Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?

From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_hia.no)
Date: 09/14/04 

Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:36:56 +0200

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:jb6ck0pa37aucp7qnoh59ecfufbfbbu3ua@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:22:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:7j89k0dtilaq6mumrg4rum6nicls3ah8rr@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:33:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> Don't lie Paul.
> >> Here is my claim:
> >>
> >> """Paul, I don't doubt that there are a number of reasons why some stars are
> >> intrinsically unstable at certain times of their lives. That doesn't explain
> >> why the periods of so many variable stars, including T Uma, are precisely
> >> regular when the type of phenomenon you are talking about should at least be
> >> partly chaotic.
> >> If your theory had an ounce of truth, brightness variation would be quite
> >> irregular. It is generally constant over long time spans. (There are a few
> >> stars that DO exhibit quite chaotic brightness variation, They may well do what
> >> you say.. but they could also be just ternary or higher systems)""""""
> >
> >"If your theory had an ounce of truth, brightness variation would be quite
> > irregular. It is generally constant over long time spans"
> >
> >The truth is that the brighness variation ARE quite irregular, as can be
> >expected from unstable, pulsating stars.
> >
> >Neither the period nor the amplitude of the variations
> >are strictly regular in long period variable. But there are
> >variations from star to star, some are more regular than others.
> >
> >It IS apparent from the spectrum of these stars that they are
> >pulsating. But that does not mean that they MUST be chaotic.
> >It is an oscillation of the atmosphare of the star, and this oscillation
> >may be regular. For Cepheids - another kind of pulsating stars -
> >both the period and the amplutide are quite regular.
> >But Mira variables are more chaotic.
>
> As I pointed out below, the fundamental frequency is dead constant.
> What you call 'chaotic behavior' is merely the effect of second and maybe third
> or more other stars in the system..

So it isn't because of the selective fog, then?

> >> >> Many obviously are.
> >> >> You questioned the fact that the minimum brightness fluctuated considerably in
> >> >> many curves.
> >> >> I explained why.
> >> >
> >> >Yea, right.
> >> >In a way which would make every variable in the universe
> >> >have a chaotic light curve.
> >> >Which they obviously not are, as you realized when I wrote:
> >> >| Here is a catalogue of ca. 1500 binaries.
> >> >| http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~corcoran/sb8.html
> >> >| Please find an example showing the phenomenon you describe above.
> >> >
> >> >But of course you cannot state flat out that you have realized
> >> >that your explanation was nonsense, you have to divert the
> >> >attension from it by claiming the link doesn't work (it does),
> >>
> >> It doesn't
> >
> >I have tried the pointer in YOUR posting every time
> > you claim it doesn't work.
> >Worked every time.
>
> Don't lie.
> I can get the main page but none of the links. I get a 'page not found' message

The "main page" IS the catalogue.
All the relevant data are there.
But you have forgotten what you should do with them, haven't you?

> >> >and - hoping that we will forget it - invent another explanation,
> >> >namely that the lightcurves appear chaotic because they are
> >> >products of multiple star systems.
> >>
> >> Now you cannot even read propery.
> >> You are becoming quite deranged. Have you been drinking too much lately?
> >
> >Haven't I seen this type of response before?
> >Call me raving mad, or drunk, or something to that effect.
> >Then nobody will notice that you evaded the issue.
> >Right?
> >
> >> >> You are getting so desperate your messages no longer make much sense.
> >> >
> >> >The one who is desperate is the one who has to invent
> >> >new "explanations" all the time.
> >> >
> >> >The truth is that the light curves of long period variable like T UMa
> >> >are at least partly chaotic, exactly as can be expected from
> >> >unstable, pulsating stars. And the spectra make it obvious
> >> >that that is exactly what they are.
> >>
> >> The REAL TRUTH is that the fundamental periods of all these stars remains dead
> >> constant for long periods.
> >> In fact I have a wonderful suggestion.
> >> Let's use T Uma's frequency as the GPS time reference.
> >>
>
> NOTE: NO RESPONE FROM PAUL ANSWERNON!!!!

Was that a question?
It looked like an assertion to me.

> >> >THIS truth make you desperate, so you jump from one
> >> >"explanation" to another to explain it away.
> >>
> >> Your reading comprehension problem is a becoming a liability Paul.You should
> >> see a doctor.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >Too obviously wrong to bother commenting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:9jtuj0p5odmimsueka3h77onpdntr0nj23@4ax.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >About close binaries predicted by the ballistic theory to be
> >> >> >variables, but are not:
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't keep repeatng this lie.
> >> >
> >> >Which lie, Henry?
> >> >This one?
> >> >
> >> >Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004:
> >> >| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory
> >> >| predicts HD80715 should look like.
> >> >| From:
> >> >| http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9912/9912158.pdf
> >> >| You can see from the spectrum that the H_alpha line split ca. 2.5A,
> >> >| which is a relative split of 3.8*10^-4.
> >> >| This means that the amplitude of each component is ca. 1.9*10^-4.
> >> >| The amplitude of the radial (from observer) component of
> >> >| the orbital speed will thus be v/c = 1.9*10^-4, or v = 57 km/s.
> >>
> >> Why isn't it half that value?
> >>
> >> >| The period is 3.8 days.
> >>
> >> You don't know the REAL period. It could easily be double this value.
> >>
> >>
> >> >| From:
> >> >| http://astro.estec.esa.nl/hipparcos_scripts/HIPcatalogueSearch.pl
> >> >| we find that the distance is 24 parsecs.
> >>
> >> Another estimate.
> >
> >You are repeating what you know is wrong like a moron.
> >The uncertainty of that measurement is 2.6%

So that didn't work.
We will have to talk about something else, then.

> We now know that many of these so called 'binaries might not be binaries at
> all.
> Like I said, a spectral line from a single orbiting star can appear split due
> to light from the approaching 'concave' section of an orbit catching that from
> the departing section.
>
> Your case is a prime example of how Einsteiniana has completely derailed
> physics and astronomy.

Quite.
We don't even understand that binaries may not be binaries
at all, but a single orbiting star.

> >> >|
> >> >| These number will give the ratio (2*pi*d*v/c^2)/p
> >> >| the value 9.
> >> >| So we will during one period see five stars all the time,
> >> >| and two additional stars part of the time. These two last
> >> >| stars will either merge in a brilliant flash, or suddenly
> >> >| appear in a brilliant flash and then split.
> >> >| These flashes will be brighter than 1 for 0.036 period,
> >> >| brighter than 10 for 0.0004 period,
> >> >| brighter than 100 for 0.000004 period.
> >> >| By adding the brightness of the stars, we will get
> >> >| the following light curve:
> >> >|
> >> >| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1.
> >> >| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star
> >> >| N is number of stars seen.
> >> >|
> >> >| phase brightness N
> >> >|
> >> >| 0.0 1.22 7
> >> >| 0.1 1.21 7
> >> >| 0.17 1.97 7
> >> >| 0.18 2.45 7
> >> >| 0.19 5.90 7
> >> >| 0.1913 60.00 7
> >> >| 0.191310 infinite 7->5
> >> >| 0.2 0.66 5
> >> >| 0.3 0.64 5
> >> >| 0.4 0.63 5
> >> >| 0.5 0.62 5
> >> >| 0.6 0.63 5
> >> >| 0.7 0.64 5
> >> >| 0.8 0.67 5
> >> >| 0.808719 infinite 5->7
> >> >| 0.8089 21.6 7
> >> >| 0.809 11.80 7
> >> >| 0.81 3.90 7
> >> >| 0.9 1.34 7
> >> >| 1.0 1.22 7
> >> >|
> >> >| Note that the integral over one period is 1,
> >> >| that is the average brightness is 1.
> >> >|
> >> >| The above is for one of the stars, you can get
> >> >| the light curve for both stars by translating
> >> >| the above half a period and adding.
> >> >
> >> >Henri Wilson responded:
> >> >| I can get these figures from my program.
> >> >|
> >> >| Surprisingly, they agree exactly with yours..... proves my program is
> >> >| correct.... not that I ever doubted it.
> >> >|
> >> >| So I could have saved you all that time and trouble.
> >> >| Just click your mouse a
> >> >| few times and...there is your curve.
>
> >> >
> >> >Comparing yourself to Copernicus and Galileo, eh?
> >> >
> >> >I think they were able to defend their claims.
> >> >You are not.
> >>
> >> Paul, your main problem is that you are trying to perpetuate the mystery that
> >> variable stars present to conventional DHRs.
> >> Everything about them becomes completely obvious when source dependency is
> >> accepted.
> >
> >What does the ballistic theory predict the light curve
> >of close binaries like HD80715 and the other 86 close binaries
> >I have given you the data of, Henri?
> >
> >It IS completely clear, then.
>
> Are they really close binaries?
> Can you see the two stars?

Yep.
We can even see what kind of stars they are.

> Is Algol an eclipsing binary.
> NO!!

So there!

> >> >would be observable. IT IS NOT.
> >>
> >> You don't understand time compression. Galactic rotation is a likely cause.
> >> The period of rotation around the large orbit can be 1000s of years.
> >> You wont necessarily see such slow changes.
> >
> >Quite.
> >That's why the radial acceleration assosiated with that motion
> >can be ignored compared to the radial acceleration caused by
> >the orbital motion of the binary.
>
> Its effect on the observed period CANNOT be ignored.

So you don't understand how stupid this is? :-)

> >> >> It works perfectly well. How could it not work when it merely solves the
> >> >> equation you are using.
> >> >> It has the advantage that it produces a 5D output diagram.
> >> >> It also enables six other parameters to be changed.
> >> >
> >> >The point is that if the factor F > 1, the ballistic theory
> >> >predicts that the binary should be a variable.
> >> >If your program show otherwise, it doesn't work.
> >>
> >> Paul, I will ask again, what is sinx +sin(x+pi)
> >
> >Irrelevant.
> >So why DO you repeat it, Henry?
>
> Is a straight line a straight line Paul.
> If a brightness curve is a straight line, does that imply that a star is a
> variable?
> What if two stars are involved?

Take two of these ...

| phase brightness N
|
| 0.0 1.22 7
| 0.1 1.21 7
| 0.17 1.97 7
| 0.18 2.45 7
| 0.19 5.90 7
| 0.1913 60.00 7
| 0.191310 infinite 7->5
| 0.2 0.66 5
| 0.3 0.64 5
| 0.4 0.63 5
| 0.5 0.62 5
| 0.6 0.63 5
| 0.7 0.64 5
| 0.8 0.67 5
| 0.808719 infinite 5->7
| 0.8089 21.6 7
| 0.809 11.80 7
| 0.81 3.90 7
| 0.9 1.34 7
| 1.0 1.22 7

..and go to bed.
You will be much better in the morning.

> >> >> >I know because I have analysed it analythically and understands
> >> >> >what actually happens.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would prefer to SEE what actually happens.
> >> >>
> >> >> You proboably only looked at the light from one orbit.
> >> >> You have to investigate the emission from tens or hundreds of orbits to see
> >> >> what happens to the brightness curve.
> >> >>
> >> >> You know nothing.
> >> >
> >> >I know that if F > 1, the ballistic theory predicts th binary
> >> >should be a variable.
> >> >
> >> >If you say otherwise, you are wrong.
> >> >
> >> >I think you know I am right, Henri.
> >>
> >> I know you have plugged in the wrong parameter values.
> >
> >You KNOW a lot, don't you? :-)
>
> With your help I am learning a lot more.
> I even found a small error in my program. It doesn't affect the brightness
> curves though.

So your program is still predicting that binaries
which are not variables should be variables?

> >> >> >> Obviously I will have to study this more closely before commenting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I can assure you that ALL the binaries in that reference
> >> >> >will according to the ballistic theory have a light curve
> >> >> >consisting of multiple flashes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Some of them are variables, because they are eclipsing,
>
> >> >
> >> >No esacape, Henry.
> >> >These are facts!
> >>
> >> I have already told you why intense peaks will not necessarily be observe.
> >> the light emitted from different sections of an orbit does not experience the
> >> same 'length of space' or the conditions in it.
> >
> >Selective fog, eh? :-)
>
> Plain logical truth.
> Something with which DHR CDs are totally unfamiliar.

Isn't it strange that the fog which make regular variables look
chaotic, make other alleged variables look like no variables?
Intelligent fog?

> >> Your predictions and those of my program are for a perfect homogeneous vacuum.
> >> Extreme brightness fluctuations will obviously be dampened in the real
> >> situation..
> >> For the record, this is in complete accordance with my H-aether theory..
> >
> >Quite :-)
> >If it can absorb intense flashes completely, it must absorb
> >smaller variations even better, right?
> >So we can conclude that the ballistic theory predicts
> >no stars to be variables, then.
> >Or does it predict no visible stars at all?
> >Is that in accordance with the H-aether theory?
>
> The 'intense flashes' will never be INTENSE FLASHES because the light is never
> focussed properly.
> Try creating an image with a lense that has bumps all over it. This is a good
> analogy.

A very good analogy, Henry.
That obviously explains why we have never observed any
of the crazy flashes predicted by the ballistic theory.
The flashes are OBVIOUSLY out of focus while the star
itself focuses as a point.

You CAN indeed answer everything I am throwing at you.

> >Henry can answer all I throw at him, eh? :-)
>
> Of course.
> One cannot be wrong when one sticks to the truth.

Indeed.

> >> In practice we must consider:
> >> 1) The thermal velocities of the emitting atoms.
> >> 2) The diffferent conditions that the emitted light experiences throughout its
> >> travels.
> >>
> >> Poor old DeSitter didn't have any more of a clue than you, apparently..
> >
> >Quite. :-)
>
> Don't kid yourself.
> 0=0
>
>
> >>
> >> Using wavelength shifts?
> >> How are these measured? Gratings, prisms? In the Earth's atmosphere? Based on
> >> Einsteiniana?
> >>
> >> These might not be what DHRs think they are. According got the ballistic
> >> theory, wavelength does not change with source velocity. But since we have no
> >> idea what constitutes 'wavelength' or 'frequency' as applied to photons, those
> >> of us with free minds can only speculate on what the real shifts and velocities
> >> might be.
> >
> >Quite.
> >Anything goes in Wonderland.
>
> ......or fairyland

You are not really serious, are you?
Not realy, realy, REALLY serious?
Just kidding, right? :-)

Paul

Relevant Pages