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

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:54:15 GMT
<XVjOe.11182$5m3.6548@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:f21ot2-995.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
> | <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> | wrote
> | on Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:46:05 GMT
> | <N%aOe.12474$Il.3446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> | >
> | > "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.
> |
> | Ah. So a Cepheid is proof that c' = c+v?
>
> A cepheid is either
> 1) A specialized puff-puff star because Einstein decreed
> the speed of light invariant.
> 2) An ordinary star with a planet.
> 3) Something else.
>
> Heard of Ockham's Razor?

I've heard of it. Care to explain how a star with a planet
would change the luminosity *and spectrum* of the star,
as observed here?

>
>
> | An interesting
> | hypothesis, that -- I'd want a little more specifics on
> | exactly how.
>
> You advanced it. You provide the specifics.
>
> | For instance, H. Wilson is of the opinion
> | that all Cepheids are actually orbital binaries of some sort.
>
> He thinks stars are in orbit about an object called a "Wilson,
> Cool, Heavy", which is phuckwittery, just as his h-aether was
> phuckwittery and as Einstein's definition of time is phuckwittery.
> That's why I've disassociated myself from him.

Maybe you shouldn't be so hasty. After all, is not a
"Wilson, cool, heavy" object similar to your planet?
What, exactly, is the difference between a WCH and
your planet, in general explanation here?

>
>
> |
> | Do you share this view?
> No.
>
> | If not, what is your view?
>
> An ordinary star with a planet, as I told you.
>
> "The only possible explanation for why the surface
> temperature and luminosity changes the way they do
> is that the diameter of the star changes." -- Blind Phuckwit.
>
> The only possible explanation for the existence of the
> universe is that a bright green flying elephant created it.
> [snip]
>
> | > | That is indeed a contradiction. However, I suspect a
> | > | problem setup error.
>
> Of course there is a problem setup error - this one.
> [quote]
> we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
> from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
> [end quote]
> Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
>
>
> | > |
> | > | 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)
> |
> | That is indeed a cuckoo frame. It is not the Lorentz.
>
> Right enough, it's the Einstein. Lorentz had ***-all to do
> with Einstein's fuckup.
>
>
> tau = (t -vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> x' = x- vt.
> x = x'+vt
>
> tau = (t - v* (x'+vt) /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> Hence if we take x' to zero (muons are point particles, no length),
>
> tau = (t - tv^2 /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> tau = t*(1- v^2 /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> tau = t *sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> t' = t
>
> Hence:
> tau = t' *sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as I stated.
> xi = x' /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (remember that x' = x-vt)
>
> Einstein's cuckoo transforms! He knows it, so he blames Lorentz.
> Andersen's cuckoo transforms are nothing like that, but are still
> cuckoo.
>

This is a mathematical disproof only. You'll need data.

>
> | >
> | > 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.
> |
> | Depends on how one observes it from K.
>
> Depends on how much of a phuckwit you are.
>
> Ewe and Andersen are part of the same problem.
> Ewe are dumb sheep, so ewe go along with all the other dumb sheep.
> Ewe all bleat the same tune, none of ewe can think for ewerselves.
> But ewe don't know ewe are dumb sheep, ewe think ewe are smart.
> Andersen is worse than ewe, he works in an educational environment.
>
> I point out a BLATANTLY OBVIOUS contradiction to Andersen
> and he calls me a fool. Do the same to ewe and ewe get sarcastic,
> "don't forget to tell the astronomers". Phuckwits, the lot of ewe.
>
>
> |
> | >
> | > 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.
> |
> | Exactly. However, the elliptical orbit does introduce some minor
> | complications; presumably these can be compensated for.
>
> There are minor complications you've never dreamed of, the most
> obvious being how you will measure 1/100,000,000th of a degree
> 1) when a train goes by and shakes your telescope
> 2) when you a peering through a turbulent atmosphere
> 3) when you've forgotten something!

4) atmospheric disturbances
5) heat shimmers (it's colder on top of mountains)
6) out of the way of suburbanites trying to cook that perfect
bar-be-que, smoking up the works.

>
> Why do you suppose telescopes are on the top of hills?

Erm...how does this have anything to do with the Earth's eccentricity?

>
>
>
> |
> | >
> |>
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > 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!
> |
> | Then I bow to your superior knowledge of Cepheids.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Please do give
> | us some of your expertise in this matter, as it's clear that we
> | are know-nothings that have nary a clue as to precisely what
> | a Cepheid is.
>
> Nothing to it. It's an ordinary star with a planet. Both orbit a
> barycentre. Figure out c+v for a complete orbit (I use 1,000,000
> points around the orbit, c+v for each one) and figure when the
> light will arrive and bingo, you have the light curve of a cepheid.

OK, yaw angle. Are all Cepheids merely stars which happen to be
propitiously oriented with a Anderson, Cool, Heavy object?

> Algol is a cepheid, what makes it different is that we see the orbit
> along its major axis.
> I started with the back of an envelope, literally.
> Set up cartesian axes, distance vertical and time horizontal
>
>
> | ^
> | x
> |
> |
> |_______________t->
>
>
> Now draw a diagonal line from the origin to the top of the envelope,
> like this.
> |^ /
> |x /
> | /
> | /
> |/ _____________t->
>
>
> This line represents a photon, which travels a distance x in time t,
> t being the horizontal distance at the top of the envelope at x, the
> height.
> You did that in school as a teenager, of course, it's not a new idea to
> you.
> The slope is distance/time and represents velocity.
>
> Now send another photon the same distance, but start it a moment later,
> and then another, like this.
> |^ / / /
> |x / / /
> | / / /
> | / / /
> |/ / / __________t->
>
>
> All the lines are parallel, so the speed of the photons is constant.
>
> Now IMAGINE (hard for some people to do, I know, but give it a try)
> that the speed of light was a tiny bit slower for the next line.
> It still goes from the bottom to the top, a distance x, but takes a
> little
> longer to get there. The slope is less. Hard for me to draw in text,
> you have to do it yourself on the back of the envelope, but I'll try.
> Unfortunately I have to exaggerate, I have fixed spaces, that produce
> aliasing.
>
> |^ / / / /
> |x / / / /
> | / / / /
> | / / / /
> |/ / / / __________t->
>
>
> And the next, but the speed is lower still.
> |^ / / / / /
> |x / / / / /
> | / / / / /
> | / / / / /
> |/ / / / /__________t->
>
> My text sketch is becoming unclear. Your pencil sketch on the back
> of the envelope will be better. I'm going to erase some lines, leaving
> only the end points to make my sketch better, but you can keep
> your pencilled lines.
> |^ / / / / /
> |x
> |
> |
> |/ / / / /__________t->
>
> Now add even more lines, but IMAGINE the speed is increasing
> gradually, and then once again decreasing.
>
> |^ / / / / / / / /// / / / / / / /
> |x
> |
> |
> |/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / _t->
>
>
> You'll see the photons are bunched together and then spread out,
> then they'll bunch together again as the source of photons moves
> cyclically faster and then slower and then faster again.
> Now imagine... I do ask a lot, I know... that an observer at x
> really does see this bunching and spreading. Let's make it easy.
> Suppose we are looking at pulses from a pulsar.
> Now let's put back the constant speed of light we so dearly believe in.
> All the lines have to be parallel again,but we still retain the bunching
> and spreading, so the sketch looks like this.
> |^ / / / / / / / /// / / / / / / /
> |x
> |
> |
> |/ / / / / / / /// / / / / / / / ->t
>
> Notice that the pulsar is no longer emitting pulses at regular intervals
> of time.
> So... something must have happened to time itself at the pulsar, because
> lone pulsars are very regular in their frequency. This is not a lone
> pulsar,
> it is in orbit, periodically approaching and receding from us.
> Hulse and Taylor worked it out, using GR, and received a Nobel
> prize for their effort. They KNOW the speed of light is constant,
> you see, as you do. Einstein said it, so it must be.
>
>
> | Obviously Delta Cephei is *not* 1000 light-years
> | away and expanding and contracting because of ionized helium
> | transparency. But what precisely is it doing?
> |
> | Please tell us, Mr. Master Astronomer.
>
> Sure I'll tell ewe.
> The stick in water really is bent because you can see it is.
> You are not allowed to move the stick or the telescope
> you are looking at it with.
> Doing an Andersen/Ghost, OBVIOULY it is bent.
> We OBSERVE it.
>
> Doppler shift is a change in light speed. See sketch on back of
> envelope. Make your own sketch, make your own computer
> model as Henri did. I had to twist his arm not to use a circle,
> though, he's stubborn.
> I figured out cepheids 18 years ago, even wrote to Reinhardt
> (Prof physics) at CMU in Pittsburgh. He wasn't interested, but
> steered me onto John Fox, "Evidence against Emission Theories".
> There is NO evidence against emission theory, that's what Fox was
> saying, there is only prejudice like yours.

Correct. No evidence exists at all against nBaT. (H. Wilson's
theory is merely called BaT; it assumes among other things
that the aether can be "herded" or "spun" in a binary orbiting
context. This is not nBaT's hypothesis; nBaT merely assumes
that the aether is rigid, uniform, but frictionless, and that
light mechanics are as per Newton: c with respect to source,
c+v with respect to something approaching the source, c-v
with respect to something away from the source.)

deSitter's observations and various other calculations are
merely a front against a gigantic conspiracy bent on,
among other things:

(1) perpetuating the war in Iraq.
(2) keeping Osama bin Laden in power (he's the latest in a very
long string of Dark Enemies against the Illuminati), so as
to use him as a convenient foil when Things Inevitably Go Wrong,
so that people don't have a clue when Things Actually Do Go Wrong.
(3) using SR to wave away some of the very bad science that is
going on, such as global warming.
(4) contacting through FTL waves our allies in Sirius, Betelgeuse,
Antares, and Polaris. SETI does not mean Search for Extra-
Terristrial Intelligence. It means Secret ExtraTerristrial
Interdiction. That's why the helicopters are black, as well;
easier to haul ass into space without anyone noticing. (White
helicopters would be detectable by NORAD, although they're in
on it too.)
(5) getting as much money as possible from the government. BTW, that's
why the Texas SSC was decommissioned; it was the most expensive
method they could come up with -- and the quickest way to line
certain pockets. Whose pockets, I for one cannot say.
Probably the pilots of the black helicopters.

> To quote Reinhardt, relativity is "nice to think about".

Relativity is evil! It is NOT nice to think about. It twists
time, space, and minds. It must be defeated. All hail the
mighty genius Newton, who at least had a clue to avoid the
apple. Einstein ran into the tree. (He was driving a go-kart
at the time.)

Even now it is working its insidious magic on your mind. (It's
already too late for me.) Quick, get one of these before it
is too late!

http://zapatopi.net/afdb

(The raw materials are available at any department store, except
perhaps for Barbara Ellen, who last I looked was no longer available
because of aging. However, one can use a fair number of substitutes.)

> So I thought about it. My conclusion is that relativity is a hoax,
> it's disciples are a flock of sheep, each bleating what the other says.
> It's not the first time. It happened with Ptolemy until Copernicus
> came along, and look at the trouble Galileo had with all the
> prejudice, like yours. That's why I consider you a phuckwit.

Fine. Measured any electrons lately?

>
>
>
>
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | 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.
> |
> | They could have used anything at all. They had a fascination
> | with the number 60. I for one don't konw why.
>
> It is exactly divisible by 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,15,20,30.
> When man invented the wheel he found pi was a pain in the arse
> for measurement, so he rolled a hexagon along the ground
> instead. A hexagon is 6 equilateral triangles, internal angles 60
> degrees, the Earth moves one degree a day in its orbit.
> 60 was an EXCELLENT choice for an intelligent society
> struggling to make sense of Nature, but they were stuck with
> phuckwits who had to use fingers and toes to count with and
> had no idea how to bisect an angle or evn waht was meant
> by angle.

Oh, it was *far* more evil than that. Even back then the Cabal
was doing its dirty work -- fire was one of the Cabal's
great success stories, making everything believe that it was
the result of a chemical reaction when in reality it is the
result of a spaceborne laser beam doing a rather complicated
dance among the clouds and ultimately hitting one's matchbox.

You recall, for instance, why 666 is the Number Of The Beast.
Somebody leaked.

> Well I remember my own daughter, aged 6, struggling
> with angle. She was thinking length, we do at that age.
> Stone circles in Britain (there are hundreds, Stonehenge is just
> the biggest and most famous) were constructed on the megalithic
> "yard", discovered by Alexander Thom and are egg-shaped
> to eliminate pi.
> I read Thom when I was in my 30s and was fascinated.
> http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMThom.html
>
>
> | Of course why the amount the Earth moves in a day is all that
> | relevant to parallax (except for the elementary observation that
> | 180 degrees = about 1/2 a year) is not clear to me. Perhaps you
> | can elaborate?
>
> Errors and accuracy.
> The baseline you use is crucial to the distance you find.
> Half the base line is half the distance, and you want to measure
> 1/ 100,000,000th of a degree.
> It is theoretically possible to measure distance via parallax,
> but in practice it is totally impossible to get anything more 100 ly.
> What you need to do is place error bounds on your measurements.
> NIST does.
>
> 1 AU = 93,000,000 miles +/- 3,000,000 miles
> Measured angle is 0.001 seconds +/- 0.5... Oops, error larger than
> the measurement!
>
> and what do you compare to? A "fixed" star. How do you know it
> didn't move as well? So you have to measure to many fixed stars
> and get a statistical value.
>
>
> Then calculate the upper and lower bounds of the distance,
> and you'll find d-Ceph is somewhere between 20 ly and infinity.
>
> Astronomers know this, so they switch over to intrinsic magnitude
> vs apparent magnitude using the inverse square law. It's brighter,
> it must be closer. But what is the intrinsic magnitude? A guess,
> based on the star's temperature, which we get from it's colour.
> With a cepheid you are fucked on that, so you guess a mean
> value. You estimate the distance to the Megallanic clouds,
> Henrietta Swan Leavitt used ... oh read up on it, its in the literature.
> The error bounds are enormous. Astronomical, even.
> It's all guess work, hopefully intelligent guesswork.

And therefore, of course, SR is handily disproven. Neat!

>
>
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > 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.
> |
> | Depends on the star position.
>
> The *** it does! I can go from Polaris to Vega to Betelgeuse to the
> Southern Cross and still use the same baseline. I don't know the
> names of the stars in the souther hemisphere, I can't observe them.


http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php

should be able to help you there, or you can obtain a copy of
the program Celestia. Both are relatively free from SR
defects.

>
>
>
> | >
> | > 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.
> |
> | That you do, and one of the things you do know is the many proofs
> | that c' = c+v. So far, not one of them has held up to scrutiny.
> |
> | >
> | > | >
> | > | > 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.
> |
> | Ah, so Cepheids cannot be used as a measurement basis, then.
> |
> | Thank you. Your opinion is noted.
>
>
> Your ignorance and blustering phuckwittery noted.
>
> Fucking cheek, telling me I don't understand parallax.
> You are like a little kid. My grandson tells me what he's learned
> in school and says "Bet you didn't know that, Pop!" and I smile.
> His schoolteacher is just a kid, wet behind the ears, to me anyway.
> In your case I expect a little sense.
>
> | >
> | > |
> | > | 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?
> |
> | I'm assuming you're referring to me, but I was hoping for
> | an explanation of exactly what Delta Cephei is.
>
> You have it, an ordinary star with a planet.
> http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
> What is Ockham's Razor?
> Yet, even when the unfit hypotheses are discarded, several options may
> remain, in some cases making the exact same predictions, but having very
> different underlying assumptions. In order to choose among these
> possible theories a very useful tool is what is called Ockham's razor.
>
> Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the
> fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'',
> which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.
>
> You say one speed of light, a complex puff-puff star.
>
> I say c+v, an ordinary star with a planet.
>
> You say one speed of light, a complex binary system (Algol)
>
> I say c+v, an ordinary star with a planet.
>
> You say one speed of light, an exploding star that repeats itself.
> (V1493 Aql)
>
> I say c+v, an ordinary star orbiting another ordinary star with a period
> of 200 years, like Pluto.

Why 200 years? The period of the light oscillation is more along
the lines of 5 *days*.

Is there a tidal force created by this planet or something? Or
is it simply occulting? If so, it can only occult once every
200 years. Or perhaps one has a "string of pearls", blocking
the star every 5 days, regularly spaced (with some variation).

Please clarify this subpoint.

Since Cepheids are all over the Universe this is a *very* common
configuration, apparently.

>
> Wait 200 years and watch again, you didn't have a telescope good enough
> 200 years ago.
>
> All your explanations are different, all mine are the same.

Yep. This of course increases your probability slightly.
Am I correct in assuming that supernovae are also "ordinary
stars with a planet"?

How about Cygnus X1? Must be. It's the simplest explanation
possible. Just a star with a very hyperactive planet emitting
hard X-rays. In the case of the supernova it's the planet
that blows up; ordinary stars never do. (What the Chinese
thought they saw almost a millennia ago in 1054 A.D. was
merely a Cabal nuclear explosion from an experimental
form of spacecraft. They're *very* tight-lipped about
it, of course. The 1987 event was from a malfunction in
the dark-matter reactor of _The Suzy Queen_, a spacecraft
that used to regularly ply the spacelanes between
the Andromeda Galaxy and M3125; it just happened to be
in the area at the time. Mourn for the crew members.
I happen to know of this one because I made it ... erm,
that is to say, I was able to make it to that area before
the Cabal sealed off communications. But no one will
ever believe me; SR is *that* strong.)

Gamma ray bursts are merely attempts to signal at us,
of course...but the Cabal intercepts and decodes these
transmissions; all we get are the lefovers.

The observations of PSR 1913+16 suggest it is also a very
ordinary star with a very ordinary planet -- with a large
jet attached by one of our gray friends, spiraling it
into the central star, to keep it warm.

>
> "In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality
> the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning. Suppose that you
> have two competing theories which describe the same system, if these
> theories have different predictions than it is a relatively simple
> matter to find which one is better: one does experiments with the
> required sensitivity and determines which one give the most accurate
> predictions. For example, in Copernicus' theory of the solar system the
> planets move in circles around the sun, in Kepler's theory they move in
> ellipses. By measuring carefully the path of the planets it was
> determined that they move on ellipses, and Copernicus' theory was then
> replaced by Kepler's. "
>
> Ockham's razor is MINE!

Mind you don't cut your own foot off.

>
> Androcles.
>

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

Quantcast