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


"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dek4v7$nl4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:dehpog$qbc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
| > | > message news:lirqt2-unm.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| > | > | <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | wrote
| > | > | on Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:54:15 GMT
| > | > | <XVjOe.11182$5m3.6548@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > 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?
| > | >
| > | > It does no good to talk about the bright green flying elephant's
| > | > eggs at the bottom of a black hole.
| > | > Produce your evidence and we'll look at it together, ok?
| > |
| > | Would it not be more reasonable that YOU produced the evidence
| > | showing that a star with a planet would change the spectrum as
| > | observed?
| > |
| > | Take for example delta Cephei.
| > | The spectrum changes from a F2 to a G3 spectrum during the period.
| > | (I will not insult you by explaining what an F2 and a G3 spectrum
is.)
| >
| > If you want to *** in, half-...err..dim-...err...nit-...err
phuckwit
| > you
| > should explain it for Ghost's benefit.
| >
| > | http://www.cosmovisions.com/cep01.htm
| >
| > I don't see a spectrum, phuckwit, I see some reduced data. A
spectrum
| > looks like this:
| > http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/
|
| So you cannot explain how a star with a planet would change
| the spectrum as observed in delta Cephei.
| Thought so.


So you cannot produce any evidence to back your claim.
Knew so.


|
| > | Or maybe you prefer to explain the spectrum of RR Lyrae?
| >
| > Don't change the subject, phuckwit.
|
| So you cannot explain how a star with a planet would change
| the spectrum as observed in RR Lyrae.
| Thought so.


So you cannot produce any evidence to back your claim.
Knew so.

|
| > I've show SR to be flawed
| > mathemtically, Sagnac shows it physically, your precious theory was
| > still-born and has been kept on life-support for 100 years, it's
time
| > to quit grieving and let it die. The velocity of light in space is
c+v,
| > learn to live with it.
| > Even your own dumb phuckwittery,
| >
| > "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
| >
| > and Einstein's
| > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
| >
| > is enough to tell anybody it is c+v.
| >
| > Stupidly clinging to a dumb definition
| >
| > "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. "
| >
| > is all you are doing.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | Its spectrum changes from a B8 spectrum to an F2 spectrum.
| > |
| >
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1916ApJ....43..217S&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf

No spectrum there either.
So you cannot produce any evidence to back your claim.
Knew so.



| > | Remember that It does no good to talk about the bright green
| > | flying elephant's eggs at the bottom of a black hole.
| > | Produce your evidence showing that a star with a planet would
change
| > | the spectrum as observed, and we'll look at it together, ok?
| > |
| > | Paul
| >
| > You had ample opportunity to download my program when I had it up
| > on a web page, I see no reason to cast pearls before swine.
| >
| > Now you'll have to wait until I've finished my paper, phuckwit.
|
| I don't give a damn about your paper, Androcles.
|
| The challenge was to produce the evidence showing that a star
| with a planet would change the spectrum as observed.
|
| You have failed miserably to do so.
|
| Nothing new about that.
|
| Paul B. Andersen wrote Februar 24., 1999:
|| And regarding cepheids:
|| Does it fit your model that the spectral class of the star
|| changes during the period?
|
| Androcles responded Februar 25., 1999:
|| Again, I don't fully understand what the question is.
|| As you pointed out, the model is a simple one. It reproduces the
light curve
|| and a simple spectrum. If you ask me if it reproduces all frequencies
of the
|| spectrum, the answer is no. I have no reason to suppose that all
frequencies
|| are emitted at a single velocity c, either. It could be that the
emission
|| velocities are c1, c2, c3 etc. for f1,f2,f3 frequencies. I got
particularly
|| interested in that with Joel Stebbins' "Variation of alpha Ursae
Minoris at
|| Different Wavelengths.", but it turned out he had a problem with
extraneous
|| light ( a leak). "As I simply did not believe this contradiction in
|| phase..." is what he wrote, and corrected it a year later.
|
| You didn't even understand the question,
| and consequently had no sensible answer.

See how nice I used to be?
That was before I realized what a stooopid phuckwit you are.
So you cannot produce any evidence to back your claim.
Knew so.


|
| Paul B. Andersen wrote April 23. 1999
|| Androcles wrote April 22. 1999
|| > Paul B. Andersen wrote April 22. 1999
|| > > A cepheid is not only a variable. It is a variable with quite
|| > > specific characteristics, none of which can be explained by
(c+v).
|| > I think all you have stated so far is that the spectrum indicates a
|| > temperature change.


That's what I said then, that's what I say now, and you cannot produce
the spectrum. I''ve called your bluff, Andersen. You are a phuckwit.

[snip crap]

Produce the spectrum, Andersen.
Put your cards down on the table, we know you are bluffing. Call!

|
| I could dig up a high number of equivalent postings,



Showing how often you've bluffed, but what we want is to see
is your cards.



| where you are challenged to explain how your model
| copes with the spectra from Cepheids.
| You have always evaded the question by comments like this:
|
| Paul B. Andersen wrote November 9. 1999
|| But are you going to keep ignoring the facts?

Produce the facts then.

The only "fact" before us is "someone said". That's hearsay
evidence and inadmissible in a court of law, let alone in science.
6 years later and you are still bluffing with no evidence!




| Androcles responded November 10. 1999:
|| The "facts" that I'm ignoring are the "facts" you have cooked up in
your own
|| imagination. I will continue to ignore your imaginings, yes.
|
| And there has been no progression since 1999.

Yep.. Andersen refuses to show his evidence.



| You still call the facts known by any Astronomer -
| Cepheids are changing their spectral class during
| the period - "bright green flying elephant's
| eggs at the bottom of a black hole."

Yep. Produce the spectrum.

|
| The fact is that the spectra of Cepheids tell an
| unambiguous story - Cepheids are pulsating stars.
|
| Paul

The fact is you have no evidence and are babbling.

Androcles


.

Quantcast