Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 12 Aug 2010 20:50 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 10, 5:11 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:09:38 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: > >> >> All short period cepheids are likely to be pulsating stars. >> >> >Also long period Cepheids. Also intermediate period Cepheids... >> >> How would you know? > >You are some idiot to have totally ignored several years of >discussion. For starters: All Cepheids exhibit period jitter (aka >period noise, amplitude noise) inconsistent with the orbital >hypothesis. They don't. Many have dead constant periods....or slowly varying, which is in line with BaTh. >Direct interferometric measurements have been made of >the diameter of the nearer Cepheids. Temperature changes have been >measured consistent with adiabatic expansion/contraction, which >are consistent with measured diameter changes. So what. That is perfectly OK according to BaTh. Naturally their brightness could fluctuate slightly if their surface area is expanding and contracting...but no theory can fully explain the connection...except BaTh. ><snip> > >> >> >You have never dared to answer these questions in quantitative >> >> >fashion. The only times that you attempted to answer in >> >> >qualitative fashion, you faked your diagrams, and got caught >> >> >each time. >> >> >> That was a harmless joke that I admitted and which just happened to lead to the >> >> right explanation. I don't have to fake them any more. > >OK, try fitting beta Dor and U Nor: >http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/140/2/465/pdf/0067-0049_140_2_465.pdf One can only sympathise with these hard working astronomers. Their whole approach has been completely stuffed up by Einstein. BaTh has no difficulty in explaining all the mysteries surrounding 'cepheids', most of which are clearly binaries. >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 12 Aug 2010 22:12 On Aug 12, 7:50 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On Aug 10, 5:11 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:09:38 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >> All short period cepheids are likely to be pulsating stars. > > >> >Also long period Cepheids. Also intermediate period Cepheids... > > >> How would you know? > > >You are some idiot to have totally ignored several years of > >discussion. For starters: All Cepheids exhibit period jitter (aka > >period noise, amplitude noise) inconsistent with the orbital > >hypothesis. > > They don't. Many have dead constant periods....or slowly varying, which is in > line with BaTh. Phase jitter in Type II Cepheids is generally very pronounced: http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/128/4/1748/204246.text.html Type I Cepheids are much more stable than Type II Cepheids, but careful studies show that even Type I Cepheids exhibit instabilities inconsistent with the orbital hypothesis. The light curves also show long-term variation indicative of rapid evolution through the instability strip: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304053 Many Cepheids are in binary systems, which is detected by periodic Doppler shifts corresponding to orbital velocity, and systematic phase shifts corresponding the varying distance light travels from the Cepheid in differing parts of its orbit. > >Direct interferometric measurements have been made of > >the diameter of the nearer Cepheids. Temperature changes have been > >measured consistent with adiabatic expansion/contraction, which > >are consistent with measured diameter changes. > > So what. That is perfectly OK according to BaTh. Naturally their brightness > could fluctuate slightly if their surface area is expanding and > contracting...but no theory can fully explain the connection...except BaTh. Expansion and contraction, with accompanying temperature changes, explains ALL of the observed luminosity changes. BaTh is totally irrelevant. Repeat. TOTALLY. IRRELEVANT. > ><snip> > > >> >> >You have never dared to answer these questions in quantitative > >> >> >fashion. The only times that you attempted to answer in > >> >> >qualitative fashion, you faked your diagrams, and got caught > >> >> >each time. > > >> >> That was a harmless joke that I admitted and which just happened to lead to the > >> >> right explanation. I don't have to fake them any more. > > >OK, try fitting beta Dor and U Nor: > >http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/140/2/465/pdf/0067-0049_140_2_465... > > One can only sympathise with these hard working astronomers. > > Their whole approach has been completely stuffed up by Einstein. > > BaTh has no difficulty in explaining all the mysteries surrounding 'cepheids', > most of which are clearly binaries. Then provide fits for beta Dor and U Nor: http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/140/2/465/pdf/0067-0049_140_2_465.pdf Why are you evading this simple request? Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 13 Aug 2010 18:02 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 12, 7:50�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >On Aug 10, 5:11 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> They don't. Many have dead constant periods....or slowly varying, which is in >> line with BaTh. > >Phase jitter in Type II Cepheids is generally very pronounced: >http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/128/4/1748/204246.text.html > >Type I Cepheids are much more stable than Type II Cepheids, but >careful studies show that even Type I Cepheids exhibit >instabilities inconsistent with the orbital hypothesis. Probably due to a third or more orbiting planets. >The >light curves also show long-term variation indicative of rapid >evolution through the instability strip: >http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304053 BaTh offers several explainations for long term drift. The most likely one is that the cepheid system is itslef in a large galactic orbit or similar. >Many Cepheids are in binary systems, which is detected by >periodic Doppler shifts corresponding to orbital velocity, and >systematic phase shifts corresponding the varying distance light >travels from the Cepheid in differing parts of its orbit. BaTh explains this correctly. >> >Direct interferometric measurements have been made of >> >the diameter of the nearer Cepheids. Temperature changes have been >> >measured consistent with adiabatic expansion/contraction, which >> >are consistent with measured diameter changes. >> >> So what. That is perfectly OK according to BaTh. �Naturally their brightness >> could fluctuate slightly if their surface area is expanding and >> contracting...but no theory can fully explain the connection...except BaTh. > >Expansion and contraction, with accompanying temperature changes, >explains ALL of the observed luminosity changes. .......then why are so many astronomers still trying to find a decent theory to match brightness variation with size? >BaTh is totally irrelevant. Repeat. TOTALLY. IRRELEVANT. BaTh explains cepheid behavior very simply and accurately. >> >> >> That was a harmless joke that I admitted and which just happened to lead to the >> >> >> right explanation. I don't have to fake them any more. >> >> >OK, try fitting beta Dor and U Nor: >> >http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/140/2/465/pdf/0067-0049_140_2_465... >> >> One can only sympathise with these hard working astronomers. >> >> Their whole approach has been completely stuffed up �by Einstein. >> >> BaTh has no difficulty in explaining all the mysteries surrounding 'cepheids', >> most of which are clearly binaries. > >Then provide fits for beta Dor and U Nor: >http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/140/2/465/pdf/0067-0049_140_2_465.pdf >Why are you evading this simple request? There is no question to answer. The BaTh explanation is trivial >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Darwin123 on 13 Aug 2010 18:58 On Aug 11, 8:15 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:59:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere..no> > wrote: > > > > >On 10.08.2010 01:27, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:49:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<some...(a)somewhere.no> > >> wrote: > > >>> Indeed. > > >>> Paul: > >>> "How come a fully qualified physicist and Doctor of science can > >>> be ignorant of the fact that synchrotron radiation is emitted > >>> in a narrow cone along the direction of motion of the charged > >>> particle?" > > >>> Ralph Rabbidge: > >>> "Hahahahha! > >>> Is that charged particle moving inertially? > >>> If it is, why should anything it emits have > >>> a 'preferred direction'?" > > >> Since the particle is changing direction continuously in a cyclotron, how does > >> the radiation know which direction to travel in? > > >Are you serious? :-) > >An aeroplane has a cannon pointing forwards. > >It shoots while it is turning. > >How does the bullets know which direction to travel in? > > hahahhahhhahhaha! ....stop it Paul, or I'll die laughing...A.re guns mounted on > the front or the back ...or sides? > > In a cyclotron D, the acceleration is towards the centre....so what should that > tell you about the radiation's preferred direction? The radiation emitted by an accelerated charge tends to be in directions perpendicular to the acceleration. If you draw the direction of the electric field of the charge particle in its rest frame, you will see that the electric field is outward from the charge. The same picture will show you that the change in electric field due to the acceleration is smallest in the direction of acceleration, since that is where the charge is going. So the direction of cyclotron radiation tends to be in a direction perpendicular to the diameter of the circle. So the acceleration provides one constraint as to the direction of cyclotron radiation. The direction of light from the accelerating charge is also determined by the magnet that is forcing the electric charges to accelerate toward the center. The electric charge in the cyclotron is moving relative to this magnet, and to the magnetic field generated by this magnet. The acceleration of the electric charge, plus the direction of the magnetic field that causes this acceleration, together determine the direction that most of the photons take as they are emitted from the electric charge. Thus, there is no need to determine an absolute velocity. Most cyclotron radiation is aimed in a direction determined by the cross product of the centripetal acceleration and the magnetic field that is causing the centripetal acceleration. The cross product happens to be in the direction of motion as seen in the laboratory frame. However, there is no need to invoke this velocity. The salient axes here are 1) the direction of the centripetal acceleration and 2) the direction of the magnetic field emitted by the cyclotron magnet. Basically, it is the electric charges in the magnet that guides the accelerating particles that break the isotropy of the environment. Everything can be defined in terms of the relative velocity of the atoms in the magnet and the charged particles. There is no absolute velocity needed to determine the direction of motion of the light, or the direction of the photon, uniquely. Thus, relativity is not violated. Not that relativity was necessary to figure this out. You could have figure it out just by drawing a force diagram of the cyclotron with orbiting particle. Neither you nor Androcles know how to draw force diagrams. That is one problem you both have in common. Newton would be so ashamed of you guys.
From: Androcles on 13 Aug 2010 19:22
"Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8bce2331-a6d5-4bd2-be4a-4e335d90f65b(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... Neither you nor Androcles know how to draw force diagrams. That is one problem you both have in common. Newton would be so ashamed of you guys. ============================================== I haven't said anything about cyclotrons, fuckwit! What are you bringing me into it for, drosen? Neither you nor any relativist knows anything about mathematics. That is one problem you all have in common. Einstein would be proud of you babbling cretins. |