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:3iu0u2-ulb.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:15:33 GMT
| <pLhPe.34874$Il.2032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:dek4v7$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.
|
| No raw data. Androcles wins by default.
|
| [The cosmovisions website has only digested/interpreted data.
| While the data is interesting it is far from clear where
| precisely it came from. Temperature data in particular is
| almost useless, although easily derivable from the raw spectrum.
| Ditto for the velocity of the star, which is calculable from
| the raw spectrum Frauenhofer lineshift --and that calculation is
| *different* depending on whether one is using SR, nBaT, or
| BaT.]
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > | 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.
|
| No raw data. Androcles wins by default.
|
| [Search operation is possible but no data is given.]
|
| >
| > |
| > | > 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.
|
| No raw data. Androcles wins by default.
|
| [Cited article refers to interpreted data.]
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | 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!
|
| Waiting.

I've been waiting 6 years. I ain't a'gonna happen.



|
| >
| > |
| > | 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.
| >
|
| Waiting.
|
| >
| >
| > | 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!
| >
|
| Waiting.
|
| >
| >
| >
| > | 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.
| >
|
| Concurred.
|
| >
| >
| > | 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.
|
| Concurred.
|
| >
| > |
| > | 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.
|
| Concurred.
|
| Decision: Androcles 3 [plus 3 concurrences], Andersen 0.
|
| A pity, though it depends on the rules. There's enough
| circustantial evidence (in particular, the interpreted data
| of the Harvard .PDF) to warrant more investigation.
| I'm assuming someone's already done so, admittedly.
|
| As it is, *I* for one would like to see a spectral prediction
| (time vs. shift, with example spectra) from BaT or nBaT and
| specific figures from Androcles as to his orbital parameters
| to match that data, and observed data. I can probably work
| out one given SR, though I'm not sure I have enough knowledge
| of stellar hydrodynamics and H3 transparency. (Or would that
| be aerodynamics or gaseodynamics or astrodynamics?)
|
| I am also curious as to what data is acceptable here. The
| Harvard website does not give anything beyond a rather
| crude histogram interpretation of temperature; it is not all
| that clear that it even takes into account, for instance,
| the QM solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe. Ideally,
| one would have a table of amplitudes for every 50 ns in
| the visual range (about 300 ns to 700 ns), and observations
| done once an hour, generating (x,y,z) tuplets where
| x is the hour of the measurement, y is the wavelength, and
| z is the amplitude in either stellar magnitude, candela,
| or watts per square meter per Hz.
|
| Whether this is possible, I for one don't know. But at that
| point we might have enough data to at least show that one
| theory works better than another, since one of Androcles'
| requirements is an orbital/alignment curvefit, a la H. Wilson.
| Andersen's (or whoever he's speaking of/for) requires a gaseous
| simulation, taking into account H3 ionization transparency among
| other things. (Presumably, supercomputers are chewing on this
| somewhere.)
|
| However, I'm not all that cognizant of what an automatic
| astrospectograph can generate. I have no idea how
| Google can find such data, either -- though a quick Google
| suggests many "labbooks", some with some data:
|
|
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/32/starscience4.html
|
| has, for instance, magnitude data. This is acceptable raw data
| but far from sufficient to distinguish the two theories; it
| is an aggregate measurement taken over the entire visual range.
|
| The Internet is not designed to transmit information or data. It
| is designed to transmit ads and sales pitches (with modifications
| to allow for some semblance of security while transferring money).
|

You might like to take on a simpler example. Less raw data, more
phuckwittery.

Do a google on Hulse and Taylor... (Princeton, of course, same as
Einstein)
Nobel laureates for Physics, 1993.


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

.

Quantcast