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

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 09/08/04 

Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:53:23 GMT

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:30:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
wrote:

>
>"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:
>>
>> >

>> >
>> >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?

Paul sometimes I wonder if you have any scientific ability whatsoever. You
cannot even grasp the simplest of reasoning.
It is not surprising that Androcles thinks you are a complete troll.

You seem to believe that everything must be either on/off, yes/no, black or
white.
Don't you understand there can be a gentle gradation in between.

>
>> 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.

But you already know why so many of them ARE NOT. Because I have told you why,
at least ten times and you surely aren't too dumb to know that the sum of two
similar sine waves, 180 out, is something like a straight line.

>
>> >> >> >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.
>>

>> >
>> >> >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?

You have become a raving troll now taht you know you are beaten.

>
>> >> >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's not what you said. You thought your book was refering to the radial
aceleration in the star's own orbit.

>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.

Not really Paul.
the simplest way is to use the actual velocity values (towards the observer) at
equal time intervals around the orbit, then calculate where light emitted at
those times would be, any time afterwards.

I cannot see any point in solving ONE equation using acceleration.

My program can solve millions of such equations in seconds.

>
>> >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 high.

Assuming they are all the same density......

So you think that the shape of the curve A.sin(t/T)+A.sin(pi+t/T) depends on T,
do you?

>
>> >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".

Here you show complete ignorance.
Obvously the angle will be normally distributed. ..unles of course the god of
relativity somehow managed to bypass the laws of probability

>
>> 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 cance

You are now talking about a situation where multiple images are present. That
is well beyond the critical distance and strange things happen. Most are likely
to go unobserved becasue of the large distances involved and their short
duration.
Also, according to my H-aether theory, ultra-bright 'flashes' are likely to be
dampened as they travel.

Flashes don't occur below the critical distance.

>
>> >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.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense when it has been explained to you so
many times?

>
>> >> >> 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.

They will be variables whether or not the ballistic is even discussed at all.

How does YOUR theory explain why stars with markedly different day/night temps
are not 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?

The effects of temperature variations and those due to the ballistic theory are
not related.
You are already raving mad.

>> >
>> >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.

Paul, you seem to have developed a reading comprehension problem.
In case you are becoming deaf, ONLY ONE STAR IS A RED GIANT, THE OTHER (SMALLER
ONE) IS A MAIN SEQUENCE STAR.

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

How do you know that? No distant observer would be able to see them.
The ballistic theory now shows that they do exist. There are lots of cool
>1000C objects in the universe.
I have apparentlly made a fundamental discovery with the aid of my program.

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

Dwarf yes, giant no.

>
>Paul
>

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com

Loading