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: Paul B. Andersen on 2 Oct 2005 15:53 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? :-) > 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. > 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. The "small departure" from your predicted curves, is the second minimum when Algol A eclipses Algol B. 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. > 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. > 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. Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 4 Oct 2005 07:43 Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message > news:1128330177.421954.210680(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > | 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. > > The rings of Saturn are factually wrong, are they, tusselad? 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. > > And what is it for Algol, that you are trying to divert attention away > from, tusselad? > Algol is not a binary, is it, tusselad? > But you want to draw attention to the Earth binary planet, don't you, > tusselad, but Earth II is not a fluid, is it tusselad? > You've fallen into the trap AGAIN, haven't you, tusselad? > You ARE a slow learner, tusselad. Sure, Androcles. When we discussed Algol, I wanted to draw the attention to the Moon by making you state: "If the Moon were a fluid it would break apart like droplets of mercury." And what I wanted to divert the attention away from was what I said about Algol, which you snipped: | 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. > | 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? :-) And now we can add: You are so stupid that you think that unless the Moon of the planet Earth would break apart like droplets of mercury if it were fluid, the rings of the planet Saturn cannot exist. Hilarious, no? :-) Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 4 Oct 2005 07:59 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 3 Oct 2005 02:02:57 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> > wrote: > >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. Of course, Henri. All observations are illusions, and what Roche calculated from Newtonian mechanics is based on Einsteiniana. The only data that can be trusted are those invented by you. So you are obviously right. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Oct 2005 17:47 On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:27:40 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > ><jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >news:1128419173.735037.311150(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember quite >> vividly (from you) saying how sagnac machine works because the TIME OF >> TRAVEL of the signal alters. If you cannot see/understand that this >> refers to VELOCITY, as the DISTANCE does NOT ALTER, that is too bad! > >Sadly it seems you also lost my response to your comment, >the distance does alter Jim, the detector MOVES while the >light is in transit. In the experiment, the length is >known to change because we know the speed of rotation of >the table, the time is measured to change and when you >calculate the speed as distance/time you always get c. George, that's the aether explanation. > >In the commercial products, knowing the speed is c, the >device measures the time difference and calculates the >rotation and they work perfectly. > >As for your stuff on the galaxy and a merry-go-round, the >correct analogy is that you make the measurement not against >the horses head but using a gyroscope (or you could say a >distant mountain if you were on a non-rotating planet). >Astronomers are well aware of the local proper motion of >stars. That's why you need to learn how astronomy is done >before criticising. They eventually learnt to allow for a CONSTANT light speed. The still haven't woken up to the fact that all starlight isn't miraculously adjusted (by the fairies) to travel to little planet Earth at exactly 'c'. > >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 4 Oct 2005 17:51
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:45:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:pth4k1tckn79et44jthevig0h9lcohvih5(a)4ax.com... >>>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. George, the 'c' component is not....but the 'v' component IS. >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. I have already told you why I don't believe the sagnac effect is related to light speed. > >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. It is the same. It is easier to write 'BaT'. > >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". |