Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:d3int2-6v3.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:41:35 GMT
| <3E_Ne.12297$Il.10056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message news:qr7lt2-5jj.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > The only possible explanation for why the surface
| > | > temperature and luminosity changes the way they do
| > | > is that the diameter of the star changes.
| > | >
| > | > The diameter is even measured with interferometry
| > | > for some Cepheids. The pulsation is observed.
| >
| > Has Andersen offered so much as one reference in support of his
| > ranting? Of course not.
|
| Therefore, it doesn't exist. OK. Do you have a reference for
| your theories regarding Cepheids?

LOL! *I* am the reference, what are you looking for?
Me to put a web page up as a reference?
Or empirical data?
That's in the sky, you only have to look up at night.
Get your telescope and your artificial star out and start observing.
These days you can do it from indoors in front of the computer.
Just put a cheap CCD at the focus, grab the image, start the clock
on your telescope mount and away you go, you can even write
your own software and analyze the image any way you like.
Why don't you ask Copernicus if he had a reference for his
heliocentric theory, or Watson and Crick if they had a reference
for their double helix DNA theory?
A cepheid is an ordinary star with a planet in orbit about it,
as I've told you before. All the crap about knowing its temperature
variation is just a shift in the spectrum. Look up Boltzmann,
Rayleigh-Jeans, Balmer series, Rydberg constant, black body radiation.

The ONLY thing you have is the spectum and apparent magnitude.
All else is deduction, and if we use the hypothesis, which is consistent
with Galilean relativity that c' = c+v, then a cepheid is a very simple
star. The alternative is ludicrous but we've lived with it so long that
people believe in Santa Einstein and puff-puff stars.


| > God created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days, I've got a book that
| > says so.
|
| A valid reference, if a bit ridiculous in modern astronomy/cosmology.
| Of course, there are *two* creation myths therein, and they're
| not quite consistent.

Well, its garbage like your puff-puff star theory, but I do have the
useless reference.



| >
| > |
| > | Not enough to convince Androcles, I'm afraid.
| >
| > Andersen convince me? The same Andersen that claims
| >
| > "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
| > which is the same as interchanging the frames,
| > which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
| > OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
| > t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > or:
| > tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
| >
| > yet still believes
| >
| > tau = (t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > xi = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >
| > and cannot see a contradition?
| >
| > That convincing Andersen?
| >
| > ROFLMAO!!
| >
| > How gullible can you be?
|
| That is indeed a contradiction. However, I suspect a
| problem setup error.
|
| Briefly, if one a priori assumes
|
| tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| then with a little algebraic manipulation,
|
| xi+tau*v = (x-vt+vt-xv^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| = x(1-v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| = x*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| and therefore
|
| x = (xi+tau*v)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| and
|
| tau+v*xi/c^2 = (t-vx/c^2 + vx/c^2 - v^2t/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| = t(1-v^2/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| = t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| and therefore
|
| t = (tau+xi*v/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| Of course such mathematical mumbo-jumbo proves little more
| than that the Lorentz is self-consistent; the same techniques
| prove that, if
|
| xi = x-vt
| tau= t
|
| then
|
| x = xi+vt
| t = tau
|
| which also proves that the Galilean is self-consistent.
|
| The Galilean is admittedly far simpler. (Wrong, but simpler.)

You do realize... nah, you wouldn't...
Let me explain to you as simply as I know how.

Frame K is the stationary frame in which c is to be found.
Frame k is the moving frame, but there are two of them.
One is a ghost frame, and you know all about ghosts, the other
is the real moving frame.

The Galilean transform from K to the real moving frame is
x' = x-vt
y' = y
z'= z
t' = t

The cuckoo transform from the real moving frame to the
ghost moving frame, k, is

xi = x' /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (remember that x' = x-vt)
tau = t' *sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

but there is problem.
There is no v between the ghost moving frame and the real
moving frame, we already use that going from x to x'.

ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."

What does "independent of time" mean?
It means your kitchen table will be the same width tomorrow,
next week and next year as it is today. Big surprise, huh?
In mathematical terms it means there is no function f such that
x = f(t) + x.
f(t) = 0, or doesn't exist.
If it doesn't exist then it cannot have an inverse function
t = f^-1(x), or it does and f(t) =0 then t = f^-1(0).

Therefore Einstein's function
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) does not exist, and there is no v either.

He's got everyone hopelessly confused by calling the ghost
frame and the real frame the same name, k, but uses
x in K,
x' in the real k and
xi in the ghost frame.

tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) is nonsense, x' is independent of time.

Then the phuckwit says "Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,"
and you cannot do that either, the coordinate x' is already a point.
you can do it to the length x', but not the coordinate x'.

| >
| >
| > | He doesn't seem to understand parallax.
| >
| >
| > LOL!
| >
| > What's the baseline of the triangle at
| >
| > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Parsec.html
| >
| > for
| > 1) Cepheus constellation.
| > http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/java/Cepheus.html
| > 2) Leo constellation.
| > http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/java/Leo.html
|
| I have no idea what you're on about here, since you've apparently
| reversed the triangle. The origin point of the triangle is at
| the *nearby star*, not the Earth. (The nearby star will appear
| to move against a backdrop of more distant stars.)
| >
| > Hint: The Earth's orbit is elliptical, ratio of major axis to minor
axis
|
| ...is about 1.033875.

Ghost, as Arthur Dent said about Dinky, if you clipped your toenails
you would say you have 9.87654321 toes remaining.
The Earth is on the base line, we wait six months to measure again.


|
| >
| > Parallax at 300 parsecs !!
| > Too funny, Ghost.
|
| I'm glad you find it humorous, but I'm disappointed in your
| understanding.

You come bouncing in telling us you know all about parallax,
I doubt you've even spent one night observing, pretend you can
measure to one hundredth of a millionth of a degree amd measure
the distance to d-Ceph and its 1000 ly, you are a phuckwit.
You know ***-all about errors and accuracy, ***-all about
astronomy, and you've got the fucking cheek to tell me
you are disappointed in my understanding.
Get a grip!




|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Me, I'd have to work it out, but 1,000 lightyears
| > | is about 9.46 * 10^18 m, and 2 AU (the diameter of the
| > | Earth's orbit) is about 3 * 10^11 m. This translates
| > | into 1.82 millionths of a degree,
| >
| >
| > Close enough for government work.
| > Who's protractor are you using to measure plus or minus
| > 0.0000000005 degrees?
| >
| > What's a degree, anyway? It wouldn't be the distance the Earth
| > moves in a day, would it?
| > Think think ... 360 degrees/circle ..... 365 days a year?
|
| Yes it would, as it turns out.

As it turn out? Phuckwit, the Babylonians chose 360 degrees
to a circle BECAUSE that's how far the Earth moves in a day.
They could have used grads, could have used radians.

|
| >
| > day = 24 hours
| > hour = 60 minutes
| > minute = 60 seconds.
| >
| > 86400 seconds a day?
| >
| > Of course, you can use the cosine of the angle to get the distance
| > moved across the orbit...
| >
| > And you think I don't understand parallax, huh?
|
| You seem to have flipped the problem, but you do seem to understand
| basic geometry to some extent.

You cheeky ***, you have no concept of measuring parallax.
It takes six months to get 2AU as a baseline.
Now is that from May to October or February to July?
Minor axis or Major? Which is which? Google for it, dissappointed.

However, we're not all that interested
| in how much a star moves from night to night when measured at the
| same (synodic) time; that's about a degree, as you've said, but
| all stars are subject to that motion.

Yeah, that's why we call them "fixed".


|
| What we're interested in is how much Delta Cephei moves with respect
| to far more distant objects, when observed from two points in
| the Earth's orbit roughly in opposition to each other. A
| more accurate diagram would show *two* triangles; the Earth's
| orbit would be one side of the leftside triangle, the nearby
| star would be at the apex of the two triangles, and the
| distant stars would form the other side of the rightside triangle.
|
| One could, for example, observe Delta Cephei early in the morning
| on Jan 1st, and early in the evening on Jul 1st. (Adjust as
required.)


d-Ceph is a "fixed" star, in excess of 100 light years away, we can
only use parallax for the nearest. You have no idea just how difficult
it
it is even then. You wouldn't get Proxima Centauri, epsilon-Eridani,
Sirius or Barnard's star to within 50%.
I doubt I could either, even if I had control of a major telescope, and
I know a hell of lot more about than you.

| >
| > You don't realize just what a phuckwit you are, or just what a
| > phuckwit Andersen is. Phuckwits never do.
|
| I take it, then, that parallax is not a valid mesaurement mechanism?
|
| OK.

Phuckwit, it's all we've got. When we have a base on a moon of
Saturn things will be marginally better, but that's not in your
lifetime.

|
| Just don't tell the astronomers. They'll be very disappointed, and
| you'll have to give them a cookie^H^H^H^H^H^^Hn alternative
| measurement method using Androcles' Patented Velocity Detector
| or some such.
|
| You do have a reference for the 100 lightyear distance for
| Delta Cephei, I trust?
|
I have a reference for a dissappointed moron...
Would you like a reference?

Androcles.


.

Quantcast