Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Jul 2005 03:17 On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:46:24 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ic58e1pjat6ic3e7bbmokse4r9mu18q0up(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:05:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>>>All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? >> >>>>You sure duck questions like one. >> >>> >> >>>Henri Wilson has tested his program only once with real >> >>>measured data of a binary, namely HD80715. >> >>>His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable. >> >>>It isn't. >> >>>Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory. >> > >> >See Henri diverting the attention: >> >> >> >> Paul, I think your time would be better spent training those pet fairies to >> >> catch GPS clock ticks. >> > >> >Invoking fairies again, Henri? >> > >> >Henri Wilson wrote October 15. 2004: >> >| OK Paul, I will never refer to PAUL ANDERSEN'S FAMOUS TICK FAIRIES again....... >> >| >> >| ....unless I have a justifiable reason. >> > >> >Can you state your justifiable reason please? >> >Or would you like me to quote the conversation >> >that made you make the above remark? >> >I will do it with pleasure, you know. >> >> You are free. >> >> > >> >>>He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> YOU don't like to be reminded that I have explained many time why it SHOULD NOT >> >> be a variable. >> > >> >Quite the contrary, Henri. >> >It gives me much pleasure to see your desperate attempts >> >to explain why your program doesn't work. >> > >> >BTW, what DID you say the reason was? >> >I must have forgotten. >> >Was it something about gas which slows down photons >> >to explain why light from distant galaxies are red shifted, >> >but which OTOH adjust the speed of light from binaries to be c? >> >> Only relativists believe that all light from stars travels at exactly c wrt >> little planet Earth. >> >> .....and yes, molecules in rare space DO tend to unify the speed of all light >> traveling in any particular direction. All light is redshifted in the process. > >Bless your heart! >Have you just discoverd something that Maxwell and Einstein >prefered to ignore?:: There is a threshold density, Sue, a threshold! Below that, everything changes. > ><<Two charges of one coulomb each separated by a meter would >repel each other with a force of about a million tons! >> > >http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~alukasz/ralem/Lecture2.htm > >That might make most EM coupling structures >sit up and take notice. Eh? you have given me another bright idea. Since I have discovered that the value of e decreases when a charge moves wrt an applied field, the orbiting electrons in any atom will have a slightly lower charge than the protons. (Assuming the Bohr model.) Therefore all matter shoud be slightly positively charged and repel all other matter. Wait a minute....I think there is something wrong here....... -. > >Sue... >++ > >> >> >> > >> >> You can do it yourself if you like, using my program. >> > >> >Quite. >> >Just a few clicks on the mouse, and you have falsified >> >the ballistic theory. >> >> no good joking Paul. Your faith has been proven wrong. >> >> > >> >Paul >> >> >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Aristotle on 25 Jul 2005 08:29 >>The time dependence of the amplitude of the oscillation is given by: >>The period of one oscillation is given by: >>The amplitude after 4 oscillations is therefore given by: >>The angular frequency [omega] is related to the spring constant k and mass m in the following manner: >>Using this expression we obtain for b >>The mechanical energy lost during these 4 oscillation can also be easily calculated. >> > >I'm not going to do your homework for you. Afraid of the challenge Henri?
From: Aristotle on 25 Jul 2005 08:30 >>>George >>I have long given up any hope of hearing Henri speak the truth. > >Go away! Answer questions instead of obfuscating the issue then running away.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 26 Jul 2005 06:22 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:22:57 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:10:59 GMT, Aristotle >>><wandering_philosopher(a)socratic_discipline.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>>>>>>SR. >>>>>>>How COULD it be wrong? >>>>>> >>>>>>See? :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was >>>>>>the one time he tested his program with measured data >>>>>>of a known binary. >>>>> >>>>>All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave. >>>> >>>>And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? >>>>You sure duck questions like one. >>> >>> >>>I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten >>>what the question was. >> >>Quite. >>And here is your answer to the forgotten question. >> >>Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004: >>| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory >>| predicts HD80715 should look like. >>| >>| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1. >>| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star >>| >>| phase brightness >>| >>| 0.0 1.22 >>| 0.1 1.21 >>| 0.17 1.97 >>| 0.18 2.45 >>| 0.19 5.90 >>| 0.1913 60.00 >>| 0.191310 infinite >>| 0.2 0.66 >>| 0.3 0.64 >>| 0.4 0.63 >>| 0.5 0.62 >>| 0.6 0.63 >>| 0.7 0.64 >>| 0.8 0.67 >>| 0.808719 infinite >>| 0.8089 21.6 >>| 0.809 11.80 >>| 0.81 3.90 >>| 0.9 1.34 >>| 1.0 1.22 >>| >>| 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. >> >>But HD80715 is no variable. >> >>So just by clicking his mouse a few times, >>Henri Wilson falsified the ballistic theory. > > > After clicking my mouse a few times I can come up with RAW figures for a single > star or a binary pair. > My RAW figures for a single star, agree with yours. > > When I include thermal source speeds and extinction effects, my adjucted > figures for the binary pair known as HD80715 show an almost constant > brightness. Each contributes a small sinelike variation in brightness. The > curves are 180 out of phase. Henri Wilson wrote: | There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular | brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my | variable star simulation program: | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe Did you include thermal source speeds and extinction effects in these cases, Henri? :-) Maybe you can pick a concrete example an show us your inferred parameters for your alleged binary? >>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. >> >>Indeed. >>There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof. >>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as >> predicted by GR, prove that the mythical >> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense >> from start to finish." >>That's why we all have ran for cover. > > > The clocks rate change has never ben accurately measured. GPS clocks are > empirically software adjusted after being placed in orbit. Sure, Henri. Nothing is accurately measured. The GPS clocks are only proven to run as predicted by GR to within the precision of the clocks, which is a thousand times better than the size of the "GR-correction". So let me rephrase your proof: "The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks, prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks is plain nonsense from start to finish." Satisfied now? > Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth. Of course Henri. That was what I said, wasn't it? Nobody can refute your genial proof. Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 26 Jul 2005 07:14
sue jahn wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc0tdg$lp3$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. >> >>Indeed. >>There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof. >>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as >> predicted by GR, prove that the mythical >> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense >> from start to finish." >>That's why we all have ran for cover. > > > Newton would not have tho't it nonsense. He would have tho't > it plagarism. > > << The big difference between a standard clock in your home and > an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between > the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation > is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of > a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to > keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the > atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity > and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the > nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.>> > http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm You shouldn't believe everything you find on the net, Sue. :-) Those who wrote that page have obviously no idea of how an atomic clock works. Statements like: "The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it." and: "The single electron of a Caesium atom is known to vibrate at a standard 9,162,613,770 times a second." and: "The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the caesium-133 atom." are indeed very revealing. If you don't understand why, the SI-definition of a second should give you a hint: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. But don't be too sad. Newton didn't have a clue about this either. So you are in good company. :-) Paul |