Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:5mmvc2tei5sd29slvnq43081j8guu2fit1@xxxxxxxxxx
| On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:56:22 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:rbssc2tst8tj1p44c7t517tpner0362oh4@xxxxxxxxxx
| >| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:44:50 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| ><Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| >| wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >| >news:8a9rc2ljqg4bb05lv1slrjo13flvjjbn1i@xxxxxxxxxx
| >| >| On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:42:58 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| >|
| >| >| >| Oh yes it IS!!!!
| >| >| >| It gets better every day.
| >| >| >
| >| >| >
| >| >| >Saying it can't make it so. The difference between a crank
| >| >| >and a relativist is that a relativist uses some math to back him
up.
| >| >|
| >| >| Where does that place you then?
| >| >
| >| >I'm a scientist, H.
| >| >Science is observation, investigation and explanation. When a
hypothesis
| >| >such as epicycles, aether, time dilation or unification is advanced,
all
| >| >it takes is one counter-example to knock it down no matter how much
| >| >evidence there is to support it. Your hypothesis fits only the facts
you
| >| >choose to have it fit, it ignores doppler shift.
| >|
| >| It doesn't.
| >|
| >| I have explained that.
| >| Doppler is exactly the same after unification.
| >
| >
| >Do the math.
| >
| >Doppler for ballistic light is:
| >
| > c+v
| >f' = f --------------
| > c
| >
| > 1+0.1
| >1.1 = 1 *---------
| > 1
| >
| >Doppler for relativity is
| >
| > (1 + v/c)
| >f' = f *sqrt( ----------------)
| > (1 - v/c)
| >
| > 1 + 0.1/1)
| >f' = 1*sqrt( ----------- )
| > (1 - 0.1/1)
| >
| >
| > 1.1
| >f' = 1*sqrt( ----------- )
| > 0.9
| >
| >f' = 1*sqrt(1.222...)
| > = 1.1055
| >
| >
| >
| >Doppler for aether is
| > c
| >f' = f ---------------
| > c-v
| >
| > 1
| >f' = f ---------------
| > 0.9
| >
| > = 1.111....
| >
| >
| >A photon is an oscillator.
| >Change its speed, change its doppler shift.
| >
| >Your reactions are knee-jerk, you are responding emotionally
| >to cold hard facts.
| >
| >Your problem, H, is that a |
| YOUR problem is that you are thinking in terms of an intrinsic oscillation

Yes. That's just what a photon is, an intrinsic oscillator.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
Why is it a problem?

| when
| doppler is always detected as the 'distance between wavecrests'.

Nonsense, Doppler specifically refers to frequency.
Even for sound I don't stick a ruler in my ear and say
Look, there's another wavecrest coming 5 metres away!



| Detected
| 'frequency' is the rate at which wavecrests arrive at the detector.

Light is instrinsically oscillating photons. Your concept of detection
is f = c/w. That's three variables. to find 'f' you need to know
two of them. Being a crank means either doesn't or cannot do the math.
Roads have wavelengths between bumps, cars have frequency.
The frequency of the car is the speed of the car divided by the wavelength
of the road.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
You want bumps in space. That's aether, you old crank.




| >Either model the doppler and see for yourself or SHUT UP.
| >Nobody, but NOBODY, is interested in your crackpot theory.
|
| You are losing your powers of reason, A.

Why, because I asked you to put up or shut up?
I'd say it was you that had no power of reason, just as an sane person
would.

|
| What happens to the 'distance between wavecrests' when light enters
glass...or
| a sugar solution with a marked concentration gradient?
|
| How many wavecrests pass a point per second inside the solution?

NONE!

The bumps in the road do not move, the car does.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
If you walk along the road, that changes the frequency of the car
in YOUR frame of reference ONLY.
Run at the same velocity as the car and as you rise over a crest,
the car does too.
It has zero frequency as far as you are concerned, but for me standing
still relative to the road, both the car and you have a frequency.
You can be running 1, 2, 3, or N bumps behind the car, they
are ALL "wavelengths".
You have lost your powers of reason, H.



|
| >Your theory WILL produce a light curve of a sort, but no doppler.
| >It will NOT produce the curve of V 1493 Aql. Until you actually
| >model it you are stuck with 0.3 LY, which is crackpottery.
| >You are crazier than Einstein, he was hopeless at math too
| >(but better than you).
|
| We don't have a full curve of V 1493 aql so there is no point in
speculating.
| I can produce that kind of double peak several ways.


Put up or shut up.

|
|
| >|
| >| ....there are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio...
| >
| >Quoting Shakespeare will not help you understand physics.
| >Answer the questions instead of evading them, then I can help you.
| >
| >Why does Mercury travel faster than Saturn?
| >Why does the Moon keep one face toward the Earth?
| >
| >Hint: http://home.cvc.org/science/kepler.htm
|
| I don't need any references, I know the answers.

What are they, then?

Put up or shut up.

|
|
| >| >
| >| >I can't fit 200 years * 365.25 days = 73,050 days or 2609 months
| >| >into a screen that is only 1024 pixels wide, I'd need fractional pixel
| >| >spacing.
| >|
| >| The observed curve doesn't have a vertical section. It is curved.
| >
| >Yes it does.
| >"Nova" actually means "new". The ancients thought a new star was
| >being born, one they'd never seen before, and in truth, they had not.
| >It was there all the time, of course, but its sudden brightness drew
| >attention. It isn't drawn before July 1999, nobody was looking.
| >The first two plotted points are vertical, and that was seen AFTER
| >the initial flare. The real peak is much higher, but brief. Alas,
| >it cannot be reproduced for another 200 years. Nobody will see
| >a Nova until after it appears, and if they said it was 4th or 5th
| >magnitude they would not be believed. They would not even
| >believe it themselves, so they won't say it anyway.
| >In this automatic monitoring of just one star,
| > http://campus.pari.edu/paricams/northsky.html
| >sometimes the sky is completely black.
| >Why? Cloud cover is the predominant reason.
| >Why is the star not seen during daylight? - Obvious.
| >We do not have billions of telescopes, H, one for each star.
| >You don't have even one, and most people are not observers.
| >A nova could appear above your head right now and you'd
| >never see it. You don't look up enough, and you'll certainly
| >never see it in daylight. In six months time when it becomes
| >observable to you it will be gone.
| >
| >
| >|
| >|
| >| >| >That double spike is 3 months in the 200 year period so it is only
| >| >| >1 pixel wide, which is why I've shown it from approximations of
| >precedent
| >| >| >and antecedent frames.
| >| >|
| >| >| I can make any number of double spikes like that. The curve of V1493
| >| >doesn't
| >| >| have a discontinuity (vertical section)
| >| >
| >| >THEN DO IT. Quit bluffing you can and get on with it.
| >| >Give me your program and the parameters. Put up, or shut up.
| >|
| >| I've done it. I can eassily produce the curves you show in that
animation
| >of
| >| yours, where you vary yaw angle.
| >
| >Quit bluffing. Give me your program and the parameters.
| >I'm CALLING YOUR BLUFF. Put up, or shut up.
|
| My program produces exactly the curves you have shown in that animation.
|
| Run it and see.
|
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
|
| Set eccentricity to 0.15, distance to about 300 and select 'scan on'.
| Click red area then yellow. Wait ten or more seconds.
|
| You will see lots of curves with double peaks.

V 1493 Aql has STOPPED, H.
All I want to see is a double spike on a long timebase, not another cepheid.
Those are not double peaks, they are the same peak repeated.
I KNEW you couldn't do it.

|
| You can fiddle with ecc and distance, then go back to 'scan off' when you
have
| found the yaw values you need.

V 1493 Aql is a **** NOVA ****, H, not another cepheid.


|
|
|
| >| >| So if
| >| >
| >| >There is no "if". Light travels at c+v.cos(pitch) all the way.
| >| >You left out pitch. You think light travels at c+v.cos(0) for 0.3 LY
and
| >| >c the rest of the way. Sheer idiocy.
| >|
| >| The use of edge-on orbits is legitimate.
| >
| >PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
| >[snip unread]
|
| It's plain geometry.
|
| I HAVE put up, You simply don't understand what I'm telling you.

I understand you only too well. We do not need plain 2D "PLANE"
geometry, we need 3D CUBIC geometry, orbits are tilted.
You are a crank, trying to pass off a model of a cepheid as a nova.


|
|
|
| >| >only based on you leaving out pitch and making all orbits edge-on
| >| >anyway. You may as well add in some time dilation also, then you'll
| >please
| >| >everyone (except me).
| >|
| >| Stop raving....
| >
| >PUT UP OR SHUT UP, you RAVING lunatic.
|
| I HAVE put up, You simply don't understand what I'm telling you.

I understand you only too well. We do not need plain 2D "PLANE"
geometry, we need 3D CUBIC geometry, orbits are tilted.
You are a crank, trying to pass off a model of a cepheid as a nova.

|
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol%20velocity.JPG
| >|
| >| That's what I get.
| >
| >It doesn't exist. It CAN'T exist.
|
| I get the same light curve as you do.

For Algol, I'm sure you do. But you don't get the right distance and
you can't reproduce V 1493 Aql either. Your model is incomplete,
hence useless.



|
| >
| >|
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AlgolOrbit.gif
| >|
| >| That's not right for eccentric orbits.
| >
| >Eccentricity would bring the pair even closer, and that would result
| >in a more rapid catastrophic demise of the system. Look, H, if the
| >moon orbited the Earth in 70 hours the Pacific Ocean would
| >rise miles above Australia. That's playing it down, it isn't going to
| >happen and it doesn't happen for Algol. Sheesh, we are talking
| >about HOT GAS, a fluid, not a pair of rocks.
|
| The two objects don't follow each other around the same ellipse.

UNLESS they have the same mass.

| Don't you know
| how binaries orbit their barycentre? Their yaw angle is 180 out.

I created that to illustrate a barycentre. If the two objects are of
identical
mass then they are of identical major axis, identical minor axis.
http://thesaurus.maths.org/mmkb/entry.html?action=entryById&id=2489

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/binary+star





|
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AlgolEclipse.JPG
| >|
| >| >Do the MATH FIRST, then add your crackpot h-aether. You'll
| >| >find you don't need it.
| >| >RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
| >|
| >| You have NO theory.
| >
| >That is quite correct, I have never once claimed to have a theory.
| >All I have is an accurate model, and I've discovered planets.
| >I'm an engineer, not a crank like you, pretending you're a physicist.
|
| Being an engineer doesn't qualify you to discuss physics.

Being without a telescope and a brain doesn't qualify you to discuss
astrophysics.


|
| >| >
| >| >-- Sir Isaac Newton, "Principia".
| >| >
| >| >Newton was a scientist, Wilson is a crank.
| >|
| >| Wilson has theories that work.
| >
| >Produce the light curve of V 1493 Aql or shut up.
|
| Do what I said above and you will see lots of similar curves.


I did. V 1493 Aql doesn't show LOTS of curves, it shows a double
spike and then that fades out to flat-line.
Produce the light curve of V1493 Aql from 1999 to 2006 or shut up.
Your crackpot theory does NOT work.




|
| >| Androcles has none.
| >
| >Correct. Androcles is a mathematician, Wilson is a crank.
|
| Androcles is a lost cause...

Wilson is an egomaniac and a crank.



|
| >| >Oddly enough, a crank is exactly the right model to use for v.cos(yaw)
| >| >
| >| >
|
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Cshaft.gif/300px-Cshaft.gif| >|| >| I'm glad you raised that...| >| ....seriously, can you tell me, what are the names given to the two| >journals of| >| a crankshaft? One, I think, is the 'main journal', what is the offsetone| >| called?| >| I need this for a patent application I am writing up.| >| >The correct term is "rod journal".| >Colloquially, the "big end" journal, that of course referring to| >the larger bearing diameter of the two ends of the connecting rod,| >which is not really a rod but a drop-forged billet; rods were| >used on early steam engines, the name stuck. Drop-forging| >is really pressing the billet into a mould, the term "drop" came| >from steam hammer days where gravity was the main ingredient| >in forging. Steam was only used to lift the hammer, not to drive| >it down. Modern presses use hydraulics, not mass.| >Crankshafts are also drop-forged. Casting (pouring a liquid| >into a mould and allowing it to cool) suffers from cracking| >as smaller crystals form at the outside, larger ones in the| >centre, whereas drop forging (or just forging) operates on| >a plastic (i.e. malleable) solid in which larger crystals are| >distorted. A turbine fan for a jet engine is actually a single| >crystal of titanium, not an alloy like steel, and is cast and| >allowed to cool gradually with vacuum arc remelting.| >Very expensive. As with all forms of engineering,| >cost has to be balanced against requirement, something| >you crackpots rarely consider.| > Somebody (I forget who) said "In theory, theory and| >practice are the same. In practice, they are different".| >| >You are quite correct, I do not have a theory. All theories| >I use are the proven theories of others.| >A binary Algol is impossible, it was only a crackpot theory| >by an 18-year-old kid with a wooden telescope anyway,| >and all I've ever seen is more stupidity piled onto it.| >Tom and Jerry now want the secondary to emit X-rays,| >a cool dark monster hotter than the primary. The whole| >thing is ridiculous and based on the single belief that light| >has one speed only. Newton must be writhing in his grave.|| I just pointed out to Jerry that while the star wobbles around itsbarycentre| every couple of days, the corona will hardly be affected. therefore no| brightness variation would be expected in the X-Ray region.|| >| >Jeez, H, you know that light travels at c+v, only a true crank| >would leave out pitch and come up with unification so that| >he could have a "theory", you egomaniac.|| I don't leave out pitch A. It is automatically included.Take it out of automatic and make it user controlled. Thenyou'll get the distance right instead of it being 0.3 LY, which is crazy.|| Radio engineers don't understand physics.Stupid wabos don't understand software engineering or mathematics.Androcles.

.

Relevant Pages