Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?

From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_hia.no)
Date: 09/08/04 

Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:30:35 +0200

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:9f8sj0lvgrri3495m5g7coibchps3vl021@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:51:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:9raoj0pqmlfv62t0os07d5mla2ntjq0i67@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 23:37:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >> What do you say its speed depends on, Paul?
> >> >
> >> >I say that that your ability to invent idiotic explanations are really amazing.
> >> >This one must OBVIOUSLY be correct! :-)
> >>
> >> It is most gratifying to know that one of my inventions is correct.
> >
> >Yea, right.
> >Seriously, I do not really have to explain why the above is
> >idiotic, do I? You DO understand that much if you allow
> >yourself to think just a little bit, don't you?
> >
> >You should try that, Henri.
> >Because when you are desperate to invent a new excuse for
> >why the ballistic theory gets it wrong, you quite obviously
> >do not think about what you are writing, so you make all these
> >incredible idiotic "explanations".
>
> This is not a new idea at all.
> Obviously light emitted from our sun towards andromeda NOW will not traverse
> the same space as light emitted in six months time.

It's hopless, Henry.
Insisting that the light curve of binaries will be as cahotic
as the light curve from all Mira type stars because:
Henri Wilson wrote:
| One LY is a quite a long way. Space is not likely to be at all homogeneous over
| such a large distance. There are likely to be VLP gas clouds, gravity fields,
| other EM, etc. present in varying degrees.
|
| Light emitted by a star during one part of its orbit wil not traverse the same
| path through space as light emitted some time later. It is easy to imagine the
| consequences of this. The brightness curves will vary considerably from those
| predicted for perfectly empty space.
| After this has been taken into consie\deration, it is quite obvious tyhat all
| these brightness curves are a result of the fact that light speed is source
| dependent.
.. is plain idiocy.

I will give you a hint.
About half of all stars are binaries.
So why don't the brigness curves of half of the stars vary considerably?

> If you understood how source dependency causes fast light to catch previously
> emitted slow light, you would also understand this simple fact.

Indeed?
It is because I do understand how source dependency
causes fast light to catch previously emitted slow light
that I know that just about all close binaries according
to the ballistic theory should be variables.
But they are not.

> >> >> >The important parameter is - as you well know -
> >> >> >the radial acceleration multiplied by the distance.
> >> >>
> >> >> It isn't that simple.
> >> >
> >> >So you DON'T know?
> >> >Arent' you an expert?
> >>
> >> Yes but I use a different approach.
> >> Mine is far more revealing than yours.
> >
> >Does that mean that you DO know that the important
> >parameter is the radial acceleration multiplied
> >by the distance?
>
> What's this, 'THE' .
> There are lots of important parameters.
> The most important is observer distance.
> Next most is eccentricity.

If you understood how source dependency causes fast light
to catch previously emitted slow light, you would also understand
why the important parameter is the radial acceleration multiplied
by the distance.

Isn't that rather obvious Henry?
Aren't you an expert?

> You haven't any more of a clue than DeSitter had.
>
> >
> >> >> >Since the former is high in all CLOSE binaries,
> >> >> >the ballistic theory WILL predict that just about all
> >> >> >close binaries are variables, unless the distance is very small.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wait, you are assuming binaries are close if their periods are short.
> >> >> I agree there is a fair correlation but with broad exceptions.
> >> >>
> >> >> The surfaces of binaries can be be physically close but the periods long, if
> >> >> one is a giant.
> >> >>
> >> >> >But you know this.
> >> >>
> >> >> I apparently know a lot more than you do.
> >> >>
> >> >> After all,my program accommodates 12 variables and presents the results in a
> >> >> relatively simple 5D representation...all in a few seconds.
> >> >> How long will it take you to do the same with YOUR equations?
> >> >
> >> >Evasive manouvre again, Henri? :-)
> >>
> >> No Paul. Just a truism.
> >>
> >> I get great satisfaction from educating you about the consequences of the
> >> source dependency of light. It has taken me several years to acquire the
> >> intricate knowledge that I am now passing on to you, FREE OF CHARGE.
> >> I hope you appreciate what I am doing.
> >
> >More evasive babble to divert the attention from the issue,
> >which is:
> >
> >> >We both know that the ballistic theory WILL predict that just about all
> >> >close binaries are variables, unless the distance is very small.
> >> >Don't we, Henri?
>
> Bulldust!

What a strong argument!
This is fun!
You KNOW it is true, don't you? :-)
Frustrating, eh?

> >> >But we also know that few of them actually are variables.
> >> >Don't we, Henri?
> >>
> >> Paul, how many times does something have to be repeated before it reaches
> >> whatever lies inside your skull bone.
> >>
> >> The main factor that determines what does or does not exhibit variability is
> >> the distance to the observer.
> >
> >Does that mean that you do not know that the radial
> >acceleration is equally important as the distance?
> >Aren't you an expert?
>
> Radial acceleration is not the factor one would normally use in a simulation. I
> use the velocity component towards the observer. Sure, the way it varies boils
> down to acceleration in that direction, but not radially.

Acceleration radially to the observer, yes.
That is the change of the velocity component towards the observer
is the very component used to calculate the light curve.
Along with the distance, of course.

> >In close binaries the radial acceleration will be high.
> >You DO understand that, don't you?
>
> You are talking nonsense again.

Am I?
Of course you understand that in close binaries,
the change of the velocity component towards the obsever
- that is the radial acceleration - will be hight.

> >The truth is that we both know that the ballistic theory
> >WILL predict that just about all close binaries are variables,
> >unless the distance is very small.
>
> Not at all. What about the direction of the orbit plane?
> That is crucial.

Obviously.
A few binaries will have a low radial acceleration
because the orbital plane is perpendicular to the observer's
line of sight.
A few.
Thus "just about all" and not "all".

> I have already explained that the brightness curves of each member almost
> cancels the other... so yoiyu get an almost flat curve. Just run my program and
> see the individual contributions.

Yes, you have indeed claimed this stupidity before.
Just run your program to see why it is a stupidity.
Flashes 180 out of phase don't cancel.

> >An expert like you must know that, don't you?
> >But we also know that few of them actually are variables.
> >Don't we, Henri?
> >
> >You can kick and scream and call it a lie all you want,
> >but that won't make the truth go away.
>
> I don't kick and scream, I calmly tell you the truth.
> Apparently truth means nothing to you.

Considering that the truth is that we both know that the ballistic
theory predicts that just about all close binaries are variables,
while very few of them are, it means that the ballistic theory is wrong.

> >> >> When one speaks only the truth, it is difficult to blunder.
> >> >
> >> >But what was the truth, Henry?
> >> >How did that true explanation go ?
> >>
> >> So much bull*** you will have to restate the question.
> >
> >I will be happy to oblige:
> >
> >| In one of your desperate attempts to "explain" why
> >| the ballistic theory gets this [the prediction for close binarier]
> >| wrong, you invented the temperature fluctuations in close binaries.
> >| Will you please explain how the alleged temperature variations
> >| which you say cancels out anyway can make the ballistic
> >| theory predict that they should NOT be variables?
> >
> >Now you can repeat the bull***.
>
> Once again you are makinig the outrageous claim that day temperatures are the
> same as night ones for close binaries.

Did I? :-)
I claimed nothing at all in the statement above, Henri.
But I DID ask you to explain how the alleged temperature variations
can make the ballistic theory predict that they should NOT be variables.

> Have you gone raving mad?

Henry .. you evaded the question.
It was:
 Will you please explain how the alleged temperature variations
 which you say cancels out anyway can make the ballistic
 theory predict that they should NOT be variables?

Will you please answer before I go raving mad?

> >> >> >Having to defend the invention of a red giant which is dull
> >> >> >compared the red giant T UMa so that the former doesn't
> >> >> >contribute to the light curve of the latter, but still is
> >> >> >so warm that it is able to heat T UMa by 500K on
> >> >> >one side compared to the other, is no easy task.
> >> >>
> >> >> What is wrong with that?
> >> >> A giant at 700C could easily cause a 500C difference in night and day temps on
> >> >> a closely orbiting planet or star.
> >> >> But you wouldn't see the giant, would you Paul?
> >> >
> >> >As I said.
> >> >Hilarious! :-
> >> >I suspect you are to stupid to understand why.
> >>
> >> It was YOUR claim that only the visible part of the spectrum was important, not
> >> mine.
> >> Are you now retracting that statement?
> >
> >You are killing me, Henri. :-)
> >Was this the best you could do? :-)
>
> Well, would a 700C red giant be visible at 50LYs, Paul?
> Please answer.

Henri, this is so ridiculous that you are killing me! :-)

Look.
The definition of a "giant" is that its absolute magnitude
is in the rage 2 -> -1. If two such giants are orbiting
each other, their visual magnitude cannot differ by more
than three magnitudes. Thus to insist that one of them
is very faint compared to the other is a self contradiction.

And stars with temperature 700C - ca. 1000K
doesn't exist. It would be a brown dwarf.

A brown dwarf would indeed be invisible.
And utterly incapable of heating anything
by 500K on the (not so) sunny side.

Paul