Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:p9b4r3-fj5.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:38:46 GMT
| <WkKDg.89739$F8.43099@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:skv3r3-6h4.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:30:03 GMT
| > | <vPFDg.40627$Ca.26252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | >
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message
| > | > news:ap82r3-vcm.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| > | > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | wrote
| > | > | on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:42:52 GMT
| > | > | <gynDg.82039$9d4.41886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
| > | > message
| > | > | > news:g391r3-nln.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| > | > | > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | > | wrote
| > | > | > | on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 09:42:40 GMT
| > | > | > | <kohDg.81167$9d4.40226@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > "Dirk Van de moortel"
| > <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | > wrote
| > | > | > | > in message
news:jugDg.17433$i64.421939@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > [anip]
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > x' versus xi?
| > | > | > | > Androcles
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Since c = 0, most of the rest of Einstein's logic is moot.
We'll
| > just
| > | > | > | have to go back to caveman physics.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > You have that wrong, troglodyte, c = 0/0,
| > | > |
| > | > | Wrong. c = 0. c = (AB+BA)/(t'-t); since t'-t is nonzero and
AB+BA is
| > | > | zero, c = 0.
| > | > |
| > | > | Or hadn't *that* occurred to you?
| > | >
| > | > It takes no time to travel from A to A, why do you say it is
nonzero?
| > |
| > | If it takes 0 time to travel from A to A why do they consistently
| > | measure nonzero? There are a fair number of instruments which
| > | use lasers to measure distances. There's even a patent:
| > |
| > | http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5054911.html
| > |
| >
| > We are not discussing reality here, we are discussing a math model
| > that is flawed.
|
| Not a math model, a physics model. But it is flawed, yes, by your
| logic.
|
| > There is no connection between the speed of light
| > and Einstein's 'c'. They are completely unrelated.
| >
| > "We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter
| > cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the
| > ``time'' required by a TURTLE to travel from A to B equals the
| > ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A, BECAUSE I SAY SO.
| >
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > If you want to be pedantic as I know you do, be consistently
pedantic.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > Einstein had no logic and neither do you. The dynamics of a
variable
| > | > speed
| > | > | > of light is far more interesting than Einstein's fairy tales or
| > Dork's
| > | > | > misconceptions about the before and after length of a "Lorentz"
| > | > contracted cuckoo's egg.
| > | > |
| > | > | True enough. So...what is the distance of Algol, and the orbital
| > | > | periods of its components? Bear in mind SR gives the *wrong*
answer
| > | > | to this question (since SR is obviously wrong).
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > I wish I knew, but unfortunately I can't solve two simultanous
equations
| > in
| > | > three variables.
| > | > ax+by +cz = 0
| > | > dx + ey + fz = 0
| > |
| > | One can solve it up to a parameterization variable, in
| > | the general case.
| > |
| > | ax+by+cz=0
| > | dx+ey+fz=0
| > |
| > | yields
| > |
| > | (af-dc)x+(bf-ec)y=0
| > | y = (af-dc)x/(ec-bf)
| > | (ae-db)x+(cd-fb)z=0
| > | z = (ae-db)x/(fb-cd)
| > |
| > | so, given a value for x, one can find y and z.
| >
| > You don't have a value for x.
|
| So pick one.

Hey stoopid! The distance from Earth to Algol is one inch, ok? I picked
one.


| I did say "given a value for x".

I know what you said, you incompetent clown. I said
I can't solve two simultanous equations in three variables.
That means x, y and z are UNKNOWN and I need more information
to solve them. Fucking 'pick one' indeed.


If one picks x = 0,
| one gets y=0 and z=0. If one picks x = 1, one gets y=(af-dc)/(ec-bf)
| and z=(ae-db)/(fb-cd). If one picks x = 2, well, you figure it out.

MORON.

|
| >
| > | >
| > | > Here's the problem:
| > | > Imagine light from apastron reaches us at the same instant as light
from
| > | > peristron with the orbit edge-on at distance d.
| > | >
| > | > Now we move the system to a distance 2d and tilt it 60 degrees.
| > | > Light will now travel toward us at c+ v.cos(60) = c+ v/2, and light
from
| > | > apastron still reaches us at the same instant as light from
peristron.
| > | >
| > | > Same again for 4d and a tilt of 75.5 degrees, cos 75.5 = 0.25.
| > |
| > | In this case the parameterization variable appears to be the tilt of
the
| > | orbit relative to Earth.
| >
| > That's what we don't know, but for ALL cepheids it will be
| > more than 85 degrees and for most it will be more that 89 degrees.
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > the SHAPE of the light curve is unchanged, so we have to fall back
| > | > on the inverse square law and estimate distance from magnitude.
| > | > So when Henrietta Swan Leavitt discovered empirically that cepheids
| > | > were "standard candles" for distance, she was absolutely correct.
| > | > However, we CAN find the tilt if we know the tangential velocity v.
| > | > To get that, we need the period and the orbital path length, and
| > | > to find that we need the semi major axis. We know the period, we
even
| > | > know v.cos(phi) the velocity from doppler, but not much else.
| > | > Period, major axis and distance form the sides of a similar
triangle.
| > | > That's Androcles's law.
| > | > http://tinyurl.com/rv9z4
| > |
| > | Interesting. What about the frequency and/or wavelength shift?
| >
| > f' = f. [c+v.cos(phi)]/c
| > If we knew phi we would know v.
|
| And how does one figure out phi? Any ideas?

Go closer to Algol and look. Send a probe, we should have an
answer by 3954 AD if the batteries last.

Actually IF ... I hate that... IF we have an estimate of distance, say 10
parsecs,
which we can roughly estimate from magnitude, THEN we can model
the orbit and find a matching curve. But then we are full circle, we have
the distance anyway, which was the original objective. The problem is
cos (89.9) is 0.001745, cos(89.99) is 0.0001745, a small change in angle,
0.09, is
a 10-fold change in distance. That's like a 10 mile hike becoming a 100 mile
expedition.


|
| I've got one but it requires measurement of the spectra of the
| stars involved, and an assumption of constant light speed. This
| obviously won't work for you.
|
| >
| > Mercury orbits the sun in 88 days, Venus in 225 days, Earth in 365 days.
| > Mercury zips along at 47 km/s, Earth at 18.5 km/sec.
| > The closer you are to the sun, the faster you go.
| >
| > Whatever is in orbit around Algol gets around it in 3 days, so it has
| > to be close and DAMNED fast.
| > If it is a ball of gas, a star, even a dark star, it will be ripped
apart by
| > tides.
|
| And it is. The one star is ripping the other one apart, swallowing its
| gas, according to conventional cosmology. (In H. Wilson's theory a WCH
| object, which is apparently generally transparent to infrared, is
| orbiting a single star. The only one who takes this particular variant
| seriously is Henri, of course.)

Yes, well, even conventional astrophysics is stupid.
It isn't just Algol, it is cepheids, flare stars, recurrent novae as well.
Each type has a different explanation, whereas the common bond
between ALL of them (not supernovae, of course) is c+v.
There can be no good reason to suppose this star blows itself up
twice in three months when it can be shown that is unnecessary.

( Turn sound up for best effect)
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif


|
| > Fluids go easily.
| > http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut25-1.htm
| > So whatever it is, it is solid. Now, the only dispute between
| > the classical model and the c+v model is the tilt of the orbit.
| > I say it is almost face on, Goodricke says it is edge on.
| > http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Goodricke-e.html
| >
| > We agree on the period.
| > Goodricke wants the orbit edge-on and eclipsing but the eclipse
| > lasts for 10 hours out of the 70, or for 52 degrees of the 360, so
| > the pair MUST be closer than shown.
| >
| > Now, it is NOT eccentric.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Eccentric.gif
| > because the timing is wrong between primary and secondary
| > minima.
| >
| > So it is a circular orbit.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AlgolOrbit.gif
| >
| > If the orbit is close, there should be an ENORMOUS shift from
| > a high velocity, in the 100s of km/sec, but we don't see that.
| > So the conclusion is that the orbit is seen face on, and the
| > 10 hours in 70 hours CANNOT be an eclipse.
| > So all that is left is the speed of light in space is source dependent
| > and arrives at c+v. This I modeled, and I agree with the data.
| > Low velocity in out direction, low shift, 52 degrees of "Eclipse"
| > that isn't an eclipse. Goodricke guessed wrong.
| > Einstein believed him, deSitter believed him, I do not, it jibes with
the
| > data.
| >
| > The Tusselad, a pig ignorant relatist, says this:
| > "But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and density,
and
| > the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit of the K2, while the K2 is
just at
| > the Roche limit of the B8. That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe
completely,
| > and mass is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there is
an
| > accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn. (This
accretion
| > disk is not stable, though. It is a transient disk; the mass transferred
| > from the K2 bounces off the surface of the B8 and eventually falls back
to
| > the surface.) "
| > That, my friend, is a line of contradictory bull***, Algol has been
| >
| > observed for thousands of years. I'm sure you've seen just how
| >
| > close Saturns rings are to Saturn, they are not about to clump together
to
| > become
| >
| > a moon again.
| >
| > I've named my planet "Androcles". I found it, I can do that.
|
| That you can, once the data's been reviewed properly. Is it transparent
| in the infrared as well?

I can't get the data, and what little I do get is suspect.
If Lowell could see canals on Mars and draw them, so can others.
http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html
People will see what they expect to see, even astronomers.

(turn sound up for best effect)
http://www.liquidgeneration.com/content/showMeDaContent.aspx?cid=236



|
| >
| >
| >
| > | > The shape of the triangle doesn't change, so distances can be found
| > | > from period and the shape of light curves. This is a considerable
| > | > amount of work which I have not undertaken, I felt it more important
| > | > to enlist aid and to convince at least one other person that
Einstein
| > | > was a fraud and a crock of ***, impeding progress in astronomy
| > | > and particle physics to the detriment of science, to promote his own
| > | > personal gain.
| > | > I say enlist aid... I don't need the aid of shitheads, I seek
genuine
| > | > philosophers interested in Nature that I can debate reasonably with.
| > | > Baez and Roberts are most definitely shitheads.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > |
| > | --
| > | #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
| >
| >
|
|
| --
| #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.


.

Loading