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 27 Oct 2005 05:39 On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:12:54 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in >news:Xns96FBD66EED0EAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139: > >> We see a laser going to the west, by our 'spot'. It is going at 0.8 c. >> > >That should have been 0.9 c. Now you tell me...... HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Oct 2005 05:45 On 26 Oct 2005 17:46:57 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:00:13 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >> <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >> >>>> >> Photons and bits of matter are impinging on Earth at a whole >> >> range of speeds, including many >c.. >> > >> >Two words: Cerenkov radiation. >> >> it's up there. > >proton mass = 1.67262158 ? 10-27 kilograms >1 electron volt = 1.60217646 ? 10-19 joules > >E = 1/2mv^2 > >v = sqrt(2E/m) > >v = sqrt(2*7TeV*1.602x10^-19J/eV*1x10^12eV/TeV / 1.672x10^-27 kg) > >v = 1.34x10^21 m/s, or only 4.7 thousand billion c. > >How is that possible, Henri? It is possible geese because you haven't a clue what you are taking about and neither do I. > >Oh right. "reverse field bubble", which you are incapable of deriving >from your theory yet which explains everything. It is pretty obvious. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: bz on 27 Oct 2005 07:37 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:j471m11ul0lj66g8etncjncplvpcc89ato(a)4ax.com: BZ said (not Eric Gisse!): >>We see a laser going to the west, by our 'spot'. It is going at 0.8 c. ------------------------------------------------------------------0.9 c. >>As it passes us, it fires a pulse of photons back toward the east. >>At the same time, a rocket, moving at 0.2 c is going from west to east >>and it passes us. It is 'chasing' the pulse of photons. > > That's correct. It is traveling at the same speed as the photons. Sorry for the typo. It is traveling FASTER than the photons. It is thus traveling FASTER THAN LIGHT. This is clearly possible in a BaT universe. It is NOT possible in an Einsteinian universe. Unfortunately for the BaT theory, we seem to live in a universe where it is NEVER possible to travel faster than light. [big snip of comments you made to another person]. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Paul B. Andersen on 27 Oct 2005 16:41 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 26 Oct 2005 14:19:26 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> > wrote:> >>Henri Wilson skrev: >> >>>"Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> >>>But according to you, the BaT predicts a light curve >> >>>quite different from this: >> >>>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >> >>>or >> >>>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >> >>> And retrieve the full article. >> >>> >> >>>Wrong prediction -> theory falsified. >> >>>BaT is falsified. >>>>>There are other factors to consider. >>>> >>>>Such as? >>> >>>day/night temperature variation. >>>Star shape >>>Local extinction >>>Long term extinction, if any. >> >>You are funny, Henri. :-) >>You claim that you by assuming that Algol is a star >>orbited by a large planet can make the BaT predict >>the observed light curve. >>(A ridiculous assumption, of course.) >> >>Yet you claim that there are so many other unknown >>factors to consider that you cannot make the BaT >>predict the correct light curve. >> >>Why did you then claim that you had made the BaT produce >>the correct light curve? > > > Have a look for yourself. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg Exactly! But you did NOT consider any of the other factors like: day/night temperature variation. Star shape Local extinction Long term extinction, if any. Did you? Why is that? Don't these factors matter after all, Henri? Either these factors matter, or they don't. BTW, Henri: According to you, the BaT predicts a light curve quite different from this: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf or http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& And retrieve the full article. Wrong prediction -> theory falsified. BaT is falsified. Now you can say that this is because the factors you didn't take into consideration matter, Henri. And if they matter, you can't claim that the BaT predicts this light curve: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg because factors that matter are not taken into consideration. Or do the laws of nature change according to which phenomena you are explaining away, Henri? :-) >>>>>>I think you know that the BaT predicts the same >>>>>>light curve for 10um as for visible light. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>there are several factors to be considered apart from the one I gave. >>>> >>>>And the factor you gave was that different parts of the spectrum >>>>are emitted from different depths of the star. >>>>That is wrong, so you have still to mention a single factor. >>> >>>How do you know it is wrong. You are guessing. >> >>I know you are wrong because I know something >>about stars. YOU are ignorant, and make up whatever >>ridiculous physical processes that suite you. >>You are not even guessing. You are fantasizing. > > > Based on BaTh predictions, there is now good evidence that IR in many stars > comes from a lower layer than the visible. Evidence based on BaT predictions! :-) Great, Henri. The predictions of a theory is EVIDENCE! :-) Your stupidity never cease to amaze, Henri. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Oct 2005 18:04
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:41:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 26 Oct 2005 14:19:26 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> >> wrote:> >>>Henri Wilson skrev: >>> >>>>"Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >>> >>>But according to you, the BaT predicts a light curve >>> >>>quite different from this: >>> >>>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >>> >>>or >>> >>>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>> >>> And retrieve the full article. >>> >>> >>> >>>Wrong prediction -> theory falsified. >>> >>>BaT is falsified. >>>>>>There are other factors to consider. >>>>> >>>>>Such as? >>>> >>>>day/night temperature variation. >>>>Star shape >>>>Local extinction >>>>Long term extinction, if any. >>> >>>You are funny, Henri. :-) >>>You claim that you by assuming that Algol is a star >>>orbited by a large planet can make the BaT predict >>>the observed light curve. >>>(A ridiculous assumption, of course.) >>> >>>Yet you claim that there are so many other unknown >>>factors to consider that you cannot make the BaT >>>predict the correct light curve. >>> >>>Why did you then claim that you had made the BaT produce >>>the correct light curve? >> >> >> Have a look for yourself. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg > >Exactly! >But you did NOT consider any of the other factors like: > day/night temperature variation. > Star shape > Local extinction > Long term extinction, if any. > >Did you? >Why is that? >Don't these factors matter after all, Henri? > >Either these factors matter, or they don't. > >BTW, Henri: >According to you, the BaT predicts a light curve >quite different from this: >http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf > or >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& > And retrieve the full article. > >Wrong prediction -> theory falsified. >BaT is falsified. > >Now you can say that this is because the factors >you didn't take into consideration matter, Henri. > >And if they matter, you can't claim that the BaT predicts >this light curve: >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg >because factors that matter are not taken into consideration. > >Or do the laws of nature change according to which phenomena >you are explaining away, Henri? :-) Be patient Paul and all will be explained in due course. Much has already. >>>I know you are wrong because I know something >>>about stars. YOU are ignorant, and make up whatever >>>ridiculous physical processes that suite you. >>>You are not even guessing. You are fantasizing. >> >> >> Based on BaTh predictions, there is now good evidence that IR in many stars >> comes from a lower layer than the visible. > >Evidence based on BaT predictions! :-) >Great, Henri. >The predictions of a theory is EVIDENCE! :-) > >Your stupidity never cease to amaze, Henri. Paul, on TV last light there was a program about a new pill that can be taken to alleviate fear. Would you like me to send you some in case your fear of being wrong all your life becomes overwhelming? > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". |