibly” about, “don’t care SUPID”?
There are other ways to make light travel at c+v.
> > “I have always said it might be a genuinely eclipsing
> >
> binary.” – Wilson.
> >
> > I have always said Wilson is a no-nothing
> fucking idiot.
>
> ...just as you have always said "bullshitting is my
> favourite pastime".
> ===========================================
>
> Bullshitting IS your favourite
> pastime.
"Algol is not a cat".
> In the absence of a
> consistent light curve and associated spectral data, I will keep an open mind
> about Algol.
>
> ==========================================
>
> If you had a mind at all you’d make it
> up, because you can’t have your
>
> cake and eat it too.
>If it’s eclipsing
> then the speed of light in empty space
> is c like Einstein said. You want some
> stars with c+v and others with
> c only. Bullshitting IS your favourite pastime, AND you are
> supid.
> However the light curves of 'eclipsing binaries' U Cep and U Sge can be
> matched very accurately with BaTh.
> ========================================
>
> But Algol, the first eclipsing variable
> ever theorised by the 18 year old
> punk
>
> kid Goodricke with a wooden telescope), can’t? You are really
> supid.
>
>
>
>
> > Get it now?
> >
> > No, of course you
> >
> don’t.
>
> I HAVE IT. yOU DON'T.
> =============================================
>
>
>
> This
> night looked at Beta-Persei (Algol) and was much amazed to find
> its
> brightness altered. It now appears to be fourth magnitude... I observed
> it
> diligently for about an hour upwards...hardly believing that it changed
> its
> brightness, because I had never heard of any star varying so quick in
> its
> brightness. I thought it might be perhaps owing to an optical
> illusion,
> a defect in my eyes or bad air, but the sequel will show that its
> change
> is true and that it was not mistaken.
> (John
> Goodricke, journal entry November 12, 1782)
>
> YOU are SUPID.
> > --
>
> > This message is not brought to you from the keyboard of
> > Lord
> Androcles, noneth
> > Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 4, 2012, 5:33:55 PM10/4/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7676dadf-dd64-495f...@googlegroups.com...
=======================================
The
planet “Androcles” in close orbit. Have you forgotten I discovered
it?
If a star cannot orbit it so closely, what can?
==================================
An egg of iron which has tensile
strength and won’t break up. There
may be some other heavy metals as well,
such as copper, gold, lead etc.
Androcles is not a nice planet, but it
is a planet. It is in tidal lock, too.
=======================================
Fucking liar, I told you years ago about Androcles
orbiting Algol.
You and your pal Jeery join their pact, you know fuck-all about
ballistic light so you’ll fit
right in.
As far as I'm concerned, there is a big question mark over ALL short period
variables.
============================================
As far as I’m concerned you are a
proven liar just as they are.
Not one scientist between the lot of
you.
> As my calculations show, the orbiting of our sun with a period of one
> day is impossible.
> ========================================
>
> So what the fuck are you babbling
> “Quite possibly” about, “don’t care SUPID”?
I'm not like YOU. I don't go around saying what ISN'T.
=======================
Yes you do, you lying bastard.
--
"Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/2012
Correcting the “typo”,
"Mirages are NOT
caused by gravity" , Wilson saying what things are not.
Mirages are caused by light rays bending,
Wilson believes gravity bends light, so its back to
"Mirages are caused by
gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/2012
You’ll knee–jerk to be anti, you can’t
help yourself, but you end up being
anti-Wilson.
"Henry
Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:94ebbbce-5db1-482d...@googlegroups.com...
I might also point out that if one star passes in front of another, it is the light from the one in front that is essentially lost, not that of the eclipsed one.
I might also point out that if one star passes in front of another, it is the light from the one in front that is essentially lost, not that of the eclipsed one.
As far as I’m concerned, that is fucking
idiotic.
I
want to establish what IS.
There are other ways to make light travel at c+v.
There are other ways to make light travel at c+v.
================================
You can’t even measure the speed of IR.
You can’t even measure the speed of IR.
> > “I have always said it might be a genuinely eclipsing
> >
> binary.” – Wilson.
> >
> > I have always said Wilson is a no-nothing
> fucking idiot.
>
> ...just as you have always said "bullshitting is my
> favourite pastime".
> ===========================================
>
> Bullshitting IS your favourite
> pastime.
Well, I suppose I could emulate YOU and spend my life saying what things aren't....like
"Algol is not a cat".
Algol is a star orbited by planet I’ve named
Androcles, you lying CUNT!
I have always said Wilson is a no-nothing
fucking idiot.
>
In the absence of a
> consistent light curve and associated spectral data, I will keep an open mind
> about Algol.
>
> ==========================================
>
> If you had a mind at all you’d make it
> up, because you can’t have your
>
> cake and eat it too.
OK. Algol is not a cake OR a cat..
>If it’s eclipsing
> then the speed of light in empty space
> is c like Einstein said. You want some
> stars with c+v and others with
> c only. Bullshitting IS your favourite pastime, AND you are
> supid.
I assume you made a typo and meant 'ÍSN'T' ...since you can only say what things aren't.
> consistent light curve and associated spectral data, I will keep an open mind
> about Algol.
>
> ==========================================
>
> If you had a mind at all you’d make it
> up, because you can’t have your
>
> cake and eat it too.
OK. Algol is not a cake OR a cat..
>If it’s eclipsing
> then the speed of light in empty space
> is c like Einstein said. You want some
> stars with c+v and others with
> c only. Bullshitting IS your favourite pastime, AND you are
> supid.
I assume you made a typo and meant 'ÍSN'T' ...since you can only say what things aren't.
You are definitely not like me, as you
stated. You assume.
> However the light curves of 'eclipsing binaries' U Cep and U Sge can be
> matched very accurately with BaTh.
> ========================================
>
> But Algol, the first eclipsing variable
> ever theorised by the 18 year old
> punk
>
> kid Goodricke with a wooden telescope), can’t? You are really
> supid.
>
>
>
>
> > Get it now?
> >
> > No, of course you
> >
> don’t.
>
> I HAVE IT. yOU DON'T.
DEMENTIA and AUTISM.
====================
Those are your words you are responding
too. I agree you have
dementia, you’ve forgotten I discovered
Androcles 20 years ago
and told you about it 12 years
ago.
> =============================================
>
>
>
> This
> night looked at Beta-Persei (Algol) and was much amazed to find
> its
> brightness altered. It now appears to be fourth magnitude... I observed
> it
> diligently for about an hour upwards...hardly believing that it changed
> its
> brightness, because I had never heard of any star varying so quick in
> its
> brightness. I thought it might be perhaps owing to an optical
> illusion,
> a defect in my eyes or bad air, but the sequel will show that its
> change
> is true and that it was not mistaken.
> (John
> Goodricke, journal entry November 12, 1782)
>
> YOU are SUPID.
Google's word processor is hopeless.
======================
Don’t use Google.
Henry Wilson
Oct 4, 2012, 6:03:20 PM10/4/12
to
> > On
> > Thursday, 4 October 2012 02:04:42 UTC-7, Lord
> Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
> > You don’t care
> because you are
> > supid.
>
> YOU are as useless as Roberts.
> You can
> say what there is NOT but have no idea what there IS!
>
> HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN
> ALGOL'S SHORT PERIOD?
>
>
>
> =======================================
> The
> planet “Androcles” in close orbit. Have you forgotten I discovered
> it?
> If a star cannot orbit it so closely,
> what can?
> ==================================
>
> An egg of iron which has tensile
> strength and won’t break up. There
> may be some other heavy metals as well,
> such as copper, gold, lead etc.
> Androcles is not a nice planet, but it
> is a planet. It is in tidal lock, too.
You can see a picture of it is old Jerry's latest thread.
It is black.
> want to establish what IS.
> There are other ways to make light travel at
> c+v.
> ================================
> You can’t even measure the speed of IR.
YOUR answer was 75% out.
> > Bullshitting IS
> your favourite
> > pastime.
>
> Well, I suppose I could emulate YOU and
> spend my life saying what things aren't....like
> "Algol is not a
> cat".
>
>
> Algol is a star orbited by planet I’ve named
> fucking idiot.
..drunk again....
> In the absence of a
> > consistent light curve and associated spectral
> data, I will keep an open mind
> > about Algol.
> >
> >
> ==========================================
> >
> > If you had a mind at
> all you’d make it
> > up, because you can’t have your
> >
> >
> cake and eat it too.
>
> OK. Algol is not a cake OR a cat..
>
>
> You are definitely not like me, as you
> stated. You assume.
> However the light curves of 'eclipsing binaries' U Cep and U Sge can be
> >
> matched very accurately with BaTh.
> >
> ========================================
> >
> > But Algol, the first
> eclipsing variable
> > ever theorised by the 18 year old
> > punk kid Goodricke with a wooden telescope), can’t? You are
> really supid.
> >
> stated. You assume.
> However the light curves of 'eclipsing binaries' U Cep and U Sge can be
> >
> matched very accurately with BaTh.
> >
> ========================================
> >
> > But Algol, the first
> eclipsing variable
> > ever theorised by the 18 year old
> > punk kid Goodricke with a wooden telescope), can’t? You are
> really supid.
> >
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 4, 2012, 8:07:43 PM10/4/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dde634f-91d4-4efe...@googlegroups.com...
====================================================
Oh right, there are seas on the Moon
because it is on tidal lock, I suppose,
and that is why they are called Marea,
the Latin for seas. <rolls eyes>
Armstrong and Aldrin landed in the Sea
of Tranquillity, one small step for
(a) man, one giant splash for
Mankind.
================================================
Ah, but I can explain chocolate eggs.
The Easter Bunny lays them.
I have no explanation for a pulsar,
either, and nor do I pretend to.
You have no explanation for the pot of
gold at the end of a rainbow.
Here’s a picture of one:
So it is the light from the eclipsed
star is lost, but “not that of the eclipsed one”.
As far as I’m concerned that is FUCKING
IDIOTIC and you are a FUCKING IDIOT.
> want to establish what IS.
> There are other ways to make light travel at
> c+v.
> ================================
> You can’t even measure the speed of IR.
I wouldn't even try. I would compare its speed to that of visible light.
YOUR answer was 75% out.
================================
And you know this because you wouldn’t even
try.
As far as I’m concerned that is FUCKING
IDIOTIC and you are a FUCKING IDIOT.
> > Bullshitting IS
> your favourite
> > pastime.
>
> Well, I suppose I could emulate YOU and
> spend my life saying what things aren't....like
> "Algol is not a
> cat".
>
>
> Algol is a star orbited by planet I’ve named
> Androcles, you lying CUNT!I have always said Wilson is a no-nothing
> fucking idiot.
..drunk again....
================
Then lay off the booze, you drunken
cunt.
How can read this if you can’t
download?
You must mean you can’t upload to
usenet through your newsreader.
Try using a different one, most are
free.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Henry Wilson
Oct 4, 2012, 10:17:20 PM10/4/12
to
On Friday, 5 October 2012 10:37:30 UTC+10, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3dde634f-91d4-4efe...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3dde634f-91d4-4efe...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> >
> news:94ebbbce-5db1-482d...@googlegroups.com...
> > I might
> also
> > point out that if one star passes in front of another, it is the
> light from the
> > one in front that is essentially lost, not that of the
> eclipsed one.
>
> > As far as I’m concerned, that is fucking
> >
> idiotic.
>
> The radiating area lost is the area of the front star.
>
>
> So it is the light from the eclipsed
> star is lost, but “not that of the eclipsed one”.
>
> As far as I’m concerned that is FUCKING
> IDIOTIC and you are a FUCKING IDIOT.
So if you are watching a point source, the dip during an eclipse can tell you something about the brightness of the FRONT star.
...but that's far too difficult for you or Jerry.
> want to establish what IS.
> > There are other ways to make light travel at
>
> > c+v.
> > ================================
> > You can’t even
> measure the speed of IR.
>
> I wouldn't even try. I would compare its speed
> to that of visible light.
>
> YOUR answer was 75% out.
>
>
> ================================
>
> And you know this because you wouldn’t even
> try.
>
> As far as I’m concerned that is FUCKING
> IDIOTIC and you are a FUCKING IDIOT.
> > Bullshitting IS
> > your favourite
> > > pastime.
> >
>
> > Well, I suppose I could emulate YOU and
> > spend my life saying
> what things aren't....like
> > "Algol is not a
> > cat".
> >
>
> >
> > Algol is a star orbited by planet I’ve named
> > Androcles, you lying CUNT!I have always said Wilson is a no-nothing
> >
> fucking idiot.
>
>
> because you can’t have your
> > >
> > >
> > cake and eat it
> too.
> >
> > OK. Algol is not a cake OR a cat..
> > You are definitely not like me,
I hope not !!!!!! Gawd! Perish the thought!
> because you can’t have your
> > >
> > >
> > cake and eat it
> too.
> >
> > OK. Algol is not a cake OR a cat..
> > You are definitely not like me,
I am posting through Google's site itself. ...but the word processor is terrible.
>
> Try using a different one, most are
> free.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Usenet_newsreaders
It isn't the sofware.
> Try using a different one, most are
> free.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Usenet_newsreaders
Uploading each day probably involves only a few gigs from the whole of OZ.
Downloading from 50000 NGs might involve a great many gigs.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 5, 2012, 12:05:09 AM10/5/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:da242141-2821-491e...@googlegroups.com...
Density, Wilson, density. Earth rocks are made of
silicon oxides and
aluminium oxides and other light elements, they
float up on the dense
core
which sinks. It may be that Earth’s core is liquid
iron and nickel;
the mantle is clearly liquid, volcanoes are proof
enough of that, and the
lava (pumice) is so full of gas it floats on
water. Androcles can be liquid
iron and still hold together, but the lighter
elements will have boiled off
long ago.
Then there’s the melting point, about 1200 C. Sure
it’ll glow red and
partially melt with a liquid iron sea, but who
cares? No physical law is
broken. Heat will transfer through the iron, it
will radiate as much heat
as it absorbs and the mean temperature will
be high but constant. It
will be in tidal lock because it is close to the
star, but not close enough
to be in the star’s atmosphere or it wouldn’t
last, the orbit would decay
with friction and down it would go. A gas giant
planet like Jupiter cannot
be
that close to the Sun, the light stuff would be ripped away, but it’s core
could.
You
are just being anti as a
lways,
you moron.
You are the fucking idiot if you think
I have the answer to everything.
What’s your explanation as to
how something can orbit a star in 12 hours, you
crazy cunt, and what have you seen that does? GPS satellites orbit the
Earth in
12 hours.
============================================
Your god Einstein said so, no need to prove
it.
> >
> news:94ebbbce-5db1-482d...@googlegroups.com...
> > I might
> also
> > point out that if one star passes in front of another, it is the
> light from the
> > one in front that is essentially lost, not that of the
> eclipsed one.
>
> > As far as I’m concerned, that is fucking
> >
> idiotic.
>
> The radiating area lost is the area of the front star.
>
>
> So it is the light from the eclipsed
> star is lost, but “not that of the eclipsed one”.
>
> As far as I’m concerned that is FUCKING
> IDIOTIC and you are a FUCKING IDIOT.
If the stars are about the same luminosity, the brightness decrease during a full eclipse is roughly equal to the normal brightness of the FRONT star.
So if you are watching a point source, the dip during an eclipse can tell you something about the brightness of the FRONT star.
...but that's far too difficult for you or Jerry.
There are no close binaries so your
argument is moot anyway,
and you are squirming and floundering
like a fish tossed aside
on the river bank, well and truly
caught.
As far as I’m concerned you are a FUCKING IDIOT, Daisy the
anti.> want to establish what IS.
> > There are other ways to make light travel at
>
> > c+v.
> > ================================
> > You can’t even
> measure the speed of IR.
>
> I wouldn't even try. I would compare its speed
> to that of visible light.
>
> YOUR answer was 75% out.
>
>
> ================================
>
> And you know this because you wouldn’t even
> try.
>
> As far as I’m concerned that is FUCKING
> IDIOTIC and you are a FUCKING IDIOT.
Coming from YOU, that is of no concern...
So you believe Einstein. Go fuck off
and join the relativity clique,
they want you on their side, you
ignorant clueless cunt, and I
certainly have no use for a loose cannon on my ship. FUCK
OFF.
David Fuller
Oct 5, 2012, 12:18:52 AM10/5/12
to
before it sounded like gravity was a curvature of space time
maybe space time is "light".
black holes are dark and have no space and time acts real funny there.
yep you are right, space time is light and electro magnetic radiation.
whew... glad you guys figured that out... I was perplexed for a while.
Henry Wilson
Oct 5, 2012, 7:02:31 PM10/5/12
to
On Friday, 5 October 2012 14:18:52 UTC+10, David Fuller wrote:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 9:17:21 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > An egg of
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 9:17:21 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Gravity DOES curve light. Some stellar mirages ARE caused by gravity.
>
>
>
> light has no mass so gravity should have no effect on it.
Light particles are so small they can pass through large amounts of matter, unhindered.
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Gravity DOES curve light. Some stellar mirages ARE caused by gravity.
>
>
>
> light has no mass so gravity should have no effect on it.
Whether they possess mass or plain energy is irrelevant. Gravity bends mass or energy.
However there is no reason to believe that, for photons, 'inertial mass equals gravitational mass'.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 5, 2012, 7:28:32 PM10/5/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f189acb0-3b0e-4f16...@googlegroups.com...
Light particles are so small they can pass through large amounts of matter, unhindered.
===========================================
They manage it with thin glass ok, but lead and
steel and brick stops
them dead and thicker glass hinders them. So does water, it’s dark
on the ocean floor. A half silvered mirror is the
best measure of your
large amounts of matter, some light is transmitted
and some reflected.
You are bullshitting again, Wilson. Nothing new in that, though.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Henry Wilson
Oct 5, 2012, 9:46:35 PM10/5/12
to
On Saturday, 6 October 2012 09:29:08 UTC+10, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f189acb0-3b0e-4f16...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> Light
> particles are so small they can pass through large amounts of matter,
> unhindered.
>
>
>
> ===========================================
>
> They manage it with thin glass ok, but lead and
> steel and brick stops
>
> them dead and thicker glass hinders them. So does water, it’s dark
>
> on the ocean floor. A half silvered mirror is the
> best measure of your large amounts of matter, some light is transmitted
> and some reflected.
>
> You are bullshitting again, Wilson. Nothing new in that, though.
You are logic-challenged again.
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f189acb0-3b0e-4f16...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> Light
> particles are so small they can pass through large amounts of matter,
> unhindered.
>
>
>
> ===========================================
>
> They manage it with thin glass ok, but lead and
> steel and brick stops
>
> them dead and thicker glass hinders them. So does water, it’s dark
>
> on the ocean floor. A half silvered mirror is the
> best measure of your large amounts of matter, some light is transmitted
> and some reflected.
>
> You are bullshitting again, Wilson. Nothing new in that, though.
My statement, 'they can pass through large amounts of matter", does not imply they always pass through all thicknesses of all types of matter.
Being a pommie engineer, you wouldn't have been informed that the radius of an atomic nucleus is extremely small compared with the radius of the atom itself. In other words, all matter is mainly empty space...ie., NOTHING.
My router sends photons through brick walls quite easily. Gamma particles and cosmic ray photons can penetrate half the Earth. Nothing seems to be able to stop neutrinos. Nothing at all can stop YOU from being an idiot....
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 5, 2012, 10:16:29 PM10/5/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b354793d-f2df-4b7a...@googlegroups.com...
On
Saturday, 6 October 2012 09:29:08 UTC+10, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f189acb0-3b0e-4f16...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> Light
> particles are so small they can pass through large amounts of matter,
> unhindered.
>
>
>
> ===========================================
>
> They manage it with thin glass ok, but lead and
> steel and brick stops
>
> them dead and thicker glass hinders them. So does water, it’s dark
>
> on the ocean floor. A half silvered mirror is the
> best measure of your large amounts of matter, some light is transmitted
> and some reflected.
>
> You are bullshitting again, Wilson. Nothing new in that, though.
You are logic-challenged again.
My statement, 'they can pass through large amounts of matter", does not imply they always pass through all thicknesses of all types of matter.
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f189acb0-3b0e-4f16...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> Light
> particles are so small they can pass through large amounts of matter,
> unhindered.
>
>
>
> ===========================================
>
> They manage it with thin glass ok, but lead and
> steel and brick stops
>
> them dead and thicker glass hinders them. So does water, it’s dark
>
> on the ocean floor. A half silvered mirror is the
> best measure of your large amounts of matter, some light is transmitted
> and some reflected.
>
> You are bullshitting again, Wilson. Nothing new in that, though.
You are logic-challenged again.
My statement, 'they can pass through large amounts of matter", does not imply they always pass through all thicknesses of all types of matter.
==================================================================
True
enough, but the inherent implication that all electromagnetic radiation is
small
and
it all passes through matter is clearly and intentionally misleading, i.e.
bullshit,
so
don’t give me or others any crap about what it implies.
Being a pommie engineer, you wouldn't have been informed that the radius of an atomic nucleus is extremely small compared with the radius of the atom itself. In other words, all matter is mainly empty space...ie., NOTHING.
============================================
Being a pommie engineer I would know
that better than you, you fucking liar.
My router sends photons through brick walls quite easily.
===================================
Bullshit. Your router bounces photons off walls
which scatters them in
all directions just like sunlight leaking through a crack in
the door frame.
You’ll be able to see in your bedroom with the
curtain drawn as soon
as the sun is above the horizon from scattered light alone, none of
which gets through walls.
I can see my cat’s eyes looking back at me from
100 yards with
moonlight alone, but I can’t see the cat, he’s black.
You can see what’s on the ground when it is in
shadow, but by
scattered light, the sunlight doesn’t pass through
walls and neither
does your router’s radiation.
Gamma
particles and cosmic ray photons can penetrate half the Earth.
=====================
Bullshit.
Nothing
seems to be able to stop neutrinos.
=========================
Neutrinos are a different animal. Eleven were
detected from SN 1987A,
just below the Earth’s surface.
Nothing
at all can stop YOU from being an idiot....
===================================
Nothing can stop you from being a drunken lying
cunt exaggerating all you see.
David Fuller
Oct 6, 2012, 9:38:09 AM10/6/12
to
On Friday, October 5, 2012 6:02:31 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, 5 October 2012 14:18:52 UTC+10, David Fuller wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 4, 2012 9:17:21 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > Light particles are so small they can pass through large amounts of matter,
> > unhindered.
> > Whether they possess mass or plain energy is irrelevant.
> > Gravity bends mass or energy.
> > However there is no reason to believe that,
> > for photons, 'inertial mass equals gravitational mass'.
Seems to me, the photons are traveling "Around" the matter, in an octave above the matter it "Appears" to be passing through.
> On Friday, 5 October 2012 14:18:52 UTC+10, David Fuller wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 4, 2012 9:17:21 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > Light particles are so small they can pass through large amounts of matter,
> > unhindered.
> > Whether they possess mass or plain energy is irrelevant.
> > Gravity bends mass or energy.
> > However there is no reason to believe that,
> > for photons, 'inertial mass equals gravitational mass'.
traveling in an octave of a higher energy density than the matter the photon appears to be passing through.
It would only appear to be an electro magnetic interaction, when it is "only" a magnetic reaction.
A "discharging Flux loop" around the "xyz....c squared... sqrt(3/4) corner" octave
the travel time would appear instantaneous for one and at c for the other.
space would appear illusory and created by time dilation.
"xyz....c squared... sqrt(3/4) corner"
Henry Wilson
Oct 6, 2012, 4:14:26 PM10/6/12
to
Henry Wilson
Oct 6, 2012, 4:29:46 PM10/6/12
to
On Friday, 5 October 2012 19:16:45 UTC-7, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b354793d-f2df-4b7a...@googlegroups.com...
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Classical theory describes reflection and transmission quite well in terms of wavelength...It merely stops right there, however, and doesn't attempt to link this with the particulate model of light.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My
> router sends photons through brick walls quite easily.
>
> ===================================
>
> Bullshit. Your router bounces photons off walls
> which scatters them in all directions just like sunlight leaking through a crack in the door
> frame.
> You’ll be able to see in your bedroom with the
> curtain drawn as soon
> as the sun is above the horizon from scattered light alone, none of
> which gets through walls.
>
> I can see my cat’s eyes looking back at me from
> 100 yards with
>
> moonlight alone, but I can’t see the cat, he’s black.
>
> You can see what’s on the ground when it is in
> shadow, but by
> scattered light, the sunlight doesn’t pass through
> walls and neither
> does your router’s radiation.
I'M NOT SURPRISED THEY NEVER PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF submarine communication.
> Gamma
> particles and cosmic ray photons can penetrate half the Earth.
>
> =====================
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Nothing
> seems to be able to stop neutrinos.
>
> =========================
>
> Neutrinos are a different animal.
> Eleven were
> detected from SN 1987A,
> just below the Earth’s surface.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 6, 2012, 5:49:43 PM10/6/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9308ab9c-141b-4fcf...@googlegroups.com...
==============================================
You are logically challenged
again.
One has only to throw tennis balls at a net or
grid to understand
particle reflection and transmission. Slightly
more difficult for you
is the water drip transmitting through the coffee
filter paper and
reforming
a drip on the other side.
As long as you continue to imagine photons are in
some strange
sense solid and tiny you will
never grasp polarisation. Water
droplets
are much bigger than the holes in the filter paper
and
photons are wider than the spacing of the
diffraction grating.
They pass through two or more slits at once
because they are
alternating
magnetic
fields, not little balls.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My
> router sends photons through brick walls quite easily.
>
> ===================================
>
> Bullshit. Your router bounces photons off walls
> which scatters them in all directions just like sunlight leaking through a crack in the door
> frame.
Gawd! Even YOU must know that's silly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My
> router sends photons through brick walls quite easily.
>
> ===================================
>
> Bullshit. Your router bounces photons off walls
> which scatters them in all directions just like sunlight leaking through a crack in the door
> frame.
Gawd! Even YOU must know that's silly.
==========================================
Logical
deduction from observation is only silly to the anti-scientist, Daisy the
anti.
Where in the room do you put your printer and it
does NOT receive
from the router? I can point my TV remote control
directly away from
the TV, the IR bounces off the wall and ceiling
and still changes channels
from a tiny fraction of the LED emission of
digital pulses.
But you are not just silly, you are a fucking
STUPID cunt.
.
> You’ll be able to see in your bedroom with the
> curtain drawn as soon
> as the sun is above the horizon from scattered light alone, none of
> which gets through walls.
>
> I can see my cat’s eyes looking back at me from
> 100 yards with
>
> moonlight alone, but I can’t see the cat, he’s black.
>
> You can see what’s on the ground when it is in
> shadow, but by
> scattered light, the sunlight doesn’t pass through
> walls and neither
> does your router’s radiation.
Of course it does. STRAIGHT THROUGH THE BRICK WALLS.
==============================================
Beam
it, then, and prove your case, you stupid cunt. The rest of
us
will use x-rays. I offered to let you measure the speed of IR
while
I did the x-rays but you are too incompetent for even that.
Ever lost an FM radio transmission in a tunnel,
you moron?
Hmm... you probably don’t have tunnels in flat
Oz.
I'M NOT SURPRISED THEY NEVER PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF submarine communication.
=================================
Radio
underwater is very long wave. When Moscow wanted to reach
a
Russian boomer in the cold war it sent a ping and the boomer had to
surface
to get
the
real
message.
Improvements have been made with
satellites
since. I’m not surprised you know fuck all about radio.
> Gamma
> particles and cosmic ray photons can penetrate half the Earth.
>
> =====================
>
> Bullshit.
...utters the pommie engineer....
>
> Nothing
> seems to be able to stop neutrinos.
>
> =========================
>
> Neutrinos are a different animal.
How do you know?
> Eleven were
> detected from SN 1987A,
> just below the Earth’s surface.
Did they have the sender's address written on them?
==================================
Nope, it was all assumption. A few very rare
neutrinos
were detected in a burst and then SN 1987A was
seen
shortly after. Someone figured out 2+2 = 11.
2.4 GHz from a router goes though brick walls!
Bwahahahahaha!
A device that can use Wi-Fi (such as a personal computer, video game console, smartphone, tablet, or digital audio player) can connect to a network resource such as the Internet via a wireless network access point. Such an access point (or hotspot) has a range of about 20 meters (65 feet) indoors and a greater range outdoors. Hotspot coverage can comprise an area as small as a single room with walls that block radio waves or as large as many square miles — this is achieved by using multiple overlapping access points.
Fuck off, you clueless ozzie wanker.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
0 new messages