Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
- From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:19:38 +0200
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:55:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:47:03 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So why do so many variable star brightness curves match the predictions of the
BaT?
No sour grapes there!
Even if your claim is correct (which is uncertain),
It isn't. The truth is the opposite, there is not a single example where the light curve of a binaries is as predicted by the ballistic theory, but there are countless examples of the opposite.
Oh, look who has returned.
I thought you might be giving a series of lectures about the newfound evidence
supporting the BaT.
it does not offset the evidence of countless experiments which disprove the BaT. Ever heard of coincidence? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Tom there is overwhelming evidence in favour of the BaT.
The MMX. The constancy of TWLS
These are examples of experiments where SR and BaT predicts the same. They falsifies neither and proves neither.
Variable star curves.
.. falsifies BaT.
Here is a list for you to check:
R Aquilae
Mira
R Andromedae
Mira
R Arietis
Cataclysmic!
R Aur
Mira
X Aur
Mira
... and so on.
R Boo S Boo U Boo* V Boo* V CVn** R Cam V Cam" X Cam Z Cam R Cas* S Cas** t Cas** W Cas S Cep* T Cep* Omicron Ceti R Com R Crb*** S Crb V Crb W Crb R Cyg S Cyg V Cyg W Cyg AF Cyg*** CH Cyg----- Cyg---- Chi Cyg R Dra R Gem S Her* RU Her** SS Her AH her R Hya SU Lac X Oph U ori RU Peg--- GK Per--- R Scuti** R Ser V Tau R Uma S Uma T Uma CH Uma*** S Umi R Vul V Vul*
Those marked * or ** are complex systems with at least two stars. Those with ---- are probably not caused by the ballistic effect.
Incidentally, I have worked out how and why some curves vary slightly from the predicted shapes. It is because of the day/night temperature variations we discussed some time ago. A star's daytime face might be considerably hotter than its night one. So depending on YAW angle adn eccentricity, the observed curve will be sharper or more rounded.
I expect you wont understand what I am talking about here.
Ridiculous! And you should know why by now. I won't bother to repeat it.
The fact remains: there is not a single example where the light curve of a binary is as predicted by the ballistic theory, but there are countless examples of the opposite.
Claiming stars which we know are NOT binaries to be binaries and dreaming up parameters is just too stupid.
The fact that light moves at c wrt its source according to Maxwell.
Plain wrong. According to Maxwell, the speed of light is c relative to the selected frame of reference regardless of the motion of the source.
That's straight aether theory.
It assumes a property of space determines the light speed between two points.
Introduce Einstein's velocity addition equation and you will find that if light speed is defined as c in any one frame, it is also c in all other frames.
That is consistent ..but doesn't mean it is true.
The point is that you were wrong. According to Maxwell the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source.
The pioneer redshift amomaly
How so?
It isn't an anomaly. It is due to a change in light speed.
And you can of course show us the math that show what the ballistic theory predicts? :-)
The fact that light emitted from a remote star has only one reference.
.. untill you measure its speed.
Now we have the delay in radar signal to Venus and the moon.
.. which confirmes SR and falsifies BaT.
It does not.
Check up the Lunar Laser Ranging experiments. >
The agreement with GR calculations concerning gravitational redshift.
Does that mean that you consider the predictions of GR correct? :-)
It might be in this case by pure coincidence. Earth centrism can produce many correct answers before it becomes too hot to handle. Similarly, if one can places some kind of gradient in space so that light speed remains constant in a gravity well, one can occasionally come up with correct answers.
Yea, right. GR is invariably right by pure accident.
A fine example of Wilsonian logic. The prediction of GR for gravitational redshift is correct. So if we claim that the BaT predicts the same as GR, we have falsifierd GR and proven BaT correct.
The difference is that the BaT passes all other tests.
:-)
Plain logic...
..as demonstrated above.
etc, etc..
.. like all the other experiments falsifying BaT.
And there is still not a single example where the predictions of SR or GR are proven wrong.
In that case, you should be looking for a 'local aether'. SR plainly states that clock rate changes due to velocity variations are purely
illusional. Yet you claim that GPS clock DO PHYSICALLY change.
I never claimed that, which you know bloody well. But it doesn't matter what you say.
The fact is that SR and GR have passed all tests and are falsified by none.
As opposed to the ballistic theory.
Paul .
- Prev by Date: Re: "Inertial Forces" violate Newton's Third Law
- Next by Date: Re: "Inertial Forces" violate Newton's Third Law
- Previous by thread: Re: "imaginary" mass
- Next by thread: Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
