Re: Androcles' and Henri's Theory of Diffraction Grating Behavior


"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128872875.830842.100060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Henri Wilson wrote:
|
| > Apparently nobody but myself - and maybe my good friend and
colleague, the ever
| > polite Androcles - have woken up to the fact that ALL stellar
observations are
| > illusions. Because light moves so rapidly, we humans have always
rightfully
| > accepted that what we see on Earth is a good representation of
reality. That is
| > not true for objects in space.
| > Astronomers DO allow for light travel time. BUT THEY DON'T ALLOW FOR
A VARIABLE
| > LIGHT SPEED....because they are hopelessly indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.
| >
| > The plain fact is, observed parameter values should not be confused
with the
| > real ones that eventually gives rise to the illusions we see here.
| >
| > People like Brecher and DeSitter are trying to use the parameters of
an
| > illusion to refute a theory which tries to find the true parameters
that lead
| > to that illusion. Their strange kind of circular logic goes
sometghing like
| > this: "if you plug the values provided by the illusion into the BaT,
it will
| > not give the values provided by the illusion and is therefore
wrong".
| >
| > OF COURSE IT WONT REPRODUCE THE ILLUSION!!!!
| >
| > The BaT starts at the other end of the problem, which is ""to try to
establish
| > the true situation that produces the illusion when one has only the
illusion to
| > go on"".
| >
| > Get it?
| >
| > That requires speculation concerning models.
| >
| > It so happens that the BaT fits the bill on both logical and
experimental
| > grounds.
| > Both the extremely knowledgeable Androcles and I have produced
almost exact
| > replicas of star brightness curves with our separate BaT variable
star
| > programs.
| >
| > So what more proof do you want?
| >
| > (I will discuss gratings again when I think more about it).
|
| For starters,
| 1) BaT needs to explain the fine details of light curves
| not merely gross averaged features.
| a) High precision photometric studies demonstrate
| "period noise" in Cepheid light curves. This
| comprises both peak-to-peak variability in phase,
| and peak-to-peak variability in amplitude. You have
| "explained" period noise as evidence of interstellar
| "twinkling". Explain why amplitude "twinkling" is not
| seen for most stars.
| b) Explain long term variability in Cepheids, "sudden"
| changes between fundamental and overtone mode
| oscillations, "sudden" -permanent- loss of Cepheid
| variability in some stars.
| 2) BaT needs to explain the spectral data, not merely
| amplitude data.
| a) Explain periodic line broadening and narrowing in
| Cepheid spectra.
| b) Explain line splitting showing spectra of two
| distinct stars in eclipsing binaries such as
| Algol. Explain the relative phase of this periodic
| line splitting, which peaks when the stars are
| maximally separated as expected in traditional
| theory.
| 3) BaT needs to explain the interferometric data.
| a) Cepheid stars have been observed to swell and
| shrink, size changes being correlated with
| amplitude changes and changes in line broadening.
| b) VLBI can track the motions of individual stars
| in some binary systems. For example, synchrotron
| emission from one of the components of the Algol
| system can be tracked. The actual motions of this
| star have been observed, and are consistent with
| traditional theory.
| 4) Traditional theory of variable stars is backed up
| by multiple interlocking observations using
| multiple techniques, and results from all of these
| techniques add up to form a coherent story of
| variable star behavior. No unexpected anomalies
| have been seen between results obtained from these
| widely varying techniques.
| 5) BaT needs to be shown to be consistent with all
| of the data, and not merely capable of reproducing
| gross features of averaged light curves.
| 6) Don't forget gratings.
|
| Jerry

ROFLMAO!

Androcles.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Androcles and Henris Theory of Diffraction Grating Behavior
    ... > illusion to refute a theory which tries to find the true parameters that lead ... BaT needs to explain the fine details of light curves ... and peak-to-peak variability in amplitude. ... variability in some stars. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Androcles and Henris Theory of Diffraction Grating Behavior
    ... > | 1) BaT needs to explain the fine details of light curves ... > | "period noise" in Cepheid light curves. ... > | and peak-to-peak variability in amplitude. ... > | variability in some stars. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Perihelion of Mercury question
    ... |>>> Stars whose variability appears to fade away relatively rapidly are generally ... |>>distance at which variable light speed suddenly disappears. ... Tom only differs from Jerry in toes, ears, colour and size. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: a clue a clue a clue!!!!!! chicken little here is a clue you
    ... >>> What planet are you living on? ... If you look at stars through gaps between moving clouds the stars may appear to be moving in the opposite direction to the clouds. ... It's possible that people that are not in the habit of looking at the sky may be unaware of this illusion. ...
    (talk.origins)