Androcles' and Henri's Theory of Diffraction Grating Behavior
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1128495977....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> | Androcles wrote:
> |
> | > Why are you trying to divert attention from the issue?
> | > You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the
> } > real world".
> | > I've asked you to prove it.
> |
> | 1) Spectra from near versus distant galaxies are
> | differentially shifted by diffraction gratings.
>
> A proof of frequency shift when combined with the
> vector addition of velocities, an axiom.
> wavecrest count per second = \nu = (c+v)/ \lambda
> See Doppler.
>
>
> | 2) Traditional theory on diffraction gratings successfully
> | explains the diffraction angle as a function of wavelength,
> | incident angle, and grating spacing.
>
> Non sequitur, you have not proven a wavelength shift.
>
> | 3) Nobody, including Androcles and Henri, has ever offered
> | an alternative theory of diffraction grating behavior
> | explaining the diffraction angle as a function of
> | frequency, velocity of light, incident angle, and grating
> | spacing as would be required by the ballistic theory.
>
> Non sequitur, you didn't ask me, and wouldn't listen anyway.
>
>
> | 4) Until such theory is offered, it must be concluded that
> | traditional diffraction grating theory is correct.
>
> Non sequitur, you have not proven a wavelength shift.
>
> | 5) Therefore, all extant theory points to wavelengths
> | being Doppler shifted in the real world.
>
> Non sequitur, you have not proven a wavelength shift.
To Androcles and Henri:
Please present a mathematically consistent model of
diffraction grating behavior, explaining diffraction
angle as a function of frequency, velocity of light,
incident angle, and grating spacing, and which is
consistent with the ballistic theory.
Jerry
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1128521998.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> To Androcles and Henri:
>
> Please present a mathematically consistent model of
> diffraction grating behavior, explaining diffraction
> angle as a function of frequency, velocity of light,
> incident angle, and grating spacing, and which is
> consistent with the ballistic theory.
You must be joking.
They don't understand the concept of "variables in
equations".
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
I don't need Henri's collaboration, he's a halfwit promoting
his own pet theory and he's totally irrational.
Exclusive Or (XOR) applies, you'll have to address one or the other,
not both. Try
"To Androcles OR Henri:" then see if the results differ.
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:D4T0f.65826$iW5....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Exclusive OR applies to Androcles alright:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Jerry, I hope you realize what you are up against?
Dirk Vdm
Jerry
> Jerry, I hope you realize what you are up against?
Yes, I'm up against my brother who has threatened me with
mayhem if I dare let my straight-A average deteriorate
from spending too much time on these newsgroups.
(ty says "hi" to you, by the way...) He tends to treat me
like a daughter rather than a sister because of our age
difference and because he's supporting me through medical
school.
Oh, you meant Androcles? Well, on the "Sal" thread,
Androcles admitted not having a theory and being totally
incapable of explaining diffraction except in vague
handwaving terms. Naturally, he accuses me of not
having "presented anything to be alternative to."
Overall, Androcles has given a reasonably satisfactory
demonstration of incompetent arrogance.
Jerry
Androcles
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
|
| > Jerry, I hope you realize what you are up against?
|
| Yes, I'm up against my brother who has threatened me with
| mayhem if I dare let my straight-A average deteriorate
| from spending too much time on these newsgroups.
| (ty says "hi" to you, by the way...) He tends to treat me
| like a daughter rather than a sister because of our age
| difference and because he's supporting me through medical
| school.
|
| Oh, you meant Androcles? Well, on the "Sal" thread,
| Androcles admitted not having a theory
Yes, I did admit that.
| and being totally
| incapable of explaining diffraction except in vague
| handwaving terms.
Err, no. I can explain it very well but you didn't ask me for it,
you asked for my theory after you ased for a combined
Androcles-Henri explanation. Not very logical, are you?
| Naturally, he accuses me of not
| having "presented anything to be alternative to."
|
| Overall, Androcles has given a reasonably satisfactory
| demonstration of incompetent arrogance.
You illogical FUCKWIT!
All you had to do was ask me.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
Jerry, we don't get many messages here from genuine females. Most of them are
males in disguise...that being a good way to avoid excessive abuse....
However I notice that Androcles doesn't adjust his language for the two
genders. He suffers from professional jealousy you know...because MY variable
star program is about 1 billion time more powerful than his.
Jerry, you ask a very legitimate question and one that I was comtemplating just
this very day. There is every reason to believe that, according to the BaT, the
distance between 'wavepeaks' should remain constant, irrespective of relative
observer speed. However, observed doppler shift SHOULD BE dependent on relative
observer speed.
So, on the surface, it would appear that gratings would not detect doppler
shift if the BaT was correct. One explanation is that diffraction is frequency
sensitive...whatever 'frequency' implies.
The fact that they DO and the BaT MUST BE correct, promises to tell us
something about the properties and structure of 'photons' (if they exist).
I am presently considering how extinction accounts for anomalies in many
variable star light curves. You see, if light speed is unified by low density
gases as it travels through space, then radial velocities would also be unified
and negate the argument that extinction refutes DeSitter's disproof of the
Ritzian theory.
I am now working on a model that accommodates all these factors... but you will
have to wait for it.
Lots of strange things are happening out there.....
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Jerry
> Jerry, we don't get many messages here from genuine females.
I've noticed. The fake females in this newsgroup are
for the most part SO obvious, expecially when they try
to adopt "feminine" mannerisms.
> Most of them are
> males in disguise...that being a good way to avoid
> excessive abuse....
Uncle Al certainly has never hesitated with the abuse.
Nor have Mike, NunYaBidness, Quantum Mirror etc.
I've never spouted back, though. Well, almost never.
Traveler, though, has always been polite to me, even
though he realizes that I disagree with almost everything
he says. I would hope that his politeness has nothing to
do with my gender, but rather because I've always been
respectful in my disagreements.
My characterization of Androcles as having given a "reasonably
satisfactory demonstration of incompetent arrogance" -was-
crossing the line, and I shouldn't have given in to the
temptation of being able to insult under the safety of
anonymity. I won't take my words back, but I -will- try not
to give in to temptation in the future.
> However I notice that Androcles doesn't adjust his language
> for the two genders.
I hate hate hate HATE being patronized. So Androcles'
language doesn't bother me.
> He suffers from professional jealousy you know...because
> MY variable star program is about 1 billion time more
> powerful than his.
>
> Jerry, you ask a very legitimate question and one that I was
> comtemplating just this very day. There is every reason to
> believe that, according to the BaT, the distance between
> 'wavepeaks' should remain constant, irrespective of relative
> observer speed. However, observed doppler shift SHOULD BE
> dependent on relative observer speed.
> So, on the surface, it would appear that gratings would not
> detect doppler shift if the BaT was correct. One explanation
> is that diffraction is frequency sensitive...whatever
> 'frequency' implies. The fact that they DO and the BaT MUST
> BE correct, promises to tell us something about the properties
> and structure of 'photons' (if they exist).
>
> I am presently considering how extinction accounts for
> anomalies in many variable star light curves. You see, if
> light speed is unified by low density gases as it travels
> through space, then radial velocities would also be unified
> and negate the argument that extinction refutes DeSitter's
> disproof of the Ritzian theory.
>
> I am now working on a model that accommodates all these
> factors... but you will have to wait for it.
A good starting point for you would be to see how Brecher
analyzes the presumed effects of extinction on his data.
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net
You naturally would disagree with his conclusions.
> Lots of strange things are happening out there.....
True.
Jerry
Androcles
| Henri Wilson wrote:
|
| > Jerry, we don't get many messages here from genuine females.
|
| I've noticed. The fake females in this newsgroup are
| for the most part SO obvious, expecially when they try
| to adopt "feminine" mannerisms.
|
| > Most of them are
| > males in disguise...that being a good way to avoid
| > excessive abuse....
|
| Uncle Al certainly has never hesitated with the abuse.
| Nor have Mike, NunYaBidness, Quantum Mirror etc.
| I've never spouted back, though. Well, almost never.
Hey, don't leave me out! I'll abuse any phuckwit regardless
of gender.
|
| Traveler, though, has always been polite to me, even
| though he realizes that I disagree with almost everything
| he says. I would hope that his politeness has nothing to
| do with my gender, but rather because I've always been
| respectful in my disagreements.
|
| My characterization of Androcles as having given a "reasonably
| satisfactory demonstration of incompetent arrogance" -was-
| crossing the line, and I shouldn't have given in to the
| temptation of being able to insult under the safety of
| anonymity. I won't take my words back, but I -will- try not
| to give in to temptation in the future.
Not hungry enough to eat them?
I'm very competent at arrogance, and I know when I'm right.
I've posted why a diffraction grating doesn't measure wavelength
to Ghost, if you are competent to read and understand then
you'll swallow your words and your hat for afters.
No, I'm not polite. This is about physics, not genuflecting, and I'm
competent at physics also, phuckwit.
|
| > However I notice that Androcles doesn't adjust his language
| > for the two genders.
|
| I hate hate hate HATE being patronized. So Androcles'
| language doesn't bother me.
Good. You don't bother me either. If you want to learn, use
logic.
|
| > He suffers from professional jealousy you know...because
| > MY variable star program is about 1 billion time more
| > powerful than his.
| >
| > Jerry, you ask a very legitimate question and one that I was
| > comtemplating just this very day. There is every reason to
| > believe that, according to the BaT, the distance between
| > 'wavepeaks' should remain constant, irrespective of relative
| > observer speed.
Anyone that thinks different-sized newspapers come off a
printing press when the speed of the press changes has to be
has to be a complete lunatic.
The frequency at which newspapers are printed ranges from
one a day at start up to over a 1000 a minute, but they are all the
same length. Likewise when you run a paint roller over your
wall, the wavelength is pi * diameter of the roller. Both processes
are essentially the same.
Nor is that MY theory, oh arrogant incompetent one that will
not retract your statement.
However, observed doppler shift SHOULD BE
| > dependent on relative observer speed.
| > So, on the surface, it would appear that gratings would not
| > detect doppler shift if the BaT was correct. One explanation
| > is that diffraction is frequency sensitive...whatever
| > 'frequency' implies. The fact that they DO and the BaT MUST
| > BE correct, promises to tell us something about the properties
| > and structure of 'photons' (if they exist).
| >
| > I am presently considering how extinction accounts for
| > anomalies in many variable star light curves. You see, if
| > light speed is unified by low density gases as it travels
| > through space, then radial velocities would also be unified
| > and negate the argument that extinction refutes DeSitter's
| > disproof of the Ritzian theory.
| >
| > I am now working on a model that accommodates all these
| > factors... but you will have to wait for it.
|
| A good starting point for you would be to see how Brecher
| analyzes the presumed effects of extinction on his data.
| http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net
| You naturally would disagree with his conclusions.
Looks to me (at a glance) that the author has some inkling
of what he's saying. Thanks for the reference, I shall read it.
Henri (or Henry, he doesn't know how to spell his own name)
Wilson is listed at crank.net for his H-aether "theory",
which is where it belongs.
http://www.crank.net/relativity.html
refers to
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/H-aether.htm
|
| > Lots of strange things are happening out there.....
|
| True.
Nothing quite as strange as Wilson's crackpot theories.
Androcles
Rod Ryker
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
message
news:3XP1f.94810$RW.9...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Androcles
>
Rod: I like you and Henri and disagree sometimes,
but that crank comment was very "THE DIRK!" of
you.
Conquer and divide saith "THE DIRK!"
How many strings does "THE DIRK!" have on you
and Henri now?
I however, am not bound by the strings of a JERK
that JERK'S via "THE DIRK!"
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
Henri Wilson
I think that profanities generally lower a person's credibility unless used
sparingly and appropriately.
Yes I do disagree.
Apparently nobody but myself - and maybe my good friend and colleague, the ever
polite Androcles - have woken up to the fact that ALL stellar observations are
illusions. Because light moves so rapidly, we humans have always rightfully
accepted that what we see on Earth is a good representation of reality. That is
not true for objects in space.
Astronomers DO allow for light travel time. BUT THEY DON'T ALLOW FOR A VARIABLE
LIGHT SPEED....because they are hopelessly indoctrinated with Einsteiniana.
The plain fact is, observed parameter values should not be confused with the
real ones that eventually gives rise to the illusions we see here.
People like Brecher and DeSitter are trying to use the parameters of an
illusion to refute a theory which tries to find the true parameters that lead
to that illusion. Their strange kind of circular logic goes sometghing like
this: "if you plug the values provided by the illusion into the BaT, it will
not give the values provided by the illusion and is therefore wrong".
OF COURSE IT WONT REPRODUCE THE ILLUSION!!!!
The BaT starts at the other end of the problem, which is ""to try to establish
the true situation that produces the illusion when one has only the illusion to
go on"".
Get it?
That requires speculation concerning models.
It so happens that the BaT fits the bill on both logical and experimental
grounds.
Both the extremely knowledgeable Androcles and I have produced almost exact
replicas of star brightness curves with our separate BaT variable star
programs.
So what more proof do you want?
(I will discuss gratings again when I think more about it).
Rod Ryker
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:jsngk1t8n7dm1du9b...@4ax.com...
Rod: Thank you Henri, you are certainly a
gentleman as Androcles will be. :)
Androcles
"Rod Ryker" <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:248c4$434839e6$d84426ef$24...@FUSE.NET...
Perhaps, but I spent a great deal of time talking to Henri Wilson
who insists planets are to be called Wilson Cool Heavies,
no reasoned argument will persuade him otherwise.
I will not associate myself with such an egotistical "My Theory"
crank.
| Conquer and divide saith "THE DIRK!"
I have no interest in anything the phuckwit moortel says.
If Henri Wilson wants to go it alone, I can't stop him.
| How many strings does "THE DIRK!" have on you
| and Henri now?
I have no interest in the stooopid cunt.
| I however, am not bound by the strings of a JERK
| that JERK'S via "THE DIRK!"
Ok... you are a free man, why are you interested in the arsehole?
| --
| Rod Ryker...
| The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
That's a rather silly statement.
Androcles
Jerry
For starters,
1) BaT needs to explain the fine details of light curves
not merely gross averaged features.
a) High precision photometric studies demonstrate
"period noise" in Cepheid light curves. This
comprises both peak-to-peak variability in phase,
and peak-to-peak variability in amplitude. You have
"explained" period noise as evidence of interstellar
"twinkling". Explain why amplitude "twinkling" is not
seen for most stars.
b) Explain long term variability in Cepheids, "sudden"
changes between fundamental and overtone mode
oscillations, "sudden" -permanent- loss of Cepheid
variability in some stars.
2) BaT needs to explain the spectral data, not merely
amplitude data.
a) Explain periodic line broadening and narrowing in
Cepheid spectra.
b) Explain line splitting showing spectra of two
distinct stars in eclipsing binaries such as
Algol. Explain the relative phase of this periodic
line splitting, which peaks when the stars are
maximally separated as expected in traditional
theory.
3) BaT needs to explain the interferometric data.
a) Cepheid stars have been observed to swell and
shrink, size changes being correlated with
amplitude changes and changes in line broadening.
b) VLBI can track the motions of individual stars
in some binary systems. For example, synchrotron
emission from one of the components of the Algol
system can be tracked. The actual motions of this
star have been observed, and are consistent with
traditional theory.
4) Traditional theory of variable stars is backed up
by multiple interlocking observations using
multiple techniques, and results from all of these
techniques add up to form a coherent story of
variable star behavior. No unexpected anomalies
have been seen between results obtained from these
widely varying techniques.
5) BaT needs to be shown to be consistent with all
of the data, and not merely capable of reproducing
gross features of averaged light curves.
6) Don't forget gratings.
Jerry
Androcles
ROFLMAO!
Androcles.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1128872875.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
How does that comment contribute to the discussion?
Jerry
Will Kramer
>Androcles wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> | amplitude data.
>>
>
>How does that comment contribute to the discussion?
I think it's a sign of cognitive disonance. On some level of his
"mind" (at least when he is sober) he surely realizes that all the
spectral information conclusively disproves his juvenile ideas, but at
this point in his life it is simply not possible for his conscious
"mind" to accept that he has squandered so many years in the service
of a foolish delusion. Hence he bursts out into laughter whenever he
is confronted with the truth. It's the only way his "mind" can
respond. He is a very sad case.
Androcles
About as much as yours. If you want to know anything,
you are barking up the right tree at the wrong squirrel,
besides which you snipped what I was laughing at.
I don't like discussions where pertinent information is
snipped and ignored. Have a nice day.
Androcles.
|
| Jerry
|
Androcles
"Will Kramer" <willk...@no-spam.com> wrote in message
news:43494da8....@news.gte.net...
You are quickly disposed of.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
Squander that, you stooopid cunt.
*plonk*
Androcles
Jerry
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > ROFLMAO!
> |
> | How does that comment contribute to the discussion?
>
> About as much as yours. If you want to know anything,
> you are barking up the right tree at the wrong squirrel,
> besides which you snipped what I was laughing at.
> I don't like discussions where pertinent information is
> snipped and ignored. Have a nice day.
> Androcles.
The material that I snipped was at a previous
level in the discussion, and had become grossly
misformatted.
You should have directed your laughter to the
appropriate post, rather than laugh "through" my
post to the one that you thought laughable.
Jerry
Androcles
Androcles.
Jerry
As I said before, it is necessary for BaT to explain
-all- the data, and not merely be shown capable of
fitting gross features of averaged light curves. Sekerin
fails to address spectral data, interferometric data,
Cepheid evolution, high precision photometric studies
demonstrating period noise, etc.
Jerry
Henri Wilson
Jerry, you still haven't gotten it.
"ALL THE DATA" you refer to is 'all the illusion'.
Neither you nor any astronomer knows the real data.
>
>Jerry
Jerry
> On 9 Oct 2005 12:02:11 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >As I said before, it is necessary for BaT to explain
> >-all- the data, and not merely be shown capable of
> >fitting gross features of averaged light curves. Sekerin
> >fails to address spectral data, interferometric data,
> >Cepheid evolution, high precision photometric studies
> >demonstrating period noise, etc.
>
> Jerry, you still haven't gotten it.
>
> "ALL THE DATA" you refer to is 'all the illusion'.
>
> Neither you nor any astronomer knows the real data.
YOU, on the other hand, have to show that you can
recreate "all the illusion".
You have not demonstrated the capability.
Jerry
Androcles
with planets called "Wilson Cool Heavies", h-aether,
BaTs in his belfry or any of his crackpot theories.
I introduced Wilson to the idea of modelling a star
in elliptical orbit according to Kepler's second law and
his equation E = M-e.sin(E). Wilson said he didn't understand
it and refused to model it, so he uses 1/2 a spiral and calls
it ellipse. I've offered to help, but he insists his program is
1,000,000 times better than mine and I'm jealous of it.
Make sure your sound is on, listen carefully to my reply to
Wilson as you open this page:
http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/
If he wants to climb into my tree, well, I invited him,
but he doesn't get to take it over. Let him find his own
tree. As I told you, you are barking up the right tree at
the wrong squirrel. Henri will invent the Wilson cool
diffraction grating any day now.
If you are interested in emission theories I can help, but
the theory of Ritz is not mine, nor is the vector addition
of velocities. I have no theories.
Vladimir Sekerin was on the other side of the iron curtain when
I was sketching his fig 2 in the back of an envelope. I went
on to program it.
Nor did Sekerin analyze Einstein's 1905 paper and locate
the flaw in that.
In 1999 I told Jan Beilawski the problem in Einstein's paper
He's still trying to convince me there is nothing wrong with it,
but now I'm very experienced with trolls.
=======================
Message-ID: <qpoN2.862$Rn5...@news.rdc1.pa.home.com>#1/1
1: Galilean relativity - called the "principle of relativity"
2: Constancy of light in empty space.
3: Definition of time: t'A-tA = 2AB/c.
4: Gravitational acceleration.
1) I think we can all accept.
2) is postulated, but since it is verifiable, it is surely an
hypothesis. It
has never been verified to this day, but it surely will be sometime in
the
future.
3) is not well defined. If A is moving relative to B, and c is finite,
AB
does not equal BA.
=========================
What I do is put the shoe on the other foot these days.
YOU dont get to demand of me what *I* have to show.
*I* challenge YOU to prove YOUR theories, and *I* do the
laughing.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
Light curves are mainly constructed from visual estimates. They are pretty
rough anyway.
> a) High precision photometric studies demonstrate
> "period noise" in Cepheid light curves. This
> comprises both peak-to-peak variability in phase,
> and peak-to-peak variability in amplitude. You have
> "explained" period noise as evidence of interstellar
> "twinkling". Explain why amplitude "twinkling" is not
> seen for most stars.
A number of plausible explanations immediately spring to (the unindoctrinated)
mind.
> b) Explain long term variability in Cepheids, "sudden"
> changes between fundamental and overtone mode
> oscillations, "sudden" -permanent- loss of Cepheid
> variability in some stars.
HoHohahahah!
....any preacher will tell you that with enough faith, evidence can be found
everywhere.
>2) BaT needs to explain the spectral data, not merely
> amplitude data.
There is NO reliable data. There is only the illusion.
> a) Explain periodic line broadening and narrowing in
> Cepheid spectra.
You might have missed my recent posting where I accepted that some Cepheids
might indeed be huff-puff stars.
I say that because the only published radial velocity curve I can find is about
45 out of phase from the BaTh prediction.
...not that I believe the 'data' ....but without further evidence, I am not
going to insist that short period 'cepheids' are necessarily a result of the
BaTh. I'm not saying they are NOT either.
> b) Explain line splitting showing spectra of two
> distinct stars in eclipsing binaries such as
> Algol. Explain the relative phase of this periodic
> line splitting, which peaks when the stars are
> maximally separated as expected in traditional
> theory.
Once again, you are fully accepting the illusion as data.
I have told you, that is legitimate on Earth.... but when observing things
100LYs away, you literally cannot believe your own eyes. You are seeing an
illusion.
However, the only decent curve I have indicates that a third object might be
present.
The second object is the large fast moving planet 'Androcles', named after its
discoveror. It reflects light from the main star. It is this light that is
confusing you people.
Once the illusion concept is accepted, there are many possibilities.
>3) BaT needs to explain the interferometric data.
> a) Cepheid stars have been observed to swell and
> shrink, size changes being correlated with
> amplitude changes and changes in line broadening.
Interferometers aren't immune to illusions.
> b) VLBI can track the motions of individual stars
> in some binary systems. For example, synchrotron
> emission from one of the components of the Algol
> system can be tracked. The actual motions of this
> star have been observed, and are consistent with
> traditional theory.
No, dearyme, you got it all wrong again. The ILLUSIONS have been tracked. The
ILLUSIONS have been observed.
>4) Traditional theory of variable stars is backed up
> by multiple interlocking observations using
> multiple techniques, and results from all of these
> techniques add up to form a coherent story of
> variable star behavior. No unexpected anomalies
> have been seen between results obtained from these
> widely varying techniques.
Load of crap.
The BaTh predictions are far more coherent. I can look at a brightness curve
and tell you all about the star's orbit, its companions (if any) and its radial
velocity/distance ratio.
Until the BaTh is universally accepted, astronomers will remain horribly
deluded.
>5) BaT needs to be shown to be consistent with all
> of the data, and not merely capable of reproducing
> gross features of averaged light curves.
Well Androcles and I have done the groundwork. You are now free to use my
recently revised and extremely comprehensive variable star program if you want
to find the real answers.
You can use a hand calculator if you prefer but you will have to live for
billions of years to do what my program will do in seconds.
>6) Don't forget gratings.
I have not forgotten gratings.....they have the potential to reveal a great
deal about photon structure.
I think I can say that, according to my 'sawblade' photon model, gratings
should work under BaTh IF the diffracted light speed is c after 'reflection'
from the lines. ..and that should be true.
>Jerry
Rod Ryker
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
message
news:K_62f.11613$tS4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Rod: Ego is what it is Androcles. ;)
But you and Henri have similar thoughts re
the speed of light etc.
I don't agree, and yet I respect very much
the both of you. And I will not disrespect
you as "THE DIRK!" does.
You were too harsh on Henri A-man. :)
> | Conquer and divide saith "THE DIRK!"
>
> I have no interest in anything the phuckwit
moortel says.
> If Henri Wilson wants to go it alone, I can't
stop him.
Rod: Exactly what I'm saying.
"THE DIRK!" is nothing but a NG bully.
He knows better, yet he discourages thought
that disagrees with mainstream physics.
Indeed, he hasn't the time nor the balls to stand
up.
>
> | How many strings does "THE DIRK!" have on you
> | and Henri now?
>
> I have no interest in the stooopid cunt.
>
> | I however, am not bound by the strings of a
JERK
> | that JERK'S via "THE DIRK!"
>
> Ok... you are a free man, why are you interested
in the arsehole?
Rod: "THE DIRK!" cares about strength in numbers
re opposition
to mainstream physics. I am interested in keeping
US from desolving.
> | --
> | Rod Ryker...
> | The intricacies of nature is man's cannon
fodder.
>
> That's a rather silly statement.
> Androcles
>
Rod: Not if you disagree with mainstream physics.
A-man! ;)
The Ghost In The Machine
<H@>
wrote
on Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:51:58 GMT
<v3tik1ppl24h1ip9f...@4ax.com>:
H. Wilson does have a point. The only data we *know*
is what we can measure here on Earth (or devices launched
from Earth); cross-correlation is at best a guess based
on existing theory, e.g. one can very easily measure
light intensity given angle-to-grating and grating
specifications; it's far harder to characterize the actual
wavelength of that light, although both BaT and SR agree,
AFAICT, that the diffraction grating only depends on
wavelength, not on incoming speed of the light (it does
depend on velocity for the direction component).
The good news is that nearby stars exhibit parallax, given the
Earth's orbit. That gives us an idea as to distance. It's
not much, of course; there's a reason 3.26 lightyears is called
one parsec (parallax of one second). In fact, since 1 arc-second
is 2*Pi/(360 * 3600) radians, one can simply divide 1 AU by
Pi/(360 * 1800), as a first approximation; this gives one
1.501 * 10^11 * 360 * 1800 / Pi = 3.2636 light-years.
(My figures are apparently a little off for the length of a
sidereal year; Google gives 3.2616 light-years.)
Unfortunately, 1.0 arc-second is about the resolution limit
for the best of ground telescopes; Hubble fares a little
better, with 0.1 arc-second resolution on its standard
camera, but it's still very ambiguous for anything farther
out than a few light-years.
The good news is that its Faint Object Camera has far better
resolution -- it can resolve down to 0.0072 arc-seconds, or
about 452 light years (assuming that one wants a minimum
movement of 2 pixels). The bad news: at a distance of
92.8 light-years (the distance, according to contemporary
measurements of Algol), 0.0072 arc-seconds is about
0.2 AU. Since the distance between the two stars is
computed to be 0.062AU, it is probably not resolvable by
the Hubble. We might see a shift of 10 pixels over the
course of a half-year, though, and there are other possibilities,
such as measuring orbital period and estimating the mass of
the orbiting bodies...however, Algol has an oddity that
has mass transferring from one star to the other, making
life interesting.
And admittedly http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/ seems to not
know anything regarding Algol.
Of course H. Wilson is on record as stating that no observation,
experiment, or other such has ever falsified BaT; presumably,
these include Algol, Sagnac, MMX, and various observations
regarding decaying muons or mesons.
For his part Androcles is on record as stating that Aql 1493
disproves SR, because of the U-shaped lightcurve.
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:dtbo13-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| however, Algol has an oddity that
| has mass transferring from one star to the other, making
| life interesting.
Not observed.
| And admittedly http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/ seems to not
| know anything regarding Algol.
| Of course H. Wilson is on record as stating that no observation,
| experiment, or other such has ever falsified BaT; presumably,
| these include Algol, Sagnac, MMX, and various observations
| regarding decaying muons or mesons.
|
| For his part Androcles is on record as stating that Aql 1493
| disproves SR, because of the U-shaped lightcurve.
I'm on record as proving nothing can go faster than a turtle,
using Einstein's math. I don't believe me.
I'm not too fond of stars blowing up twice in three months,
either. I think is just a tad too coincidental with the prediction
Sekerin and I made.
Tom Roberts is on record as the observer of an accretion
disk near a black hole, but he won't give me right ascension
and declination so that I can see it too. I think he's keeping
it for himself, he may have to agree there is a bright green flying
elephant perched on it and I was right. Waaaah... I want my
elephant back.
H. Wilson is on record for calling planets "Wilson Cool Heavies"
and his belief in h-aether and half a spiral is an ellipse, which I'm
jealous of.
Timo Neimenin is on record for claiming TV tubes work with air
in them and says I refuse to discuss physics with him.
The Ghost In The Machine is on record for claiming mass
transfer between stars is factual.
"Uncle"Al Schwartz is on record for
"BTW, you fuck-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it. Hey Androcyst, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling alley."
including the extraneous quotation mark.
Einstein:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Who did we miss?
Androcles
Androcles
Harsh it has to be, planets are not called "Wilson Cool Heavies"
If Wilson will not relent...<shrug> I've offered to help, he
doesn't want it. Amen.
|
| > | Conquer and divide saith "THE DIRK!"
| >
| > I have no interest in anything the phuckwit
| moortel says.
| > If Henri Wilson wants to go it alone, I can't
| stop him.
|
| Rod: Exactly what I'm saying.
| "THE DIRK!" is nothing but a NG bully.
| He knows better, yet he discourages thought
| that disagrees with mainstream physics.
| Indeed, he hasn't the time nor the balls to stand
| up.
|
So why respond? <shrug again>
| >
| > | How many strings does "THE DIRK!" have on you
| > | and Henri now?
| >
| > I have no interest in the stooopid cunt.
| >
| > | I however, am not bound by the strings of a
| JERK
| > | that JERK'S via "THE DIRK!"
| >
| > Ok... you are a free man, why are you interested
| in the arsehole?
|
| Rod: "THE DIRK!" cares about strength in numbers
| re opposition
| to mainstream physics. I am interested in keeping
| US from desolving.
I was never in solution. The way to handle moortel is to let
him scribble what he likes on his padded cell walls. All he wants
is attention, let him stew. Nobody seriously believes his crap,
or those that do are phuckwits anyway.
Androcles.
Rod Ryker
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
message
news:O7g2f.97219$RW.6...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Rod: The voice of wisdom. A-man
Henri Wilson
>
>
>"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
>message
>news:K_62f.11613$tS4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> | > Androcles
>> | >
>> | Rod: I like you and Henri and disagree
>sometimes,
>> | but that crank comment was very "THE DIRK!" of
>> | you.
>>
>> Perhaps, but I spent a great deal of time
>talking to Henri Wilson
>> who insists planets are to be called Wilson Cool
>Heavies,
>> no reasoned argument will persuade him
>otherwise.
>> I will not associate myself with such an
>egotistical "My Theory"
>> crank.
>>
>
>Rod: Ego is what it is Androcles. ;)
>But you and Henri have similar thoughts re
>the speed of light etc.
>I don't agree, and yet I respect very much
>the both of you. And I will not disrespect
>you as "THE DIRK!" does.
>You were too harsh on Henri A-man. :)
Fix your line length please Rod.
...and why do you bother reading van de Spitall's messages?
Henri Wilson
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
Not a bad start.
Please refere me to any light curve and I will tell you what caused it.
Henri Wilson
For clarity I have renamed it the 'BaTh'.
As in "take a BaTh and unwash your brain".
...and there are WCLLs and well as WCHs.
(Wilson Cool Large Lightweight)
The planet 'Wilson-Androcles' circling Algol is a WCLL.
>I introduced Wilson to the idea of modelling a star
>in elliptical orbit according to Kepler's second law and
>his equation E = M-e.sin(E). Wilson said he didn't understand
>it and refused to model it, so he uses 1/2 a spiral and calls
>it ellipse.
.....just can't help lovin' dose spirals.
>I've offered to help, but he insists his program is
>1,000,000 times better than mine and I'm jealous of it.
>Make sure your sound is on, listen carefully to my reply to
>Wilson as you open this page:
>http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/
>If he wants to climb into my tree, well, I invited him,
>but he doesn't get to take it over. Let him find his own
>tree. As I told you, you are barking up the right tree at
> the wrong squirrel. Henri will invent the Wilson cool
>diffraction grating any day now.
I have. For a relflection grating:
Light arrives at c+v but reflects off the lines at c (wrt the lines).
Wavelength - distance between arriving wavecrests - is not observer or grating
dependent. Distance between reflected wavecrests IS doppler shifted.
Similar for a transmision grating.
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
><H@>
> wrote
>>>> Androcles
>>>
>>>As I said before, it is necessary for BaT to explain
>>>-all- the data, and not merely be shown capable of
>>>fitting gross features of averaged light curves. Sekerin
>>>fails to address spectral data, interferometric data,
>>>Cepheid evolution, high precision photometric studies
>>>demonstrating period noise, etc.
>>
>> Jerry, you still haven't gotten it.
>>
>> "ALL THE DATA" you refer to is 'all the illusion'.
>>
>> Neither you nor any astronomer knows the real data.
>>
>
>H. Wilson does have a point.
Hooray for Ghost. He finally got something dead right.
That's correct again Ghost. None of these falsify the BaTh.
They all fully support it. ...as do all related experiemnts.
>
>For his part Androcles is on record as stating that Aql 1493
>disproves SR, because of the U-shaped lightcurve.
That curve can be produced with the BaTh ....but it is only a snippet so we
cannot deduce much from it.
>
>[.sigsnip]
Jerry
> On 9 Oct 2005 13:03:31 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 9 Oct 2005 12:02:11 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >As I said before, it is necessary for BaT to explain
> >> >-all- the data, and not merely be shown capable of
> >> >fitting gross features of averaged light curves. Sekerin
> >> >fails to address spectral data, interferometric data,
> >> >Cepheid evolution, high precision photometric studies
> >> >demonstrating period noise, etc.
> >>
> >> Jerry, you still haven't gotten it.
> >>
> >> "ALL THE DATA" you refer to is 'all the illusion'.
> >>
> >> Neither you nor any astronomer knows the real data.
> >
> >YOU, on the other hand, have to show that you can
> >recreate "all the illusion".
> >
> >You have not demonstrated the capability.
>
> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>
> Not a bad start.
>
> Please refere me to any light curve and
> I will tell you what caused it.
OK. In your fit to R Drac. Count 7 cycles from the
left. I see period noise amounting to approximately
1/8 of a cycle, over the course of one entire cycle,
with prominent amplitude noise in the minimum
immediately preceding the shifted cycle.
Tell me what caused it.
Jerry
Androcles
his neck out.
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_2000.shtml
Tell me what causes the Sagnac effect.
Androcles.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1128897300.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> | OK. In your fit to R Drac. Count 7 cycles from the
> | left. I see period noise amounting to approximately
> | 1/8 of a cycle, over the course of one entire cycle,
> | with prominent amplitude noise in the minimum
> | immediately preceding the shifted cycle.
> |
> | Tell me what caused it.
> |
> | Jerry
> Typical troll, aren't you?
How so? Henri asked me to supply some variable
star data that might be difficult for him to explain,
and I replied as requested. It's a pretty major
amount of period noise for him to explain, far
exceeding any reasonable error bars.
> I can't blame you though,
> H does stick his neck out.
Basically, you are admitting that -you- can't
explain the period noise, either.
> http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_2000.shtml
> Tell me what causes the Sagnac effect.
George Dishman has demonstrated in this newsgroup
that Sagnac is inconsistent with BaT. So the onus
is on -you- to come up with an alternative theory
for the Sagnac effect that is consistent with
emission theory.
As for me, I'm totally happy with traditional
treatments of the Sagnac effect, such as the one
on mathpages:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Jerry
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
[snip]
>
> I have not forgotten gratings.....they have the potential to reveal a great
> deal about photon structure.
Except that experiments that try to observe mass and structure are both
consistant with "none".
>
> I think I can say that, according to my 'sawblade' photon model, gratings
> should work under BaTh IF the diffracted light speed is c after 'reflection'
> from the lines. ..and that should be true.
"I think"
"should work"
"IF"
"should be true".
Hahaha. Right up there with "Wilsonian Threshold Density", which spans
eighty orders of magnitude.
Come on Henri, quantify your theory. Try it.
Using Newton's 3 laws, the entirety of Newtonian mechanics can be
derived.
Using the two postulates of SR, the mathematical theory of SR can be
derived.
However, you have offered us no postulates - you have no theory. All
you do is handwave and say how things should be.
GR *PREDICTED* the deflection of light from the sun before it was
observed.
SR *PREDICTED* time dilation long before it was ever observed.
You predict NOTHING. Much like yourself, your theory is useless.
>
> >Jerry
Jerry you try too hard. Seriously. Look at your brother's attempt to
teach Henri about GPS.
Jerry
> Jerry you try too hard. Seriously. Look at your
> brother's attempt to teach Henri about GPS.
Runs in the family. My sister and my nieces are also
pretty stubborn.
Jerry
Androcles
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:1128897300.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| > | OK. In your fit to R Drac. Count 7 cycles from the
| > | left. I see period noise amounting to approximately
| > | 1/8 of a cycle, over the course of one entire cycle,
| > | with prominent amplitude noise in the minimum
| > | immediately preceding the shifted cycle.
| > |
| > | Tell me what caused it.
| > |
| > | Jerry
| > Typical troll, aren't you?
|
| How so? Henri asked me to supply some variable
| star data that might be difficult for him to explain,
| and I replied as requested. It's a pretty major
| amount of period noise for him to explain, far
| exceeding any reasonable error bars.
|
| > I can't blame you though,
| > H does stick his neck out.
|
| Basically, you are admitting that -you- can't
| explain the period noise, either.
Noise is noise. It's present in every observation;
OJ Simpson's defence team amplified it and presented
a very spiky graph to the jury, who allowed a murderer
to go free.
I've yet to see anyone present a perfect curve, all curves
have error bars on them.
Focus on the noise and that's what makes you
a typical troll, I have no intention of explaining noise.
|
| > http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_2000.shtml
| > Tell me what causes the Sagnac effect.
|
| George Dishman has demonstrated in this newsgroup
| that Sagnac is inconsistent with BaT. So the onus
| is on -you- to come up with an alternative theory
| for the Sagnac effect that is consistent with
| emission theory.
| As for me, I'm totally happy with traditional
| treatments of the Sagnac effect, such as the one
| on mathpages:
| http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Put two children on a carousel and have them move with
constant speed clockwise and counterclockwise.
Start them off where you are standing beside the carousel
and note where they meet again. You'll have the angle alpha.
Ask them to walk slowly at carousel speed so that one child
remains where you are and the other circumnavigates the
carousel, the angle alpha will be zero.
Pay for my trip to Disneyland and I'll demonstrate for you.
I expect you are totally happy with Santa Claus as well.
Since you are not permitted to observe the speed of light
to be anything other than c, looking at Sagnac will stop
your watch and your heartbeat; it is extremely dangerous.
Dishman is of course a phuckwit, like Einstein. I'm just
an ordinary crank. Best you listen to what phuckwits tell you
instead of thinking. Typical troll, aren't you?
Androcles.
Jerry
> | Basically, you are admitting that -you- can't
> | explain the period noise, either.
>
> Noise is noise. It's present in every observation;
> OJ Simpson's defence team amplified it and presented
> a very spiky graph to the jury, who allowed a murderer
> to go free.
> I've yet to see anyone present a perfect curve, all curves
> have error bars on them.
> Focus on the noise and that's what makes you
> a typical troll, I have no intention of explaining noise.
The period noise present in the R Draconis light curve
is far beyond any conceivable error bars.
Take a look again at Henri's fit to this star:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
R Draconis is a Mira-type variable which fluctuates between
6.7 to 13.2 magnitudes over a period of 245 days. That is
a 160-fold ratio between maximum brightness and minimum
brightness! R Draconis is an extremely well studied variable.
AAVSO records 3000+ observations over the last five years,
so each recorded cycle is the result of an average of about
400 estimates by dozens of observers. Averaged errors should
amount to less than a couple tenths of a magnitude, i.e.
less than 5% of the total min-max variation.
The period noise visible in Henri's fit to R Dra corresponds
to a 30 day phase shift. It is impossible that this shift
could represent an artifact of a few incorrect observations.
Mira variables are well-known for exhibiting unstable light
curves.
> | George Dishman has demonstrated in this newsgroup
> | that Sagnac is inconsistent with BaT. So the onus
> | is on -you- to come up with an alternative theory
> | for the Sagnac effect that is consistent with
> | emission theory.
>
> | As for me, I'm totally happy with traditional
> | treatments of the Sagnac effect, such as the one
> | on mathpages:
> | http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
>
> Put two children on a carousel and have them move with
> constant speed clockwise and counterclockwise.
> Start them off where you are standing beside the carousel
> and note where they meet again. You'll have the angle alpha.
> Ask them to walk slowly at carousel speed so that one child
> remains where you are and the other circumnavigates the
> carousel, the angle alpha will be zero.
> Pay for my trip to Disneyland and I'll demonstrate for you.
> I expect you are totally happy with Santa Claus as well.
> Since you are not permitted to observe the speed of light
> to be anything other than c, looking at Sagnac will stop
> your watch and your heartbeat; it is extremely dangerous.
>
> Dishman is of course a phuckwit, like Einstein. I'm just
> an ordinary crank. Best you listen to what phuckwits tell you
> instead of thinking. Typical troll, aren't you?
Your handwaving analogy does nothing to advance your
case.
Jerry
Henri Wilson
Firstly, you must realise that all these curves are based on visual comparisons
with nearby reference stars....so one must expect some inaccuracies like the
one you mention.
Secondly, if that pattern repeated itself regularly, it would most likely be
due to a third object orbiting at about 1/7 the period.
Thirdly, the main pair that contribute to the brightness curve might be
themselves in a longer period orbit around a WCH. That would cause a small
cyclic doppler variation in 'observed' frequency.
In the case of the curve for S Urs, the main feature is a noticeable dip just
before the peak. Such a dip appears quite frequently in the curves shown on the
britastro website..
I had trouble reproducing that type of curve until I included a smaller star
(or group of asteroids?) in the same orbit but positioned at the stable 60
degree Lagrange point. I have named that star "Wilsonius"
We don't have objects at Lagrange points in our solar system but they are
apparently quite common 'out there'.
....See how useful the BaTh is!!!!!
Henri Wilson
George has attempted to do that.
He has failed miserably.
He cannot see it but being in possession of that typically superior female
spatial ability ( :-) ), you might be able to.
Each component of a four mirror sagnac move in a circle in the non-rotating
frame of the next component.
In other words, radial source speed is zero wrt the first mirror and has nought
to do with the sagnac effect.
>As for me, I'm totally happy with traditional
>treatments of the Sagnac effect, such as the one
>on mathpages:
>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
You are obviously happy with illusions form outer space too.
Jerry
> On 9 Oct 2005 15:35:00 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >OK. In your fit to R Drac. Count 7 cycles from the
> >left. I see period noise amounting to approximately
> >1/8 of a cycle, over the course of one entire cycle,
> >with prominent amplitude noise in the minimum
> >immediately preceding the shifted cycle.
> >
> >Tell me what caused it.
>
> Firstly, you must realise that all these curves are based on visual comparisons
> with nearby reference stars....so one must expect some inaccuracies like the
> one you mention.
> Secondly, if that pattern repeated itself regularly, it would most likely be
> due to a third object orbiting at about 1/7 the period.
> Thirdly, the main pair that contribute to the brightness curve might be
> themselves in a longer period orbit around a WCH. That would cause a small
> cyclic doppler variation in 'observed' frequency.
The period noise present in the R Draconis light curve
is far beyond any conceivable error bars.
Take a look again at your fit to this star:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
R Draconis is a Mira-type variable which fluctuates between
6.7 to 13.2 magnitudes over a period of 245 days. That is
a 160-fold ratio between maximum brightness and minimum
brightness! R Draconis is an extremely well studied variable.
AAVSO records 3000+ observations over the last five years,
so each recorded cycle is the result of an average of about
400 estimates by dozens of observers. Averaged errors should
amount to less than a couple tenths of a magnitude, i.e.
less than 5% of the total min-max variation.
The period noise visible in your fit to R Dra corresponds
to a 30 day phase shift. It is impossible that this shift
could represent an artifact of a few incorrect observations.
Mira variables are well-known for exhibiting unstable light
curves.
> In the case of the curve for S Urs, the main feature is a noticeable dip just
> before the peak. Such a dip appears quite frequently in the curves shown on the
> britastro website..
> I had trouble reproducing that type of curve until I included a smaller star
> (or group of asteroids?) in the same orbit but positioned at the stable 60
> degree Lagrange point. I have named that star "Wilsonius"
Yet you STILL have unexplained major deviations!!!
> We don't have objects at Lagrange points in our solar system but they are
> apparently quite common 'out there'.
>
> ....See how useful the BaTh is!!!!!
Nope.
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> I have not forgotten gratings.....they have the potential to reveal a great
>> deal about photon structure.
>
>Except that experiments that try to observe mass and structure are both
>consistant with "none".
So there is nothing, which differentiates a photon from 'nothing'?
Very good Geese! Light doesn't really exist. We all imagine it does.
>
>>
>> I think I can say that, according to my 'sawblade' photon model, gratings
>> should work under BaTh IF the diffracted light speed is c after 'reflection'
>> from the lines. ..and that should be true.
>
>"I think"
>
>"should work"
>
>"IF"
>
>"should be true".
>
>Hahaha. Right up there with "Wilsonian Threshold Density", which spans
>eighty orders of magnitude.
I have another theory that says there is a threshold temperature below which
OHM's law doesn't hold.
I suppose you reckon that's nonsense too.
>
>Come on Henri, quantify your theory. Try it.
>
>Using Newton's 3 laws, the entirety of Newtonian mechanics can be
>derived.
>
>Using the two postulates of SR, the mathematical theory of SR can be
>derived.
Which is both circularly consistent and consistently circular.
It also has no physical significance.
>However, you have offered us no postulates - you have no theory. All
>you do is handwave and say how things should be.
I don't offer POSTULATES. I provide a perfectly logical theory plus evidence to
back it up!
>
>GR *PREDICTED* the deflection of light from the sun before it was
>observed.
Crap. Anyone can accidentally drop a factor of two.
>
>SR *PREDICTED* time dilation long before it was ever observed.
Time dilation doesn't exist idiot.
Henri Wilson
Sounds like a big family....
Didn't your parents know anything about birth control?
Androcles
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:1128910230.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| > | Basically, you are admitting that -you- can't
| > | explain the period noise, either.
| >
| > Noise is noise. It's present in every observation;
| > OJ Simpson's defence team amplified it and presented
| > a very spiky graph to the jury, who allowed a murderer
| > to go free.
| > I've yet to see anyone present a perfect curve, all curves
| > have error bars on them.
| > Focus on the noise and that's what makes you
| > a typical troll, I have no intention of explaining noise.
|
| The period noise present in the R Draconis light curve
| is far beyond any conceivable error bars.
Then it's data, not noise.
|
| Take a look again at Henri's fit to this star:
| http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
Sure. A three-body (or more) system, could be type Sun-Earth-Moon,
could be type Sun-Jupiter-Saturn. There are no analytical solutions to
three-body systems.
http://www.physics.cornell.edu/sethna/teaching/sss/jupiter/Web/Rest3Bdy.htm
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~megraw/CR3BP_html/cr3bp_bg.html
"The three body problem is one of the oldest problems in dynamical
systems."
Given the number of planets and moons in our own solar system
I would not expect H's solution to agree perfectly, or R Draconis to be
a two-body system that he's modelled. More interesting is the Lyra,
http://www.astro.washington.edu/morgan/MRO/home.page/mro.observations/graphics/Figure2.html
which I gave to Henri to model. He still owes me a bottle of Glenlivet
on that.
He doesn't have enough oscillations. I've been researching that
"ringing"
myself, but there is not enough data available in the plot. Henri is
hiding
what I gave him.
| R Draconis is a Mira-type variable which fluctuates between
| 6.7 to 13.2 magnitudes over a period of 245 days. That is
| a 160-fold ratio between maximum brightness and minimum
| brightness!
No need for the exclamation point, I understand magnitude.
When slow light is actually passed by fast light emitted later,
a NINE magnitude jump is quite easy to obtain.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
| R Draconis is an extremely well studied variable.
| AAVSO records 3000+ observations over the last five years,
| so each recorded cycle is the result of an average of about
| 400 estimates by dozens of observers. Averaged errors should
| amount to less than a couple tenths of a magnitude, i.e.
| less than 5% of the total min-max variation.
|
| The period noise visible in Henri's fit to R Dra corresponds
| to a 30 day phase shift. It is impossible that this shift
| could represent an artifact of a few incorrect observations.
Correct. Another planet is not an artefact, nor are you seeing noise.
| Mira variables are well-known for exhibiting unstable light
| curves.
Mira itself is a ghost image:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010121.html
This explanation is nonsense, the product of a wild imagination:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050505.html
Not only are you a troll, you are a fuckwit as well.
*plonk*
Androcles.
|
Jerry
> In the case of the curve for S Urs, the main feature is a noticeable dip just
> before the peak. Such a dip appears quite frequently in the curves shown on the
> britastro website..
> I had trouble reproducing that type of curve until I included a smaller star
> (or group of asteroids?) in the same orbit but positioned at the stable 60
> degree Lagrange point. I have named that star "Wilsonius"
The correct designation for the star you call "S Urs" is "S Umi".
Remember that there are two bears in the sky, the greater and the
lesser.
S Umi is a Mira-type variable, of period 331 days and magnitude
ranging from approximately 7.5 max to 13.2 min.
Even after your inclusion of "Wilsonius", I see unexplained
period noise of +/- 30 days, and unexplained amplitude noise
of +/- 0.5 magnitude.
> We don't have objects at Lagrange points in our solar system but they are
> apparently quite common 'out there'.
>
> ....See how useful the BaTh is!!!!!
I hope you understand what would be implied by such unstable
orbital parameters...
Jerry
Jerry
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > Noise is noise. It's present in every observation;
> | > OJ Simpson's defence team amplified it and presented
> | > a very spiky graph to the jury, who allowed a murderer
> | > to go free.
> | > I've yet to see anyone present a perfect curve, all curves
> | > have error bars on them.
> | > Focus on the noise and that's what makes you
> | > a typical troll, I have no intention of explaining noise.
> |
> | The period noise present in the R Draconis light curve
> | is far beyond any conceivable error bars.
>
> Then it's data, not noise.
"Period noise" is the accepted technical term for the
observed deviations in variable star light curves from
perfect regularity.
> | Take a look again at Henri's fit to this star:
> | http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>
> Sure. A three-body (or more) system, could be type Sun-Earth-Moon,
> could be type Sun-Jupiter-Saturn. There are no analytical solutions to
> three-body systems.
> http://www.physics.cornell.edu/sethna/teaching/sss/jupiter/Web/Rest3Bdy.htm
> http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~megraw/CR3BP_html/cr3bp_bg.html
> "The three body problem is one of the oldest problems in dynamical
> systems."
Old, yes. However, there are general rules of thumb as
to what might or might not be a stable configuration.
For instance, two close orbiting bodies, with a third
body orbiting the first two at a distance such that its
period is greater than 20 times that of the first two,
can generally be considered to be a stable system without
need for further analysis. Closer in, and you have to
examine each configuration on a case-by-case basis.
> Given the number of planets and moons in our own solar system
> I would not expect H's solution to agree perfectly, or R Draconis to be
> a two-body system that he's modelled.
The huge irregularities in orbital parameters that
would be implied by the observed light curves cannot
possibly correspond to a stable solution. Such an unstable
system would in all likelihood suffer rapid mass ejection.
Again, "period noise" is the accepted technical term, and no,
I do not buy the idea that what you propose could represent
a long-term stable configuration.
> | Mira variables are well-known for exhibiting unstable light
> | curves.
>
> Mira itself is a ghost image:
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010121.html
>
> This explanation is nonsense, the product of a wild imagination:
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050505.html
>
> | > Put two children on a carousel and have them move with
> | > constant speed clockwise and counterclockwise.
> | > Start them off where you are standing beside the carousel
> | > and note where they meet again. You'll have the angle alpha.
> | > Ask them to walk slowly at carousel speed so that one child
> | > remains where you are and the other circumnavigates the
> | > carousel, the angle alpha will be zero.
> | > Pay for my trip to Disneyland and I'll demonstrate for you.
> | > I expect you are totally happy with Santa Claus as well.
> | > Since you are not permitted to observe the speed of light
> | > to be anything other than c, looking at Sagnac will stop
> | > your watch and your heartbeat; it is extremely dangerous.
> | >
> | > Dishman is of course a phuckwit, like Einstein. I'm just
> | > an ordinary crank. Best you listen to what phuckwits tell you
> | > instead of thinking. Typical troll, aren't you?
> |
> | Your handwaving analogy does nothing to advance your
> | case.
>
> Not only are you a troll, you are a fuckwit as well.
> *plonk*
> Androcles.
What does this "plonk" supposed to represent? It's the
second "plonk" that you've given me.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c95e9301d3771533
Jerry
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1129013189....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
It means that he has lost it and now pretends not to be
able to see your messages until he forgets about it.
I think I'm the Androplonk Record Holder on this
forum.
But congratulations are in place. You are now an
official holder of the Androplonk-2 certificate!
Dirk Vdm
Billy Bob
off....henri is every once in a while funny, by claiming some stupid
shit that makes no sense...but androturd has some real mental problems.
bb
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2005 20:13:32 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>
> >> I have not forgotten gratings.....they have the potential to reveal a great
> >> deal about photon structure.
> >
> >Except that experiments that try to observe mass and structure are both
> >consistant with "none".
>
> So there is nothing, which differentiates a photon from 'nothing'?
Energy.
>
> Very good Geese! Light doesn't really exist. We all imagine it does.
Gisse.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I think I can say that, according to my 'sawblade' photon model, gratings
> >> should work under BaTh IF the diffracted light speed is c after 'reflection'
> >> from the lines. ..and that should be true.
> >
> >"I think"
> >
> >"should work"
> >
> >"IF"
> >
> >"should be true".
> >
> >Hahaha. Right up there with "Wilsonian Threshold Density", which spans
> >eighty orders of magnitude.
>
> I have another theory that says there is a threshold temperature below which
> OHM's law doesn't hold.
>
> I suppose you reckon that's nonsense too.
Is it an actual qualitative theory I can get numbers from? I am tired
of commenting on theories that don't exist.
>
> >
> >Come on Henri, quantify your theory. Try it.
> >
> >Using Newton's 3 laws, the entirety of Newtonian mechanics can be
> >derived.
> >
> >Using the two postulates of SR, the mathematical theory of SR can be
> >derived.
>
> Which is both circularly consistent and consistently circular.
> It also has no physical significance.
Oops, I should not have mentioned relativity. You put in a knee-jerk
response while missing my point.
Since you are too goddamn dense to see it, I shall show you my point:
Whether or not you agree with SR as a physical theory, its' status as a
consistant mathematical theory is absolute.
>
> >However, you have offered us no postulates - you have no theory. All
> >you do is handwave and say how things should be.
>
> I don't offer POSTULATES. I provide a perfectly logical theory plus evidence to
> back it up!
Fine. What is it?
Show me how to obtain an equation of motion for particle, using your
theory. Or will you pull a Dumb Donny and say such things are useless?
I can do it using Newton, SR, and for a suitably nice metric - GR too.
The only way I can is because I have an actual theory to work with
instead of handwavy arguments about how the universe should be.
>
> >
> >GR *PREDICTED* the deflection of light from the sun before it was
> >observed.
>
> Crap. Anyone can accidentally drop a factor of two.
How fortunate, a result that validates GR was the result of an
"accident". I am sure you have a vast list of citations that utterly
smash that "abberation" of an experiment. Right? Right...?
>
> >
> >SR *PREDICTED* time dilation long before it was ever observed.
>
> Time dilation doesn't exist idiot.
Hafele and Keating for starters. I shall continue to reference it until
you provide a counter-reference that invalidates it.
Henri Wilson
>Androcles wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1128982791.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> | Androcles wrote:
>
>> | > Noise is noise. It's present in every observation;
>> | > OJ Simpson's defence team amplified it and presented
>> | > a very spiky graph to the jury, who allowed a murderer
>> | > to go free.
>> | > I've yet to see anyone present a perfect curve, all curves
>> | > have error bars on them.
>> | > Focus on the noise and that's what makes you
>> | > a typical troll, I have no intention of explaining noise.
>> |
>> | The period noise present in the R Draconis light curve
>> | is far beyond any conceivable error bars.
>>
>> Then it's data, not noise.
>
>"Period noise" is the accepted technical term for the
>observed deviations in variable star light curves from
>perfect regularity.
So what is the Einsteinian reason for it?
>
>> | Take a look again at Henri's fit to this star:
>> | http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>>
>> Sure. A three-body (or more) system, could be type Sun-Earth-Moon,
>> could be type Sun-Jupiter-Saturn. There are no analytical solutions to
>> three-body systems.
>> http://www.physics.cornell.edu/sethna/teaching/sss/jupiter/Web/Rest3Bdy.htm
>> http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~megraw/CR3BP_html/cr3bp_bg.html
>> "The three body problem is one of the oldest problems in dynamical
>> systems."
>
>Old, yes. However, there are general rules of thumb as
>to what might or might not be a stable configuration.
>For instance, two close orbiting bodies, with a third
>body orbiting the first two at a distance such that its
>period is greater than 20 times that of the first two,
>can generally be considered to be a stable system without
>need for further analysis. Closer in, and you have to
>examine each configuration on a case-by-case basis.
So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
>
>> Given the number of planets and moons in our own solar system
>> I would not expect H's solution to agree perfectly, or R Draconis to be
>> a two-body system that he's modelled.
>
>The huge irregularities in orbital parameters that
>would be implied by the observed light curves cannot
>possibly correspond to a stable solution. Such an unstable
>system would in all likelihood suffer rapid mass ejection.
So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
>
>> | Mira variables are well-known for exhibiting unstable light
>> | curves.
So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
Henri Wilson
So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
>
>> In the case of the curve for S Urs, the main feature is a noticeable dip just
>> before the peak. Such a dip appears quite frequently in the curves shown on the
>> britastro website..
>> I had trouble reproducing that type of curve until I included a smaller star
>> (or group of asteroids?) in the same orbit but positioned at the stable 60
>> degree Lagrange point. I have named that star "Wilsonius"
>
>Yet you STILL have unexplained major deviations!!!
Has it not occured to you that the sections of space through which light from a
star is traveling to Earth is NOT CONSTANT or HOMOGENEOUS.
My H-aether theory clearly states that the speed of each photon is in a
constant state of flux as it travels, purely due to whatever low pressure gases
are present along the way.
Thus, one would expect the images of all longer period variable stars to vary
considerably in a random kind of way. On average, the effect should be larger
the further the stars are from us.
>> We don't have objects at Lagrange points in our solar system but they are
>> apparently quite common 'out there'.
>>
>> ....See how useful the BaTh is!!!!!
>
>Nope.
That's because you are already hopelessly indoctrinated with Einsteiniana.
Henri Wilson
See my previous posting.
Most of these anomalies are due to non-homogeneous light paths.
bz
news:69jok1tmvlli4aqdl...@4ax.com:
> Has it not occured to you that the sections of space through which light
> from a star is traveling to Earth is NOT CONSTANT or HOMOGENEOUS.
>
> My H-aether theory clearly states that the speed of each photon is in a
> constant state of flux as it travels, purely due to whatever low
> pressure gases are present along the way.
>
> Thus, one would expect the images of all longer period variable stars to
> vary considerably in a random kind of way. On average, the effect should
> be larger the further the stars are from us.
>
>
Strangely, similar, non variable stars, do not show such 'interstellar
twinkling', despite passing along very similar pathways.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 9 Oct 2005 20:13:32 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I have not forgotten gratings.....they have the potential to reveal a great
>> >> deal about photon structure.
>> >
>> >Except that experiments that try to observe mass and structure are both
>> >consistant with "none".
>>
>> So there is nothing, which differentiates a photon from 'nothing'?
>
>Energy.
So what differentiates a photon's energy from 'nothing'?
'Physically', SR has to revert to LET.
>
>>
>> >However, you have offered us no postulates - you have no theory. All
>> >you do is handwave and say how things should be.
>>
>> I don't offer POSTULATES. I provide a perfectly logical theory plus evidence to
>> back it up!
>
>Fine. What is it?
>
>Show me how to obtain an equation of motion for particle, using your
>theory. Or will you pull a Dumb Donny and say such things are useless?
>
>I can do it using Newton, SR, and for a suitably nice metric - GR too.
>The only way I can is because I have an actual theory to work with
>instead of handwavy arguments about how the universe should be.
I gather from this rambling nonsense that, like all students, you have just
discovered the joys of alcohol consumption.
>
>>
>> >
>> >GR *PREDICTED* the deflection of light from the sun before it was
>> >observed.
>>
>> Crap. Anyone can accidentally drop a factor of two.
>
>How fortunate, a result that validates GR was the result of an
>"accident". I am sure you have a vast list of citations that utterly
>smash that "abberation" of an experiment. Right? Right...?
>
>>
>> >
>> >SR *PREDICTED* time dilation long before it was ever observed.
>>
>> Time dilation doesn't exist idiot.
>
>Hafele and Keating for starters. I shall continue to reference it until
>you provide a counter-reference that invalidates it.
Not even recognized any more.
Eric Gisse
[snip word games]
> >
> >>
> >> >However, you have offered us no postulates - you have no theory. All
> >> >you do is handwave and say how things should be.
> >>
> >> I don't offer POSTULATES. I provide a perfectly logical theory plus evidence to
> >> back it up!
> >
> >Fine. What is it?
> >
> >Show me how to obtain an equation of motion for particle, using your
> >theory. Or will you pull a Dumb Donny and say such things are useless?
> >
> >I can do it using Newton, SR, and for a suitably nice metric - GR too.
> >The only way I can is because I have an actual theory to work with
> >instead of handwavy arguments about how the universe should be.
>
> I gather from this rambling nonsense that, like all students, you have just
> discovered the joys of alcohol consumption.
You only say that because you do not know what any of the words mean.
Give me a mathematical theory which I can extract numbers from or shut
the hell up. A casual scan of the google groups archive shows you
repeating the same garbage for years on end. Why not do what Eleaticus
does and spam math?
Even bad math would be a change for the better because it would allow
me to cut my teeth on something other than word games.
Jerry
> On 10 Oct 2005 23:46:29 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >"Period noise" is the accepted technical term for the
> >observed deviations in variable star light curves from
> >perfect regularity.
>
> So what is the Einsteinian reason for it?
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/het611-m18a01.ppt
> >The huge irregularities in orbital parameters that
> >would be implied by the observed light curves cannot
> >possibly correspond to a stable solution. Such an unstable
> >system would in all likelihood suffer rapid mass ejection.
>
> So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
Henri, there are a lot of basic facts about the three-body
problem of which you are obviously totally ignorant.
Take, for instance, your placement of large "planets" at
the stable Lagrange points of your binaries. The Lagrange
points, stable and unstable, arise from solution of the
"restricted" three body problem, i.e. the third body must
be of negligible mass compared with the two major bodies.
As soon as you make your third body non-negligible in
mass such that it exerts significant perturbation on
the other two masses, the system becomes chaotic and the
Lagrange points, stable and unstable, tend to disappear.
The vast majority of starting configurations are unstable.
The usual result is that after a relatively short period
of time, one of the masses "slingshots" around another and
becomes ejected from the system.
Jerry
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:r2jok1h0hk5bvnina...@4ax.com...
| On 10 Oct 2005 23:46:29 -0700, "Jerry"
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
|
| >Androcles wrote:
| >> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
| >> news:1128982791.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >> | Androcles wrote:
| >
| >> | > Noise is noise. It's present in every observation;
| >> | > OJ Simpson's defence team amplified it and presented
| >> | > a very spiky graph to the jury, who allowed a murderer
| >> | > to go free.
| >> | > I've yet to see anyone present a perfect curve, all curves
| >> | > have error bars on them.
| >> | > Focus on the noise and that's what makes you
| >> | > a typical troll, I have no intention of explaining noise.
| >> |
| >> | The period noise present in the R Draconis light curve
| >> | is far beyond any conceivable error bars.
| >>
| >> Then it's data, not noise.
| >
| >"Period noise" is the accepted technical term for the
| >observed deviations in variable star light curves from
| >perfect regularity.
|
| So what is the Einsteinian reason for it?
Notice the phuckwit is handwaving?
Quit wasting time and plonk the troll!
|
| >
| >> | Take a look again at Henri's fit to this star:
| >> | http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
| >>
| >> Sure. A three-body (or more) system, could be type Sun-Earth-Moon,
| >> could be type Sun-Jupiter-Saturn. There are no analytical solutions
to
| >> three-body systems.
| >>
http://www.physics.cornell.edu/sethna/teaching/sss/jupiter/Web/Rest3Bdy.htm
| >> http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~megraw/CR3BP_html/cr3bp_bg.html
| >> "The three body problem is one of the oldest problems in dynamical
| >> systems."
| >
| >Old, yes. However, there are general rules of thumb as
| >to what might or might not be a stable configuration.
| >For instance, two close orbiting bodies, with a third
| >body orbiting the first two at a distance such that its
| >period is greater than 20 times that of the first two,
| >can generally be considered to be a stable system without
| >need for further analysis. Closer in, and you have to
| >examine each configuration on a case-by-case basis.
|
| So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
Notice how the phuckwit says "closer in"?
How the fuck is anyone supposed to get closer to R Drac?
Killfile the troll!
|
| >
| >> Given the number of planets and moons in our own solar system
| >> I would not expect H's solution to agree perfectly, or R Draconis
to be
| >> a two-body system that he's modelled.
| >
| >The huge irregularities in orbital parameters that
| >would be implied by the observed light curves cannot
| >possibly correspond to a stable solution. Such an unstable
| >system would in all likelihood suffer rapid mass ejection.
|
| So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
Notice the troll is guessing? "would in all likelihood"...
Killfile the troll!
|
| >
| >> More interesting is the Lyra,
| >>
http://www.astro.washington.edu/morgan/MRO/home.page/mro.observations/graphics/Figure2.html
| >> which I gave to Henri to model. He still owes me a bottle
| >> of Glenlivet on that.
| >> He doesn't have enough oscillations. I've been researching
| >> that "ringing" myself, but there is not enough data
| >> available in the plot. Henri is hiding what I gave him.
| >>
| >>
| >> | R Draconis is a Mira-type variable which fluctuates between
| >> | 6.7 to 13.2 magnitudes over a period of 245 days. That is
| >> | a 160-fold ratio between maximum brightness and minimum
| >> | brightness!
| >>
| >> No need for the exclamation point, I understand magnitude.
| >> When slow light is actually passed by fast light emitted
| >> later, a NINE magnitude jump is quite easy to obtain.
| >> Observation:
| >> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
| >> Explanation:
| >> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
| >>
NOTICE NO ANSWER?
Perfect evidence, the troll ignores it completely.
PLONK the troll!
| >> | R Draconis is an extremely well studied variable.
| >> | AAVSO records 3000+ observations over the last five years,
| >> | so each recorded cycle is the result of an average of about
| >> | 400 estimates by dozens of observers. Averaged errors should
| >> | amount to less than a couple tenths of a magnitude, i.e.
| >> | less than 5% of the total min-max variation.
| >> |
| >> | The period noise visible in Henri's fit to R Dra corresponds
| >> | to a 30 day phase shift. It is impossible that this shift
| >> | could represent an artifact of a few incorrect observations.
| >>
| >> Correct. Another planet is not an artefact, nor are you seeing
noise.
| >
| >Again, "period noise" is the accepted technical term, and no,
| >I do not buy the idea that what you propose could represent
| >a long-term stable configuration.
|
| So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
Who cares what the troll handwaves, buys, refuses to listen to
reason, is willfully ignorant about?
Killfile the troll!
|
| >
| >> | Mira variables are well-known for exhibiting unstable light
| >> | curves.
|
| So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
|
| >
| >> Mira itself is a ghost image:
| >> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010121.html
| >>
| >> This explanation is nonsense, the product of a wild imagination:
| >> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050505.html
NOTICE NO ANSWER?
Why waste time on a troll?
| >>
| >> | > Put two children on a carousel and have them move with
| >> | > constant speed clockwise and counterclockwise.
| >> | > Start them off where you are standing beside the carousel
| >> | > and note where they meet again. You'll have the angle alpha.
| >> | > Ask them to walk slowly at carousel speed so that one child
| >> | > remains where you are and the other circumnavigates the
| >> | > carousel, the angle alpha will be zero.
| >> | > Pay for my trip to Disneyland and I'll demonstrate for you.
| >> | > I expect you are totally happy with Santa Claus as well.
| >> | > Since you are not permitted to observe the speed of light
| >> | > to be anything other than c, looking at Sagnac will stop
| >> | > your watch and your heartbeat; it is extremely dangerous.
| >> | >
| >> | > Dishman is of course a phuckwit, like Einstein. I'm just
| >> | > an ordinary crank. Best you listen to what phuckwits tell you
| >> | > instead of thinking. Typical troll, aren't you?
| >> |
| >> | Your handwaving analogy does nothing to advance your
| >> | case.
And if that doesn't finish it off, I don't know what does.
It WANTS to believe in fantasies, so let it.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
poor boy
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 2005 23:46:29 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Period noise" is the accepted technical term for the
>> >observed deviations in variable star light curves from
>> >perfect regularity.
>>
>> So what is the Einsteinian reason for it?
>
>http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/het611-m18a01.ppt
poor deluded fools.
The fact is, all those traditional star types can be categorized by the BaTh
in terms of orbit eccentricity and yaw angle.
>
>> >The huge irregularities in orbital parameters that
>> >would be implied by the observed light curves cannot
>> >possibly correspond to a stable solution. Such an unstable
>> >system would in all likelihood suffer rapid mass ejection.
>>
>> So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
>
>Henri, there are a lot of basic facts about the three-body
>problem of which you are obviously totally ignorant.
>Take, for instance, your placement of large "planets" at
>the stable Lagrange points of your binaries. The Lagrange
>points, stable and unstable, arise from solution of the
>"restricted" three body problem, i.e. the third body must
>be of negligible mass compared with the two major bodies.
>
>As soon as you make your third body non-negligible in
>mass such that it exerts significant perturbation on
>the other two masses, the system becomes chaotic and the
>Lagrange points, stable and unstable, tend to disappear.
Two points are supposd to be stable. Even if they are stable for 1000 years
that will outlast all living asttronomers and physicists.
I am quite happy to have a group of asteroids sitting there reflecting quite a
lot of light. I have already pointed that out. It could explain the slight
variability in the position of the dip in curves like S Cas.
>The vast majority of starting configurations are unstable.
>The usual result is that after a relatively short period
>of time, one of the masses "slingshots" around another and
>becomes ejected from the system.
You can have some three body fun with my program
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/threebody.exe
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>news:69jok1tmvlli4aqdl...@4ax.com:
>
>> Has it not occured to you that the sections of space through which light
>> from a star is traveling to Earth is NOT CONSTANT or HOMOGENEOUS.
>>
>> My H-aether theory clearly states that the speed of each photon is in a
>> constant state of flux as it travels, purely due to whatever low
>> pressure gases are present along the way.
>>
>> Thus, one would expect the images of all longer period variable stars to
>> vary considerably in a random kind of way. On average, the effect should
>> be larger the further the stars are from us.
>>
>>
>
>Strangely, similar, non variable stars, do not show such 'interstellar
>twinkling', despite passing along very similar pathways.
Bob, I realise that you are very keen but geez, you say some funny things
sometimes. What would be the expected form of that twinkling?
We are discussing the small variations in phase and magnitude that are typical
of many brightness curves.
Why should a star that doesn't vary in brightness exhibit variations in its
brightness variation..... that doesn't exist?
Are you saying that stars that are not varying SHOULD be varying according to
my theory?
That is either not true because stars that don't vary are usually so far away
from the critical distance and speed changes wouldn't matter or it is TRUE and
many of the stars that appear to vary really are not varying but are twinkling
somewhat randomly..
The point you miss is that interstellar gases do not change the power of the
light. They change the way photons bunch together when traveling along
different spatial paths. The effect is not large......but might be enough to
cause some of the observed discrepancies.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:6k03f.15111$U9.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Not anyone, imbecile :-)
The third body in the 3 body system.
Brilliant!
> Killfile the troll!
[snip]
> Notice the troll is guessing? "would in all likelihood"...
> Killfile the troll!
[snip]
> NOTICE NO ANSWER?
> Perfect evidence, the troll ignores it completely.
> PLONK the troll!
[snip]
> Who cares what the troll handwaves, buys, refuses to listen to
> reason, is willfully ignorant about?
> Killfile the troll!
[snip]
> NOTICE NO ANSWER?
> Why waste time on a troll?
Androloser, if you are so disturbed by Jerry's rebuttals
of your views, you better pretend to killfile *Wilson*,
so you can pretend that you can't see Jerry's rebuttals
in Wilson's replies.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HelpPretend2.html
How old did you say you were? Seven?
Does your grandpa know that you are messing around
on his PC?
Henri, you have a nice opportunity here ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Jerry
> NOTICE NO ANSWER?
> Perfect evidence, the troll ignores it completely.
> PLONK the troll!
Unlike you, Androcles, I have school. I can't afford
to spend all my time blasting every piece of chaff
that you blow my way.
Jerry
bz
news:crdpk1lrlca28ji9f...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:27:45 +0000 (UTC), bz
> <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>>news:69jok1tmvlli4aqdl...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Has it not occured to you that the sections of space through which
>>> light from a star is traveling to Earth is NOT CONSTANT or
>>> HOMOGENEOUS.
>>>
>>> My H-aether theory clearly states that the speed of each photon is in
>>> a constant state of flux as it travels, purely due to whatever low
>>> pressure gases are present along the way.
>>>
>>> Thus, one would expect the images of all longer period variable stars
>>> to vary considerably in a random kind of way. On average, the effect
>>> should be larger the further the stars are from us.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Strangely, similar, non variable stars, do not show such 'interstellar
>>twinkling', despite passing along very similar pathways.
>
> Bob, I realise that you are very keen but geez, you say some funny
> things sometimes.
Thanks, Henri. If I didn't think you were capable of thinking and learning,
I wouldn't spend time trying to help you.
> What would be the expected form of that twinkling?
brightness variations, similar to that you invoked to explain the 'phase
noise' and 'magnitude variations' observed on cepheid variable stars.
> We are discussing the small variations in phase and magnitude that are
> typical of many brightness curves.
exactly.
> Why should a star that doesn't vary in brightness exhibit variations in
> its brightness variation..... that doesn't exist?
> Are you saying that stars that are not varying SHOULD be varying
> according to my theory?
exactly.
> That is either not true because stars that don't vary are usually so far
> away from the critical distance
Critical distance loses its significance when the star's light is produced
with a constant velocity. The light must still travel through the Wilson
Intersteller Twinkler Gas(WITG). And the further it travels, the more it
should twinkle.
Light from distant galaxies should really be disturbed. Whole galaxies
should twinkle rapidly.
HST should produce pictures of entire galaxies that twinkle.
> and speed changes wouldn't matter or it
> is TRUE and many of the stars that appear to vary really are not varying
> but are twinkling somewhat randomly..
Nice try. Two tenths of a point. You have invented yet another explanation
for variable stars. Now all you have to do is explain how a few stars in a
galaxy can be cepheid variables while the other stars are normal.
Too bad your theory fails to account for the shift in stellar type that is
spectroscopically observed on cepheids as well as the spectroscopic data
for spectroscopic binaries.
Hint: a doppler shift performs a transform on ALL the wavelength.
Different stellar types display different patterns of emission/absorbtion
lines that are recognizable EVEN IF the lines are doppler shifted.
It is quite easy to tell the difference between a red star that has been
blue shifted due to approaching us rapidly and a blue star that is
stationary relative to the earth. The lines in the spectrum tell the tale.
> The point you miss is that interstellar gases do not change the power of
> the light.
On the contrary, that IS my point.
> They change the way photons bunch together when traveling
> along different spatial paths.
Your WITG sounds like twinkle fairies.
> The effect is not large......but might be
> enough to cause some of the observed discrepancies.
They would have to be mighty strong.
How do the HWTWFs know which photons to disrupt?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
Total fucking madness. At least Jerry is telling you the same thing I
am.
My big mistake was to even mention Lagrange to you.
Androcles
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
[snip]
What the matter, Henri?
Why can't you put that degree in "Applied Mathematics" to work?
Jerry
> "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> news:mddpk1l8o5942mrue...@4ax.com...
> | On 11 Oct 2005 20:40:21 -0700, "Jerry"
> <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> | >Henri, there are a lot of basic facts about the three-body
> | >problem of which you are obviously totally ignorant.
> | >Take, for instance, your placement of large "planets" at
> | >the stable Lagrange points of your binaries. The Lagrange
> | >points, stable and unstable, arise from solution of the
> | >"restricted" three body problem, i.e. the third body must
> | >be of negligible mass compared with the two major bodies.
> | >
> | >As soon as you make your third body non-negligible in
> | >mass such that it exerts significant perturbation on
> | >the other two masses, the system becomes chaotic and the
> | >Lagrange points, stable and unstable, tend to disappear.
> |
> | Two points are supposd to be stable. Even if they are
> | stable for 1000 years that will outlast all living
> | asttronomers and physicists.
> |
> | I am quite happy to have a group of asteroids sitting
> | there reflecting quite a lot of light.
Henri, how massive are Jupiter's Trojans compared with
Jupiter?
> | I have already pointed that out. It could explain the
> | slight variability in the position of the dip in curves
> | like S Cas.
>
> Total fucking madness. At least Jerry is telling you the
> same thing I am.
> My big mistake was to even mention Lagrange to you.
> Androcles
Henri, listen to Androcles on this.
If you put large enough "planets" in the Lagrange pointa
to perturb the orbital period of your hypothetical binary
systems by 10 to 15 percent, your Lagrange points are GONE.
Your systems go into chaos and eject mass.
Jerry
Jerry
> My H-aether theory clearly states that the speed
> of each photon is in a constant state of flux as
> it travels, purely due to whatever low pressure gases
> are present along the way.
>
> Thus, one would expect the images of all longer
> period variable stars to vary considerably in a
> random kind of way. On average, the effect should
> be larger the further the stars are from us.
Rough order-of-magnitude calculations indicate that
your hypothesis is totally absurd.
On Earth, the turbulence cells that are responsible
for twinkling are roughly around 0.2 meters across.
If we presume that a similar line-of-sight number
of atoms would be necessary for interstellar
twinkling, then at 1 atom per cubic centimeter,
your hypothetical interstellar turbulence cells
would range about 1000 light years across.
Pronounced period noise is visible in the light
curves of variable stars with periods ranging from
hours to months. Therefore, your hypothetical
interstellar turbulence cells must be capable of
shifting around and "bubbling" in and out of
existence on a similar time scale.
In other words, the galaxy is filled with bubbling
clouds of gas whizzing around at speeds hundreds of
thousands of times the speed of light.
Common sense says there is something wrong with
this picture.
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:mddpk1l8o5942mrue...@4ax.com...
>| On 11 Oct 2005 20:40:21 -0700, "Jerry"
><Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>| >As soon as you make your third body non-negligible in
>| >mass such that it exerts significant perturbation on
>| >the other two masses, the system becomes chaotic and the
>| >Lagrange points, stable and unstable, tend to disappear.
>|
>| Two points are supposd to be stable. Even if they are stable for 1000
>years
>| that will outlast all living asttronomers and physicists.
>|
>| I am quite happy to have a group of asteroids sitting there reflecting
>quite a
>| lot of light. I have already pointed that out. It could explain the
>slight
>| variability in the position of the dip in curves like S Cas.
>
>Total fucking madness. At least Jerry is telling you the same thing I
>am.
>My big mistake was to even mention Lagrange to you.
>Androcles
Sounds like his asteroids are playing up today.
message rating: 1.73 bottles.
Henri Wilson
>Androcles wrote:
>> "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>> news:mddpk1l8o5942mrue...@4ax.com...
>> | On 11 Oct 2005 20:40:21 -0700, "Jerry"
>> <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> | >Henri, there are a lot of basic facts about the three-body
>> | >problem of which you are obviously totally ignorant.
>> | >Take, for instance, your placement of large "planets" at
>> | >the stable Lagrange points of your binaries. The Lagrange
>> | >points, stable and unstable, arise from solution of the
>> | >"restricted" three body problem, i.e. the third body must
>> | >be of negligible mass compared with the two major bodies.
>> | >
>> | >As soon as you make your third body non-negligible in
>> | >mass such that it exerts significant perturbation on
>> | >the other two masses, the system becomes chaotic and the
>> | >Lagrange points, stable and unstable, tend to disappear.
>> |
>> | Two points are supposd to be stable. Even if they are
>> | stable for 1000 years that will outlast all living
>> | asttronomers and physicists.
>> |
>> | I am quite happy to have a group of asteroids sitting
>> | there reflecting quite a lot of light.
>
>Henri, how massive are Jupiter's Trojans compared with
>Jupiter?
I don't think you should try to judge the rest of the universe by what you see
in our little corner.
>
>> | I have already pointed that out. It could explain the
>> | slight variability in the position of the dip in curves
>> | like S Cas.
>>
>> Total fucking madness. At least Jerry is telling you the
>> same thing I am.
>> My big mistake was to even mention Lagrange to you.
>> Androcles
>
>Henri, listen to Androcles on this.
>
>If you put large enough "planets" in the Lagrange pointa
>to perturb the orbital period of your hypothetical binary
>systems by 10 to 15 percent, your Lagrange points are GONE.
>Your systems go into chaos and eject mass.
That 's not what the BaTh curve for several stars says... for over 90m years.
The curves are typical of systems that possess two WCHs in the same orbit but
60 deg apart.
That will do me.
Your theory has NO explanation ...so why argue.
Henri Wilson
Listen idiot, say something useful or piss off.
Androcles is perfectly OK until he starts on the second bottle.
>Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>news:crdpk1lrlca28ji9f...@4ax.com:
>
>
>> What would be the expected form of that twinkling?
>
>brightness variations, similar to that you invoked to explain the 'phase
>noise' and 'magnitude variations' observed on cepheid variable stars.
In nearly all cases, the effect would be barely noticeable.
>> We are discussing the small variations in phase and magnitude that are
>> typical of many brightness curves.
>
>exactly.
>
>> Why should a star that doesn't vary in brightness exhibit variations in
>> its brightness variation..... that doesn't exist?
>> Are you saying that stars that are not varying SHOULD be varying
>> according to my theory?
>
>exactly.
>
>> That is either not true because stars that don't vary are usually so far
>> away from the critical distance
>
>Critical distance loses its significance when the star's light is produced
>with a constant velocity.
It is. Its velocity wrt its source is constant.
>The light must still travel through the Wilson
>Intersteller Twinkler Gas(WITG). And the further it travels, the more it
>should twinkle.
>
>Light from distant galaxies should really be disturbed. Whole galaxies
>should twinkle rapidly.
Distant galaxies aren't moving like orbiting stars are. but anyway, who is to
say that the images of galaxies DO NOT vary in brightness as observed here?
Has anyone really looked for such a (small) variation? I doubt it.
.
>
>HST should produce pictures of entire galaxies that twinkle.
Very slowly and slightly..if at all.
>
>> and speed changes wouldn't matter or it
>> is TRUE and many of the stars that appear to vary really are not varying
>> but are twinkling somewhat randomly..
>
>Nice try. Two tenths of a point. You have invented yet another explanation
>for variable stars. Now all you have to do is explain how a few stars in a
>galaxy can be cepheid variables while the other stars are normal.
Cepheids reveal brightness curves that are typical of stable stars with a
characteristic eccentricity and yaw angle (ecc =~0.2, yaw ~-150). They are
orbited by a WCH with periods of a few day to weeks..
>Too bad your theory fails to account for the shift in stellar type that is
>spectroscopically observed on cepheids as well as the spectroscopic data
>for spectroscopic binaries.
YOUR theory fails on every count. It has NO decent explanations for any of the
illusions.
>
>Hint: a doppler shift performs a transform on ALL the wavelength.
>Different stellar types display different patterns of emission/absorbtion
>lines that are recognizable EVEN IF the lines are doppler shifted.
Doppler is the same for BaTh and SR.
>
>It is quite easy to tell the difference between a red star that has been
>blue shifted due to approaching us rapidly and a blue star that is
>stationary relative to the earth. The lines in the spectrum tell the tale.
We know that.
>
>> The point you miss is that interstellar gases do not change the power of
>> the light.
>
>On the contrary, that IS my point.
>
>> They change the way photons bunch together when traveling
>> along different spatial paths.
>
>Your WITG sounds like twinkle fairies.
>
>> The effect is not large......but might be
>> enough to cause some of the observed discrepancies.
>
>They would have to be mighty strong.
>How do the HWTWFs know which photons to disrupt?
The AELSAFs beat the hell out of them if they don't.
>
>--
>bz
>
>please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
>infinite set.
>
>bz+n...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
Nah, the rest of the universe operates by Wilson rules.
You avoided the the question, Wilson.
How massive are Jupiter's Trojans compared with Jupiter?
| >
| >> | I have already pointed that out. It could explain the
| >> | slight variability in the position of the dip in curves
| >> | like S Cas.
| >>
| >> Total fucking madness. At least Jerry is telling you the
| >> same thing I am.
| >> My big mistake was to even mention Lagrange to you.
| >> Androcles
| >
| >Henri, listen to Androcles on this.
| >
| >If you put large enough "planets" in the Lagrange pointa
| >to perturb the orbital period of your hypothetical binary
| >systems by 10 to 15 percent, your Lagrange points are GONE.
| >Your systems go into chaos and eject mass.
|
| That 's not what the BaTh curve for several stars says... for over 90m
years.
Which is why I'll have nothing to do with your BaThing and you are
crank, recorded at www.crank.net.
|
| The curves are typical of systems that possess two WCHs in the same
orbit but
| 60 deg apart.
|
| That will do me.
|
| Your theory has NO explanation ...so why argue.
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
|
| "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Which makes you a total failure, you don't understand Einstein any
more than you do Lagrange.
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:27htk195trveh5t22...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:25:17 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:6k03f.15111$U9.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
> >> | >Old, yes. However, there are general rules of thumb as
> >> | >to what might or might not be a stable configuration.
> >> | >For instance, two close orbiting bodies, with a third
> >> | >body orbiting the first two at a distance such that its
> >> | >period is greater than 20 times that of the first two,
> >> | >can generally be considered to be a stable system without
> >> | >need for further analysis. Closer in, and you have to
> >> | >examine each configuration on a case-by-case basis.
> >> |
> >> | So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
> >>
> >> Notice how the phuckwit says "closer in"?
> >> How the fuck is anyone supposed to get closer to R Drac?
> >
> >Not anyone, imbecile :-)
> >The third body in the 3 body system.
> >Brilliant!
[snip]
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HelpPretend2.html
> >How old did you say you were? Seven?
> >Does your grandpa know that you are messing around
> >on his PC?
> >
> >Henri, you have a nice opportunity here ;-)
>
> Listen idiot, say something useful or piss off.
> Androcles is perfectly OK until he starts on the second bottle.
Hey, but whatever you say or think, you *do* admit that
his remark about "closer in" was a Terrific Fumble, worth
being emphasised in full red, don't you?
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>> My H-aether theory clearly states that the speed
>> of each photon is in a constant state of flux as
>> it travels, purely due to whatever low pressure gases
>> are present along the way.
>>
>> Thus, one would expect the images of all longer
>> period variable stars to vary considerably in a
>> random kind of way. On average, the effect should
>> be larger the further the stars are from us.
>
>Rough order-of-magnitude calculations indicate that
>your hypothesis is totally absurd.
Your magnitude estimates are way out.
>
>On Earth, the turbulence cells that are responsible
>for twinkling are roughly around 0.2 meters across.
>If we presume that a similar line-of-sight number
>of atoms would be necessary for interstellar
>twinkling, then at 1 atom per cubic centimeter,
>your hypothetical interstellar turbulence cells
>would range about 1000 light years across.
Totally irrelevant.
Why don't you go and play with your dolls...
>Pronounced period noise is visible in the light
>curves of variable stars with periods ranging from
>hours to months. Therefore, your hypothetical
>interstellar turbulence cells must be capable of
>shifting around and "bubbling" in and out of
>existence on a similar time scale.
You are showing little imagination.
>In other words, the galaxy is filled with bubbling
>clouds of gas whizzing around at speeds hundreds of
>thousands of times the speed of light.
Typical female calculation....
Why don't you go and play with your dolls...
>Common sense says there is something wrong with
>this picture.
Listen, variable star brightness curves are mainly based on visual comparisons
with nearby stable 'reference' stars. How do they know these are stable? They
don't.
The curves depend very much on local weather conditions as well as a lot of
other things.
The type of variation seen in these curves is obviously either observational or
involves a small third (or more) body.
In the main, the curves have dead constant or very slowly varying periods for
the times over which records have been kept.
It is obvious that the periods are in synch with orbit period. No other process
could possibly maintain such constancy.
Henri Wilson
That's something you will never achieve Geese.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| Listen idiot, say something useful or piss off.
| Androcles is perfectly OK until he starts on the second bottle.
|
Wilson is only ok if he's had a second bottle.
moortel is NEVER ok.
Androcles.
Androcles
Andersen has grudgingly yielded without further mathematical
argument and congratulated me.
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
news:dilqt8$961$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Indeed.
As you so elegantly demonstrated above, it changes from:
theta = arcsin(c/f.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
to
theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
"and lambda is constant."
Well done. :-)
Paul [the apalling assistant tusselad]
Of course the grinning ape is trying to be funny, but fails miserably.
I have not and never have stated theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) =
arcsin(lambda/d).
A google search reveals the truth:
Tusselad's diffraction.
... Well done, that's what I told you. Thus: theta =
arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/
d) YOUR equation show that theta doesn't change with the speed of
the comb. ...
sci.physics.relativity - Oct 14, 12:27 am by Paul B. Andersen - 77
messages - 8 authors
Tusselad's diffraction.
... Well done, that's what I told you. Thus: theta =
arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/
d) YOUR equation show that theta doesn't change with the speed of
the comb. ...
sci.physics.relativity - Oct 13, 8:28 am by Androcles - 77
messages - 8 authors
Tusselad's diffraction.
... Well done, that's what I told you. Thus: theta =
arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/
d) YOUR equation show that theta doesn't change with the speed of
the comb. ...
sci.physics.relativity - Oct 13, 2:36 pm by Randy Poe - 77
messages - 8 authors
Sal the crackpot
... But (c+v)/f' does NOT depend on v because: Doppler: f' =
f(c+v)/c So: (c+v)/f' =
c/f = lambda Thus: theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
lambda = d sin ...
sci.physics.relativity - Oct 11, 9:31 pm by Paul B. Andersen - 77
messages - 8 authors
Sal the crackpot
... f' = f(c+v)/c (c+v)/f' = c/f = lambda theta =
arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/
d) lambda = d sin(theta) If the value of c+v is known, you can
calculate the ...
sci.physics.relativity - Oct 11, 3:37 pm by Paul B. Andersen - 77
messages - 8 authors
Sal the crackpot
... with the speed of the comb, because: Doppler: f' = f(c+v)/c
So: (c+v)/f' = c/f =
lambda Thus: theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d) YOUR
equation show ...
sci.physics.relativity - Oct 13, 7:24 am by Paul B. Andersen - 77
messages - 8 authors
This makes it blatantly obvious that Assistant Professor Paul B.
Andersen of Agder College
is a lying cunt, quite, indeed, prove me wrong, and I recommend
students find a better
college for their education.
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:iVA3f.23940$U9.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Incidentally, the diffraction grating issue is now closed.
> Andersen has grudgingly yielded without further mathematical
> argument and congratulated me.
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
> news:dilqt8$961$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> Indeed.
> As you so elegantly demonstrated above, it changes from:
> theta = arcsin(c/f.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
> to
> theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
>
> "and lambda is constant."
>
> Well done. :-)
>
> Paul [the apalling assistant tusselad]
>
> Of course the grinning ape is trying to be funny, but fails miserably.
> I have not and never have stated theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) =
> arcsin(lambda/d).
>
> A google search reveals the truth:
Posted 13 Oct 2005 00:28:34 GMT:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/194016fc01dc7abc
| Confused between theta and lambda, tusselad?
|
| theta = arcsin(c/f.d)... no lambda there.
| theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d)... no lambda there either.
|
| theta has changed to theta'.
| Speed has changed from c to c+v.
| As a by-product, f has changed to f'.
| However,
| arcsin(c/f.d) =arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
| and lambda is constant.
Brain rot?
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| On 12 Oct 2005 19:35:58 -0700, "Jerry"
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Listen, variable star brightness curves are mainly based on visual
comparisons
| with nearby stable 'reference' stars.
Bullshit! Even poverty stricken amateurs like me use an artificial star,
professionals use an electronic device.
http://www.digitecoptical.com/ae-pico-star.htm
As usual you have no clue.
Androcles.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2005 14:59:16 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >What the matter, Henri?
> >
> >Why can't you put that degree in "Applied Mathematics" to work?
>
> That's something you will never achieve Geese.
See? No theory, just supposition and philosophy.
Randy Poe
Androcles wrote:
> Incidentally, the diffraction grating issue is now closed.
> Andersen has grudgingly yielded without further mathematical
> argument and congratulated me.
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
> news:dilqt8$961$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> Indeed.
> As you so elegantly demonstrated above, it changes from:
> theta = arcsin(c/f.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
> to
> theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
>
> "and lambda is constant."
>
> Well done. :-)
>
> Paul [the apalling assistant tusselad]
>
> Of course the grinning ape is trying to be funny, but fails miserably.
> I have not and never have stated theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) =
> arcsin(lambda/d).
Perhaps not, but you'd be an idiot not to, since you have
stated that (c+v)/f' = lambda, so that (c+v)/f'.d = lambda/d,
and if (c+v)/f'.d = lambda/d, then arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) =
arcsin(lambda/d).
How, in your dark and twisted world, can the first be
true but not the second or third?
- Randy
Jerry
Henri, if you disagree with my order-of-magnitude
estimates of the size of the interstellar turbulence
cells that you require for your "twinkling" explanation
of period noise, why don't you come up with your own
estimates?
Come on, -you- are the one who proposed that each
"photon is in a constant state of flux as it travels,
purely due to whatever low pressure gases are present
along the way."
> Listen, variable star brightness curves are mainly based
> on visual comparisons with nearby stable 'reference' stars.
> How do they know these are stable? They don't.
They do.
> The curves depend very much on local weather conditions
> as well as a lot of other things.
Use of reference stars compensates for variations in
atmospheric transparency, background light, etc.
> The type of variation seen in these curves is obviously
> either observational
Nope. Hundreds of observations by dozens of skilled observers
pooled together equal uncertainties of no more than a couple
of tenths of a magnitude, which is very small compared
with the greater than five magnitudes of variation in the
light curves of R Drac and S Umi (which you call "S Urs")
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
Besides which, why should observational error result
in general agreement that Mira stars have unstable
periods, while there is general agreement that Cepheid
stars, whose light curves are much harder to track
because their magnitude range is much less than Miras,
have relatively stable periods?
> or involves a small third (or more) body.
If the third body is large enough and close enough to
significantly perturb the orbits of the first two, then
the vast majority of possible configurations are
unstable.
http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/notes/972d
> In the main, the curves have dead constant or very
> slowly varying periods for the times over which records
> have been kept. It is obvious that the periods are
> in synch with orbit period. No other process could possibly
> maintain such constancy.
"[Mira] Variables are named after the most famous Mira variable,
Mira, in the constellation the Cetus, the Whale. They are old,
red giant stars. At this late stage in their evolution, they
have grown unstable and pulsate. Their pulsation cycle can
last for anywhere between a few hundred days to several years,
and can vary between eight different magnitudes - a measure
of brightness. Since they are so unstable, their cycles are
not necessarily constant from one to the next."
http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_binvar.html
Jerry
Henri Wilson
I dunno.
More importantly, how large is their surface area?
>| >
>| >Henri, listen to Androcles on this.
>| >
>| >If you put large enough "planets" in the Lagrange pointa
>| >to perturb the orbital period of your hypothetical binary
>| >systems by 10 to 15 percent, your Lagrange points are GONE.
>| >Your systems go into chaos and eject mass.
>|
>| That 's not what the BaTh curve for several stars says... for over 90m
>years.
>
>Which is why I'll have nothing to do with your BaThing and you are
>crank, recorded at www.crank.net.
How does YOUR program simulate the characteristic dips that appear half way up
the rise of many brightness curves?
>
>|
>| The curves are typical of systems that possess two WCHs in the same
>orbit but
>| 60 deg apart.
>|
>| That will do me.
>|
>| Your theory has NO explanation ...so why argue.
>| HW.
>| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>| see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>|
>| "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
>| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
>
>Which makes you a total failure, you don't understand Einstein any
>more than you do Lagrange.
>Androcles.
message rating: 1.36 bottles.
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:ojjtk1hv2cagpg8ni...@4ax.com...
>| On 12 Oct 2005 19:35:58 -0700, "Jerry"
><Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>| Listen, variable star brightness curves are mainly based on visual
>comparisons
>| with nearby stable 'reference' stars.
>
>Bullshit! Even poverty stricken amateurs like me use an artificial star,
>professionals use an electronic device.
>
That's not what is stated on the Britastro website.
>
>As usual you have no clue.
>Androcles.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 12 Oct 2005 14:59:16 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >What the matter, Henri?
>> >
>> >Why can't you put that degree in "Applied Mathematics" to work?
>>
>> That's something you will never achieve Geese.
>
>See? No theory, just supposition and philosophy.
Poor boy....
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:50:43 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| >news:ojjtk1hv2cagpg8ni...@4ax.com...
| >| On 12 Oct 2005 19:35:58 -0700, "Jerry"
| ><Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
| >| Listen, variable star brightness curves are mainly based on visual
| >comparisons
| >| with nearby stable 'reference' stars.
| >
| >Bullshit! Even poverty stricken amateurs like me use an artificial
star,
| >professionals use an electronic device.
| >
|
| That's not what is stated on the Britastro website.
Willfully ignorant ozzie crank abo, you are no better than
a relativist.
FUCKING READ IT:
http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/star.pdf
|
| >
| >As usual you have no clue.
| >Androcles.
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
|
| "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Message rating: 3 bottles.
Androcles.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
VERY SMALL!
| More importantly, how large is their surface area?
What the FUCK do you thing the density of Jupiter, a gas giant, and its
surface area is?
You think Nature put a fucking flat mirror in a half day orbit
as a Trojan to suit your theory?
You are so far off round the twist it's incredible.
Message rating: 1.5 cases.
|
| >| >
| >| >Henri, listen to Androcles on this.
| >| >
| >| >If you put large enough "planets" in the Lagrange pointa
| >| >to perturb the orbital period of your hypothetical binary
| >| >systems by 10 to 15 percent, your Lagrange points are GONE.
| >| >Your systems go into chaos and eject mass.
| >|
| >| That 's not what the BaTh curve for several stars says... for over
90m
| >years.
| >
| >Which is why I'll have nothing to do with your BaThing and you are
| >crank, recorded at www.crank.net.
|
| How does YOUR program simulate the characteristic dips that appear
half way up
| the rise of many brightness curves?
You idiot! I don't attempt three body problems, especially ones with
12 HOUR periods. Nor have I correctly modelled 5 times critical
distance.
This will show 1/2 the real period if you enter this data in my program.
Dist: 4800
Period 5
.4
.0025
170
0
0
0.002291
1000000
Filter 0
Message rating: 2 cases.
Androcles
Jerry
> On 12 Oct 2005 19:02:56 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Henri, listen to Androcles on this.
> >
> >If you put large enough "planets" in the Lagrange pointa
> >to perturb the orbital period of your hypothetical binary
> >systems by 10 to 15 percent, your Lagrange points are GONE.
> >Your systems go into chaos and eject mass.
>
> That 's not what the BaTh curve for several stars says...
> for over 90m years.
>
> The curves are typical of systems that possess two WCHs in
> the same orbit but 60 deg apart.
Stable solutions for the general three-body problem have been
extensively studied. They are quite rare, although they -do-
exist. For instance, three equal massed bodies can enter into
a stable figure-eight orbit.
I would not be suprised if somewhere in the universe,
three equal massed planets are orbiting in a figure-eight.
Heck, I wouldn't be suprised if the frequency of such a
configuration were one per galaxy...
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050813/mathtrek.asp
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 12 Oct 2005 19:02:56 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >Henri, listen to Androcles on this.
>> >
>> >If you put large enough "planets" in the Lagrange pointa
>> >to perturb the orbital period of your hypothetical binary
>> >systems by 10 to 15 percent, your Lagrange points are GONE.
>> >Your systems go into chaos and eject mass.
>>
>> That 's not what the BaTh curve for several stars says...
>> for over 90m years.
>>
>> The curves are typical of systems that possess two WCHs in
>> the same orbit but 60 deg apart.
>
>Stable solutions for the general three-body problem have been
>extensively studied. They are quite rare, although they -do-
>exist. For instance, three equal massed bodies can enter into
>a stable figure-eight orbit.
If you play around with my three body program you can produce some amazing
orbital arrangements, many of which are stable over many orbits.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/threebody.exe
Use the 2D form.
Set G at about 60 and the three masses at 1.
...Hope the colours are OK.
It wont produce the figure of 8 at present because I haven't included a way of
setting the initial speed of the central body. I will work on that.
>I would not be suprised if somewhere in the universe,
>three equal massed planets are orbiting in a figure-eight.
>Heck, I wouldn't be suprised if the frequency of such a
>configuration were one per galaxy...
>http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050813/mathtrek.asp
>
>Jerry
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:5m6uk1trakukinqjh...@4ax.com...
>| On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:50:43 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:
>| >
>| >Bullshit! Even poverty stricken amateurs like me use an artificial
>star,
>| >professionals use an electronic device.
>| >
>|
>| That's not what is stated on the Britastro website.
>
>Willfully ignorant ozzie crank abo, you are no better than
>a relativist.
>FUCKING READ IT:
>http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/star.pdf
can't see the connection.
read
http://www.britastro.org/vss/tm-aovso.html
>| >
>| >As usual you have no clue.
>| >Androcles.
message rating: quite a large number of bottles.
Henri Wilson
see:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/tm-aovso.html
>
>Besides which, why should observational error result
>in general agreement that Mira stars have unstable
>periods, while there is general agreement that Cepheid
>stars, whose light curves are much harder to track
>because their magnitude range is much less than Miras,
>have relatively stable periods?
>
>> or involves a small third (or more) body.
>
>If the third body is large enough and close enough to
>significantly perturb the orbits of the first two, then
>the vast majority of possible configurations are
>unstable
There is no concrete evidence for this. You are dreaming.
>http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/notes/972d
>
>> In the main, the curves have dead constant or very
>> slowly varying periods for the times over which records
>> have been kept. It is obvious that the periods are
>> in synch with orbit period. No other process could possibly
>> maintain such constancy.
>
>"[Mira] Variables are named after the most famous Mira variable,
>Mira, in the constellation the Cetus, the Whale. They are old,
>red giant stars. At this late stage in their evolution, they
>have grown unstable and pulsate. Their pulsation cycle can
>last for anywhere between a few hundred days to several years,
>and can vary between eight different magnitudes - a measure
>of brightness. Since they are so unstable, their cycles are
>not necessarily constant from one to the next."
>http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_binvar.html
Load of crap based on Einsteinian interpretation of illusions.
Jerry
> On 13 Oct 2005 19:23:11 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> The type of variation seen in these curves is obviously
> >> either observational
> >
> >Nope. Hundreds of observations by dozens of skilled observers
> >pooled together equal uncertainties of no more than a couple
> >of tenths of a magnitude, which is very small compared
> >with the greater than five magnitudes of variation in the
> >light curves of R Drac and S Umi (which you call "S Urs")
> >http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>
> see:
> http://www.britastro.org/vss/tm-aovso.html
Exactly. Individual observers have their own systematic
biases. But you if pool together hundreds of observations
by dozens of skilled observers, and you are aware of
systematic biases among individual observers, you can
get reliable light curves. The larger the range of
variation in a variable, the better its light curve can
be tracked (on a relative basis). R Drac and S Umi
both have greater than five magnitudes of variation in
their light curves, and their light curves are
correspondingly very well tracked by the many dozens
of individuals who make hundreds of observations each
cycle on these stars.
> >Besides which, why should observational error result
> >in general agreement that Mira stars have unstable
> >periods, while there is general agreement that Cepheid
> >stars, whose light curves are much harder to track
> >because their magnitude range is much less than Miras,
> >have relatively stable periods?
REPEAT: Why should observational error result
in general agreement that Mira stars have unstable
periods, while there is general agreement that Cepheid
stars, whose light curves are much harder to track
because their magnitude range is much less than Miras,
have relatively stable periods?
> >> or involves a small third (or more) body.
> >
> >If the third body is large enough and close enough to
> >significantly perturb the orbits of the first two, then
> >the vast majority of possible configurations are
> >unstable
>
> There is no concrete evidence for this. You are dreaming.
There is an enormous amount of research on the n-body
problem, most of which is obviously far over your head.
Have fun playing with these applets. Read the
commentary carefully on the factors that dictate the
stability of each configuration:
http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection.html
> >http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/notes/972d
> >
> >> In the main, the curves have dead constant or very
> >> slowly varying periods for the times over which records
> >> have been kept. It is obvious that the periods are
> >> in synch with orbit period. No other process could possibly
> >> maintain such constancy.
> >
> >"[Mira] Variables are named after the most famous Mira variable,
> >Mira, in the constellation the Cetus, the Whale. They are old,
> >red giant stars. At this late stage in their evolution, they
> >have grown unstable and pulsate. Their pulsation cycle can
> >last for anywhere between a few hundred days to several years,
> >and can vary between eight different magnitudes - a measure
> >of brightness. Since they are so unstable, their cycles are
> >not necessarily constant from one to the next."
> >http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_binvar.html
>
> Load of crap based on Einsteinian interpretation of illusions.
Do a little research on Mira variables, please. Try coming
up with something a -little- bit better than shutting your
eyes and plugging your ears to the truth.
Jerry
Jerry
> On 14 Oct 2005 01:48:00 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Stable solutions for the general three-body problem have been
> >extensively studied. They are quite rare, although they -do-
> >exist. For instance, three equal massed bodies can enter into
> >a stable figure-eight orbit.
>
> If you play around with my three body program you can
> produce some amazing orbital arrangements,
I've had the opportunity to play around with research-grade
programs. No thank you.
> many of which are stable over many orbits.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/threebody.exe
"Many" orbits? Eventually degrading into chaos?
> Use the 2D form.
Unrealistic.
> Set G at about 60 and the three masses at 1.
Ah! If I understand you properly, you describe a
well-known configuration. Try setting one of the
masses to 1.000001 and what do you get?
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2005 01:48:00 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 12 Oct 2005 19:02:56 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >Henri, listen to Androcles on this.
> >> >
> >> >If you put large enough "planets" in the Lagrange pointa
> >> >to perturb the orbital period of your hypothetical binary
> >> >systems by 10 to 15 percent, your Lagrange points are GONE.
> >> >Your systems go into chaos and eject mass.
> >>
> >> That 's not what the BaTh curve for several stars says...
> >> for over 90m years.
> >>
> >> The curves are typical of systems that possess two WCHs in
> >> the same orbit but 60 deg apart.
> >
> >Stable solutions for the general three-body problem have been
> >extensively studied. They are quite rare, although they -do-
> >exist. For instance, three equal massed bodies can enter into
> >a stable figure-eight orbit.
>
> If you play around with my three body program you can produce some amazing
> orbital arrangements, many of which are stable over many orbits.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/threebody.exe
So, is the threebody program consistant with the results of the "BaT"?
What is in the threebody program that I could not replicate in matlab
with greater precision and with more control over parameters?
>
> Use the 2D form.
> Set G at about 60 and the three masses at 1.
> ...Hope the colours are OK.
> It wont produce the figure of 8 at present because I haven't included a way of
> setting the initial speed of the central body. I will work on that.
As I said.
What is so special about your program?
By the way: This system of three bodies is described by three ordinary
differential equations which require 6 pieces of initial data to be
solved. If you have no way of inputting the initial speed of one of the
bodies, how are you solving this system - are you just assuming its
zero or what?
This is why I do not like your programs - POORLY written. They have to
go through a rewrite to accomodate something that should have been
there in the first place.
By the way, what method do you use to solve the ODE system? Euler? RK?
What?
If I could see your source, I would know. You will give some reason for
not showing, and then you will openly wonder why nobody takes your
programs seriously.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 06:10:53 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| >news:5m6uk1trakukinqjh...@4ax.com...
| >| On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:50:43 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org>
| >wrote:
|
| >| >
| >| >Bullshit! Even poverty stricken amateurs like me use an artificial
| >star,
| >| >professionals use an electronic device.
| >| >
| >|
| >| That's not what is stated on the Britastro website.
| >
| >Willfully ignorant ozzie crank abo, you are no better than
| >a relativist.
| >FUCKING READ IT:
| >http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/star.pdf
|
| can't see the connection.
Blind as a batH, aren't you? Never even looked at a variable star.
|
| read
| http://www.britastro.org/vss/tm-aovso.html
What does that have to do with britastro, artificial stars or
you assertion that other real stars are used for comparison?
Androcles.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
IDIOT ABO!
Androcles.