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.
.