GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Eric Gisse on 29 Aug 2007 20:19 On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:12:26 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: [...] > >> I suspect most pulsars are. > >Certainly for millisecond pulsars, they get spun >up by accreting matter from a companion. That isn't true. All you'd get is a type 1a supernova if accretion were going on. Pulars in binary systems are rather rare. [...]
From: T.M. Sommers on 29 Aug 2007 23:34 George Dishman wrote: > "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote in message > news:46d5b005$0$26698$470ef3ce(a)news.pa.net... >>George Dishman wrote: >> >>>it is the same as conventional first >>>order Doppler. >> >>Are there other orders? I don't recall ever running across any. > > For light the equation is > > f'/f = (1 - u/c) / sqrt(1 - (u/c)^2) > > = 1 - (u/c) + 0.5 * (u/c)^2 + ... [3] > > where u is the relative motion of the source > and observer. Ah. I thought you were saying that the first equation above was the first order part of something else, which seemed wrong for several reasons. > I hope you get something useful out of the > thread, I try to squeeze in as much science > as I can but it isn't easy to keep it at a > level that Henry can follow. I've gotten a little out of it. The astro course I took mumble years ago never got around to Cepheids (except their part in the distance ladder). -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: T.M. Sommers on 30 Aug 2007 00:15 Eric Gisse wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:12:26 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>Certainly for millisecond pulsars, they get spun >>up by accreting matter from a companion. > > That isn't true. All you'd get is a type 1a supernova if accretion > were going on. I think you are thinking of white dwarfs (or is it dwarves?). Neutron stars are the remnants of supernovas, and they aren't going to supernova again. > Pulars in binary systems are rather rare. Rare or not, they exist. Accreting neutron stars are x-ray sources. -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: George Dishman on 30 Aug 2007 03:09 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:3o1cd3dqv4ruios7s0n9n190gl88bou3cm(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:12:26 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:ncmbd3pimq5gah564v6mcm1a8s7m6jco52(a)4ax.com... .... >>> Interestingly both PSR 1257+12 and PSR 1534+12 are obserevd to be >>> binaries. >> >>I searched for "Cepheid" and "Shapiro" so it would >>only return binaries, just selection bias. >> >>> I suspect most pulsars are. >> >>Certainly for millisecond pulsars, they get spun >>up by accreting matter from a companion. >> >>> It all fits in with BaTh. >> >>Not really, they all show VDoppler only which is >>conventional theory. BaTh requires ADoppler and >>you are scrabbling for excuses to explain why it >>doesn't appear when you should be able to use them >>to prove it does exist. > > Remember the 'spheres' George... Yes Henry, a perfect example. You don't offer an equation that solves the problem, you just invent a hand-waving term to try to cover up the fact that your theory fails. Excuse or not, the theory still gives the wrong prediction. George George
From: George Dishman on 30 Aug 2007 03:14
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:gp1cd31i8hehnki3ir7ab75hkidhqfd3gg(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:14:49 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:r0mbd354ggf3sdn4l9vdil56mm2bas9ij6(a)4ax.com... .... > .. Anyway, I'm "de-mob >>happy", I finished work today for a fortnight's >>holiday, our first in two years due to family >>commitments. I'll be on the Isle of Skye all >>next week so don't expect to see much from me. > > That'll be a relief. > I hope you spend many sleepless hours worrying about the fact that you > know I'm > right. Sorry Henry, I'll just chuckle any time the conversation crosses my mind. It is amusing seeing you attempt to claim success when all you can do is make excuses for why Ritz's theory fails. No matter how good the excuses, the equations you offer are unusable because they always give predictions that are at odds with reality. George |