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: jgreen on 4 Oct 2005 05:27 Jeff Root wrote: > Jim Greenfield wrote: > > > If the Milky Way is revolving once per 200,000yr , an > > object at distance 1.1 billion light years is actually > > 180 degrees from where it appears now. > > You've said that before. It is extremely important if it > is true. So it is worth money to know for sure. I'll pay > you $8000 for an explanation of the effect, if you post it > in sci.astro before the end of Saturday, October 15, 2005. > > Please note that using incorrect figures in your argument > makes no difference, as long as the geometry and logic are > essentially sound. If, for example, the angle actually > turns out to be only 18 degrees rather than 180 degrees, > but your explanation is basically sound, I will pay. > > The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar > System is about 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 years. Take time out to go to the local fair. Get on the inside horse on the merry-go-round, and the outside horse's head (say Sirius) will be your "north"- your pointer. Someone in the crowd of baby watchers will be only offset by a very small fraction of a degree when the machine is rotating, due to the light's flight time from watcher to you. But as you go faster, or the watcher is further away, that image is NOT where it was produced, ref the horse's head. My bank acc. no. is ********************* Jim G c'=c+v
From: jgreen on 4 Oct 2005 05:34 Jeff Root wrote: > I wrote: > > > The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar > > System is about 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 years. > > How about that! I made just about the same mistake! > > The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar > System is about 200,000,000 to 250,000,000 years. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Do you really think that the form of the galaxy would be so stable, if it has only done 65 revolutions (given max possible age according to BB), since it was first formed??????????????????? You owe me another 8,000 Jim G c'=c+v
From: George Dishman on 4 Oct 2005 05:45 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:pth4k1tckn79et44jthevig0h9lcohvih5(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:56:32 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:tv83k15r1pvqe4mro5e3h5s035195nih4h(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:23:25 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>>news:ib02k15ebg3q0dnnm4gv9ukqfe5hpta89m(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Give it up George. The Sagnac effect is not related to the BaT. >> >>Any theory of light has to be compatible with >>the observations Henri. Sagnac is very simple, >>it measures the speed of light from a moving >>source and the answer is exactly c in the lab >>frame regardless of the speed of the source. >> >>If your theory isn't capable of making a >>prediction for this test then it isn't a >>theory, and if its prediction is wrong, as >>Ritz's was, then the theory is falsified. > > George, I told you. Each component is moving noramally in the frame of the > next > component. And I told you, and you agreed, that the light is not moving normally to the mirrors, but that is beside the point. Henri, what is needed is for you to take the experimental setup of Sagnac and derive a prediction using your theory. Show your working so that other people can understand how to apply your equations for their own experiments. That is what a theory is, something that anyone can use as a predictive tool. My expectation is that applying your BaT to the Sagnac will give the same null prediction that using Ritzian theory gives, but you have never said how what you call "BaT" differs from Ritz. George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 4 Oct 2005 07:17 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. Sorry, Henri. I don't believe you. Not very smart to bluff about something you don't understand the consequence of. > 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. Of course, Henri. :-) Seen from Sirius, a Solar flare will obviously easily be mistaken for a flare at Jupiter. > > >> 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. Of course there is no K2 star, Henri. The observed K2 spectrum is predicted by the BaT, isn't it? That's what the BaT predicts an Anrocles planets radiates, isn't it? And the K2 spectrum is observed by Einstainania anyway, and can not be trusted. > > >> 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. Of course there isn't, Henri. :-) No K2 star - 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. But Algol isn't a GENUIN eclipsing binary, is it? :-) So the second minimum is obviously not really there. It is observed by Einsteiania only. > > > > >> 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. Of course, Henri. The BaT can obviously explain the observed effects which the stupid astronomers assign to Algol C. > >> 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 No Algol there. > The Algol curve is identical to the BaT prediction. Except for the second minimum, of course. But the second minimum is obviously not there, it is only observed. And as we know, observations can never be trusted. It's not like it is invented by Henri Wilson. > > Androcles has produced the same curve. Indeed he have. Seriously: The fact is of course that you and Androcles have falsified the ballistic theory by demonstrating that you have to use fantasy parameters which are wildly wrong to mimic the light curve. And even then, you miss the second minimum in the light curve. To claim that all the observations made by Algol are wrong is just too stupid. Algol is observed at just about all wavelengths, And every observation fits the fact that Algol is a B8 star and a K2 star eclipsing each other. And as always most of the information is found in the spectra. For example, the K2 star is very bright in the X-rays, while the B8 is dark. The X-ray "light curve" has a deep minimum when the visual light curve has its secondary minimum. The reason is obvious. http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/abs/2003/49/aa0057/aa0057.html You can retrieve data from the XMM-Newton satellite archive and see for yourself. http://xmm.esac.esa.int/external/xmm_data_acc/xsa/index.shtml The BaT can't even get the light curve right, not to mention the spectra. Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 2 Oct 2005 09:40
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. | | 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 |