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 3 Oct 2005 06:01 On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:23:42 +1000, Timo Nieminen <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >On Mon, 2 Oct 2005 jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > >> Timo Nieminen wrote: >> > >> > Jim might find it educational to read about the fluctuating opinions on >> > the iron content of the sun (no, not the iron sun stuff, but the real >> > controvery with abundances varying significantly between different workers >> > for quite some time). >> >> If astronomers can't even agree on the chemistry of the sun, do you not >> think it is pulling the long bow to claim accurate "knowlege" of the >> composition (read age) of bodies at 12Gya ? >> I do not suggest that they have no idea, but I object to spectra and >> data from distant objects being claimed as "evidence" for BB, UNTIL it >> contradicts. >> Then BigBangers rush to "review models of galaxy formation" > >What particular claims are you objecting to? Who claims accurate and >precise knowledge of the composition of distant objects? > >Before you object too strenuously, you should learn >(a) how accurately the composition of the sun can be determined >(b) how accurately the composition of individual stars can be determined >(c) how large is the difference in composition between old and young stars >compared to (b) >(d) how accurately the composition of a distant galaxy can be determined >(e) how large is the difference in composition between old and young >galaxies compared to (e). > >Who knows? You might be able to learn enough to make an argument that >makes sense and will actually convinve people. Surely that would be worth >putting some effort into it? The more papers I read about astronomy, the more I realise how utter confusion reigns there. I really get a good laugh at the pathetic explanations for and categorizations of variable stars. Most variable star brightness curves follow the very straightforward predictions of the BaT. Light travels across space at c+v relative to planet Earth, where v is the source's original speed wrt Earth at the instant the light arrives here. 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 3 Oct 2005 06:07 On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:42:17 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > ><jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >news:1128315340.986276.145770(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> George Dishman wrote: >>> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >>> news:1127956173.244694.132110(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >... >>> > Hopefully, by maintaining an open and questioning mind as to what may >>> > influence _apparent_ observations, from being the real situation >>> > (temp/composition) >>> >>> That is one of the key aspects of the peer review >>> that results like this go through. Everyone reading >>> the paper will be looking for missed effects. >> >> For "everyone", read that they ALL accedit c constant, and BB expansion >> a given. >> Of course they will agree; they are singing from the same psalm. > >We are talking about what is measured, not possible >explanations for those observations. Temperature >and composition come from spectrographic evidence >in a way that is not dependent on the speed of >light or expansion. > >>> > FI: In that link, blue light is claimed to have been absorbed by free >>> > intergalactic H- no mention of it being redshifted out of contention. >>> >>> It's a press release. The redshift is crucial to the >>> methods used. >> >> Yep. And if redshift is attributable to other than expansion??????? > >It would make no difference whatsoever. Do some >research Jim, learn a bit about what you are >discussing. > >>> >> > So >>> >> > long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. >>> >> >>> >> There is no "bias", looking at the spectrum and intensity >>> >> is the only way to find out anything. What else do you >>> >> think they could do with the light? >> >> I have a friend doing a family tree, who is having trouble >> understanding that putting in adopted members leads to fraud down the >> page (no relation!). >> Similarly, genetic testing will render many trees useless, when it >> becomes apparent that great-grandma fooled with the milkman. >> THAT is what I suspect is happening with astronomy- false assumptions >> have been used to produce a "model" which is the victim of >> "infidelity". > >Sorry Jim, that's just handwaving nonsense. > >>> > I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of >>> > elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. >>> >>> You also need to find out why the Lyman Alpha line is >>> very important in astronomy, and in particular why it >>> creates a hard edge to spectra of high redshift objects. >> >> And the "forbidden" lines of H > >Just do some research Jim, you'll talk less nonsense. > >>> > I would suggest even the composition of the earth at depth is educated >>> > guess work, and to claim detailed analysis of objects of which we only >>> > see the top micron, or its atmosphere, may have astronomers wrongfully >>> > believing that they know exactly the composition of a distant object, >>> > due to mistaken analysis of the temp, velocity, gravitational pull >>> > (mass), chemical composition of the emmitting object of the emr >>> > reaching us. >>> >>> You can always say that but it is just baseless >>> hand-waving. We don't know everything but we do >>> have a good idea of how far we trust our models >>> and it is vastly more reliable than you imagine. >>> >>> >> > It still seems increasingly obvious, that the better the views of >>> >> > large >>> >> > distances away, the more obvious it becomes that the universe on >>> >> > average is homogenous throughout our (limitted) field of vision, >>> >> > both >>> >> > for age and chemical composition. >>> >> >>> >> Nope, this is an unusual galaxy by local standards so >>> >> more evidence for inhomogeneity. >> >> Rubbish! What I claim, is that galaxies of ALL AGES exist locally. > >Then why do we locally see vastly more galaxies that >are over 9 billion years old than all the rest put >together? Why don't we see any galaxies over 13 billion >years old. Why do all the galaxies we see have stellar >populations that show that the rate of new stars was >much higher withing the first couple of billion years >of the galaxies life than now? Because all astronomy is based on the Earthly notion that the speed of light is fixed and doesn't affect our perception of very distant objects. What we see on Earth is pretty well real. What we observe at 1 billion LYs is an illusion and nothing like reality. One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the correct model. > >There are two things unusual about this galaxy. First >the Milky way is considered large by local standards, >this one is eight time larger. Second the majority of >local galaxies had a rapid burst of new stars being >formed about 10 billion years ago and have had a >decreasing rate ever since, this galaxy seems to have >had a shorter burst and then stopped completely. I know >of no galaxy _anywhere_ else that has done that. It is >unlike anything we have seen before. That can't be >construed as evidence of homogeneity by any stretch of >the imagination. That is because all your data is derived using Einsteiniana. > >> They are forming and decaying throughout the infinite universe >> eternally. > >Nice fantasy, but every shred of evidence says >otherwise. George, there are lots of 'little bangs' but no BIG ONE. > >George > 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 3 Oct 2005 06:18 On 3 Oct 2005 02:06:27 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> >> A, I have supported you on this. In Algol's case, the WCH happens to be the >> large planet 'Androcles'. Do you have any objections to that? >> It is likely that flares occuring on the main star are reflected from >> 'Androcles' and mistaken for flares on IT. > >Very likely, indeed. :-) > >There IS no limit to the stupidities you can utter, is there? :-) >You have no idea of what a flare is, do you? :-) I should do. I used to take lovely photos of them. Flare stars are usually pretty dark red but every now and then emit a very large flare. I would categorize them as intrinsically variable. So a large flare is emitted from the star and is reflected off the large planet 'Androcles', which has a much higher radial velocity than the star. >> However I might be inclined to agree with the tusselad that a small third >> object does orbit the main Algol star. > >The "third object" is not a particularly small star. >It is an A5 V. That means it is bigger and brighter than the Sun. >But it is smaller than Algol A and B. It IS small and there is NO Algol B. >> On the published curve, there is a small departure from our predicted curves >> that might be associated with an object orbiting with the same period but >> lagging in phase behind the main star. > > >The orbital period of Algol C is 681 days, that is 235 times >the period of the inner binary. I wont argue. > >The "small departure" from your predicted curves, >is the second minimum when Algol A eclipses Algol B. Nah! There is NO eclipse. > >Your "drawing program" is unable to mimic that because >the degrees of freedom is too small. So you are unable >to invent any fantasy data that will produce the correct >light curve. I accept that the BaT curves for single stars are very hard to distinguish from the occasional GENUINE eclipsing binary. > >> This star, if it exists, plays little part in the basic observed brightness >> curve. > > >Right. >C is not eclipsing A and B, and it is too far >away to have a great effect. >It does have a small observable effect on A and B, though. Only if you are addicted to Einsteiniana. > > >> Algol is obviously not an eclipsing binary. > >Quite. >The light curve is exactly as it should be if it were >an eclipsing binary - with the second minimum and all - >So according to Wilsonian logic, it obviously isn't. see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg The Algol curve is identical to the BaT prediction. Androcles has produced the same curve. > >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".
From: Henri Wilson on 3 Oct 2005 06:21 On 3 Oct 2005 02:02:57 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote: >Androcles wrote: > >> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dhm3i2$f75$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... >> | Androcles wrote: >> | > I think you have demonstrated that I was right when saying: >> | > "Having realized that you screwed up, you must find >> | > something else to talk about." >> | > How could you screw up such a simple case of elementary >> | > Roche limit and get it 3,000,000,000% wrong, tusselad? >> | >> | I am beginning to suspect that your stupidity is even >> | greater than I initially could bring myself to believe. >> >> I'm sure the opinion of a phuckwit is highly regarded by >> the other phuckwits, tusselad. >> >> >> | I now think it's so gigantic that you do NOT realize >> | how thoroughly you screw up when you claimed: >> | "If the Moon were a fluid >> | it would break apart like droplets of mercury." >> >> I preceeded that with "If", tusselad; how could you screw up >> such a simple case of elementary logic? Well, in your case how >> could you not screw it up? > > >I would like to say "nice try". >But I can't. >It was an extraordinary stupid attempt to divert >the attention from the fact that you have still >not realized that your statement: > "If the Moon were a fluid > it would break apart like droplets of mercury." >is factually wrong. > >You must be a slow learner, though. >Because I told you: >| You would have to bring the Moon very close to >| the Earth before anything like that would happen. >| The critical distance is the Roche limit. >| The Roche limit for a liquid Moon is 2.86 Earth radii. >| The orbital radius is 21 times bigger than that. >| A liquid Moon would do just fine. >| And its shape would be the same. >| (A sphere slightly distorted by the tidal forces.) > >That's why your statement reveals your ignorance >of Roche limits and Roche lobes. > >> | But even if you are too stupid to realize it, >> | that statement reveals your ignorance of >> | Roche limits and Roche lobes. >> >> Yes, of course, tusselad. >> "That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass is >> transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart", but still carries >> on eclipsing the B8. Right, tusselad? > > >Right. >Like I told you: >| 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.) >| >| It doesn't happen in a minute, though. >| The mass transfer is in the order of 10^-11 solar masses per year. >| A star isn't a rigid body which suddenly can break apart. >| The outer layers are very thin gas. >| >| When a star overflows its Roche lobe, it doesn't come apart. >| The part of the star within the Roche lobe will be unaffected >| even if the overflowing mass will fall onto the other star >| and make an accretion disk around it. >| Which is just what is happening. All your figures are based on Einsteiniana. They are part of the illusion. >| >| What did YOU imagine would happen, Androcles? > >To which you answered: >| I've told what would happen. >| One minute later and the model becomes this: >| http://www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html > >Which reveals your ignorance of Roche limits >and Roche lobes. > > >> I'm too stupid to realize it, I'm sure, and you are not stupid at all. > > >Right. >Which you yet again have demonstrated in this posting. > >> A stupid person has an IQ of 10 or more. You didn't make the >> grade. > > >Quite. >But my IQ of 9 suffice to notice your stupidity. > >You are so stupid that you think your statement: >"If the Moon were a fluid > it would break apart like droplets of mercury." >is correct just because it starts with an "If". > >Hilarious, no? :-) > >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".
From: George Dishman on 3 Oct 2005 07:23
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ib02k15ebg3q0dnnm4gv9ukqfe5hpta89m(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:42:17 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >><jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >>news:1128315340.986276.145770(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... .... >>>> >> Nope, this is an unusual galaxy by local standards so >>>> >> more evidence for inhomogeneity. >>> >>> Rubbish! What I claim, is that galaxies of ALL AGES exist locally. >> >>Then why do we locally see vastly more galaxies that >>are over 9 billion years old than all the rest put >>together? Why don't we see any galaxies over 13 billion >>years old. Why do all the galaxies we see have stellar >>populations that show that the rate of new stars was >>much higher withing the first couple of billion years >>of the galaxies life than now? > > Because all astronomy is based on the Earthly notion that the speed of > light is > fixed ... Which we have known to be a fact for over a hundred years. > and doesn't affect our perception of very distant objects. And how how would the speed of light change the observed ratio of new stars to old ones in the same galaxy? > What we see on Earth is pretty well real. > What we observe at 1 billion LYs is an illusion and nothing like reality. Yet more handwaving with no credible linkage even to your long disproven claims. > One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the correct > model. Exactly why your binary star simulations are pointless until you construct a model that is not falsified by the Sagnac experiment. George |