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, 29 Aug 2005 17:33:54 GMT
<6GHQe.34055$5m3.31939@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:0e8mt2-9ni.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
> | <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | wrote
> | on Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:41:36 +0200
> | <deuho1$at8$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> | > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> | >> In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
> | >> <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | >> wrote
> | >> on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:34:52 +0200
> | >> <det75h$7ec$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> | >>>The spectral class determines the temperature.
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> To a certain precision, yes. Is there a table mapping the two?
> | >
> | > Sure.
> | > You can find a graph here:
> | >
> http://www.cerritos.edu/ladkins/scc/A140_Lab_Manual/04_color_or_the_stars.pdf
> | > page 6 and 7
> |
> | Not bad...for a graph.
> |
> | >
> | > This is related to how to classify a spectrum:
> | >
> http://mcdonaldobservatory.org/teachers/classroom/spectroscopy/ds_t/ds_t.pdf
> | >
> | > >>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> | >>>>The two hypotheses are as follows.
> | >>>>
> | >>>>[1] Cepheids are pulsating stars.
> | >>>
> | >>>And this "hypothesis" is proven beyond reasonable doupt.
> | >>>It is as close to a fact as it can get.
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> Absent more data. Admittedly, it would take a *lot* of data
> | >> showing otherwise.
> | >
> | > Data aren't absent.
> |
> | I did say *more* data. :-)
>
> Of course his data is absent, he can't produce the spectra.
> He's lying.

Can you produce the spectra?

>
> |
> | > Cepheids have been studied for close to a century.
> | > Thousands of papers are written.
> | > That it isn't easy to find the raw data on the net
> | > doesn't mean they don't exist.
> | > Astronomers aren't idiots, you know.
> |
> | No, but they are apparently a little reticent. Can't say
> | I blame them too much.
> |
> | > No Astronomer question that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
> | > because the spectra tell an unambiguous story.
>
> The spectra he cannot produce is most convincing, I'm sure.
> I wonder why he is reluctant to produce it?
> He's an assistant to a professor at Agder Kindergarten,
> it should be no trouble at all for him.
>
>
> | >
> | > Why don't you question Newton's laws of motion?
> | > Have you seen the raw data supporting it?
> |
> | I've seen experimental conclusions against it.
>
> Experimental conclusions, huh?
> Hmmm.... let's experiment with this conclusion...
> Have you seen the relativist's lookup table?
>
> gamma Desired velocity
> 1 0.000000000000000
> 10 0.994987437106620
> 100 0.999949998749938
> 1000 0.999999499999875
> 10000 0.999999995000000
> 100000 0.999999999950000
> 1000000 0.999999999999500
> 10000000 0.999999999999995
>
> Oh look! All velocities are within the limits of experimental error,
> which one would you like?

The one that explains LHC's 11.2455 kHz frequency around a
circumference of 26658.883 m for protons that are supposedly
7 TeV instead of 469.1360145 MeV, leaving
6999530863985.5 eV unaccounted for.

>
> | At relativistic speeds Newton's laws do not apply (among
> | them velocity addition when shifting frames), to the great
> | consternation of Androcles, H. Wilson, and others.
>
> Consternation? Nah...
>
>
> x /x'
> | /\/
> | / /\
> |x' / / \0
> |\ / /
> | \/ /
> | /\/
> |/_________t
> A B
>
> To the great consternation of relativists, light leaves
> the front of the moving train x'

Assuming t_T = 0.

> and bounces off a mirror
> at time A,

Is this in the train's frame of reference?

> simultaneously light leaves the back of the train 0
> and bounces off a mirror at time B, and tau(A) = tau(B).
> They think tau is a linear function :-)

Depends on what one defines the independent variable to be.

> The relativist speed of the train is 0.6c.

0.6 * 10^-7 c, maybe. It doesn't really matter.

> Newton's laws apply, sad as it may seem.
>
> Then there is Sagnac.
> Stand beside it and your watch will slow down.
>
> A B
>
>
>
> C D
>
> Light leaves A, goes to B and C, turntable revolves.
>
> C A
>
>
>
> D B
>
> Light reflects at B and C, goes to D, turntable revolves.
>
> D C
>
>
>
> B A
>
> Oh look! the light meets itself at the top left corner!
> That means one ray stayed in place while the other
> went around 4 sides of a square.
> That'll stop your watch dead, you are not allowed to
> to see c+v or c-v.
> And the best part is, Sagnac actually works!
> All Sagnac devices are sealed so that you don't
> actually look, or the makers will be sued by the watch
> companies.

Actually, Sagnac is outside the boundaries of SR anyway.
I've yet to analyze it in detail.

>
>
> | LHC in particular is specced for lightspeed movement of protons,
> | despite said protons being far more energetic than lightspeed
> | protons (in Newtonian space) have a right to be -- 7 TeV versus
> | about .469 GeV (1/2 the energy equivalent of m_p). I'd say
> | the conclusion is pretty obvious that the LHC designers aren't
> | using Newtonian ballistic theory... :-)
> |
> | Of course at the level of a traffic accident -- 10^-7 c or
> | thereabouts -- the error in using Newton's Laws is about
> | 5 * 10^-15; the traffic cop or SuperBall(tm) designer needn't
> | worry overly much. :-)
> |
> | And Newton's Third still applies, in some form.
> |
> | >
> | >
> | >>
> | >>>>[2] Cepheids are eclipsing binaries.
> | >>>
> | >>>Who says so?
> | >>>Not Androcles.
> | >>>Not Henri Wilson.
> | >>>
> | >>>You are the only one I have seen propose it.
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> In that case I'm misinterpreting Androcles.
>
> You certainly are.
>
> I quite specifically said "ordinary star with a planet."
> How you can misintepret that as an eclipsing binary is amazing.

True.

However, I do have a dumb question. What is the size of the
planet, distance from star to planet, and distance from star to Earth?

Perhaps you have data for Delta Cephei?

>
>
> | >> I'll admit
> | >> to some curiosity as to how an orbiting binary pair
> | >> in nBat-space (or Newtonian space) will actually *look*,
> | >> given the issues of gas molecular motion and light delay,
> | >> but it probably won't look like observations of Delta Cephei. :-)
> | >
> | > Actually I have studied that in some detail.
> | > I won't bother to get into it now, I will only say that
> | > thousands of known binaries which are NOT variables
> | > should according to the ballistic theory have been so.
> | >
> | > The "temperature effects" will have the effect to make
> | > a minimum possible period depending on the distance.
> | > Most Cepheids are so distant that the short observed period
> | > should be impossible according to the ballistic theory.
> | >
> | > In short, according to the ballistic theory
> | > binaries which are not variables should have been so,
> | > and Cepheids which are variables should not have been so.
> |
> | And then there's binary Cepheids, which I assume are common enough;
> | we might get lucky and see an *eclipsing* binary Cepheid someday,
> | if we haven't already.
> |
> | (And then there's such things as PSR B1913+16 and PSR
> | J0737-3039. No, neither is a Cepheid -- both are orbiting
> | pairs of neutron stars, and both are very conclusive
> | disproofs of nBaT. I don't know regarding BaT but I think
> | it disproves that, too.
> |
> | http://www.atnf.csiro.au/news/press/neutron_binary/
>
>
> ROFL!
> I bet you believe sal when he says Sagnac disproves Newton
> too!

So you have an explanation of the anomalies for PSR B1913+16 and
PSR J0737-3039, then?

Glad to hear it. Share it with the rest of us, please. We
need to overthrow this relativistic conspiracy.

Unless you don't have the guts. :-)

>
> Androcles.
>

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



Relevant Pages

  • Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED
    ... | Androcles wrote: ... |> I don't see a spectrum, phuckwit, I see some reduced data. ... | So you cannot explain how a star with a planet would change ... same size as the center sun and touching it*, the probability of it doing anything even remotely like a Cepheid lightcurve is probably next to nil -- yet Cepheids are relatively common, and easily identifiable. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is BaT, exactly?
    ... >> in the realm of simulations of star systems together with lightcurves ... > theory predicts the light curve should look like. ... > Cepheids are pulsating stars which play an important role in distance ... > Henri's point is that Cepheids and Miras really are binaries. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED
    ... |> 2) An ordinary star with a planet. ... Care to explain how a star with a planet ... |> An ordinary star with a planet, ... So far I've heard about cepheids ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GPS GR Correction Myth.
    ... >>As is another paper about several other cepheids. ... > Notice that the smaller star can barely be observed... ... My 'threebody.exe' program shows how captures can occur. ... > orbiting satr case and would be hard to simulate by program. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED
    ... |> I don't see a spectrum, phuckwit, I see some reduced data. ... | So you cannot explain how a star with a planet would change ... When we say the "temperature" of the star, we mean the temperature which will give the same black body spectrum. ... same size as the center sun and touching it*, the probability of it doing anything even remotely like a Cepheid lightcurve is probably next to nil -- yet Cepheids are relatively common, and easily identifiable. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)