Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth.
- From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Oct 2005 02:15:05 -0700
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:06:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:21:41 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>> Paul, congratulations, you are beginning to see the light...but don't go
>>> overboard about ALL periods being very different from what we observe. That
>>> might not be the case at all.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for yet again demonstrating that when I write
>> something which is utter nonsense, - even self contradicting
>> nonsense as in this case - you will agree. :-)
>>
>> Paul:
>> "..the observed period isn't 0.4 days as observed, but much slower."
>> Henri:
>> "You are beginning to see the light."
>>
>> Hilarious, no? :-)
>
>
>
> Paul, sometimes when I am trying to educate people who are decidedly THICK, I
> tend to exaggerate to emphasize my point.
> The above is a typical example.
>
> When I stated "the observed period isn't 0.4 days as observed,
> but much slower"
> I meant "the observed period MAY NOT BE 0.4 days as observed,
> but much slower."
>
The context of the statement you now are trying to flee, was:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| Like you did for HD80715?
Henri Wilson wrote:
| The data for this star is wrong.
Randy Poe wrote:
| They match quite easily except when they don't. Then the
| data is wrong, the program is right. And Henri succeeds
| again!! A theory so good, it doesn't have to match the experimental
| data, it's BETTER than the experimental results!
| Wow!!!!
Henri Wilson wrote:
| You people just don't (can't) get it do you.
|
| What astronomers are observing is the result of the BaT.
| It is being wrongly interpreted on the basis of Einsteiniana.
|
| When an object is classed as a 'contact binary with period 0.4 days',
| in actual fact, it might not be anything of the kind.
| It is really a star or binary pair orbiting with a much slower
period. We are
| positioned so that we see multiple images, each of which comes and
goes every
| 0.4 days.
|
| This is typical of the way in which the whole of astronomy has been
led up
| the wrong path by Einstein.
So let's get back to the issue.
WHY is the observed data for HD80715 wrong?
You said:
"What astronomers are observing is the result of the BaT."
Can you please explain which of the observed paramtres of HD80715
are "the result of the BaT"?
Is the observed orbital period wrong because:
"It is really a star or binary pair orbiting with a much slower
period"?
Or is the observed orbital period correct in this case?
Which of the observed parametres are then wrong?
The distance?
And which of the parametres are wrongly interpreted on the basis
of Einsteiniana?
You claimed:
"What is observed is exactly what the BaT predicts."
Can you please explain exactly what observations
of HD80715 that are "exactly what the BaT predicts" ?
Problems, Henri? :-)
Paul
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The true crackpots
- Next by Date: Re: Electron at rest - magnetic field?
- Previous by thread: Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth.
- Next by thread: Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
