GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 31 Aug 2007 06:40 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:l5jed317tbed8g7hep0hgenm8tckj2ppik(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:41:11 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:kmk6d3hl6m51ee5nelntmksqmh0hlj14c5(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:38:06 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>>news:0964d39tjr4cp4lpetdfmk8lbrf0fm3bcc(a)4ax.com... .... >>>>Maxwell's Equations are obvious to any engineer, >>>>but it took Maxwell to write them in the first >>>>place. Until you write them down in a form that >>>>others can use, you don't have a theory. >>> >>> The physics behind Maxwell's equations is pretty obvious and >>> simple....even if >>> the equations appear formidable. >> >>The point is that if you want to design a coil >>with a given inductance, you need an equation. >>Even if you understand the physics qualitatively, >>that won't tell you how many turns of what >>diameter and so on. The basis of all physics is >>that it is first and foremost qualitative and >>any philosophical "understanding" is extraneous. >>Until you publish the equations, nobody can put >>them to use and by definition that means you >>don't have a theory. > > That was true before the advent of computers. Time you brought yourself up > to > date george. The computer will do the calculation, you still need the equations. For example there are programs as part of PCB design suites that will predict the EMI for a board, you can get the router to place tracks to minimise crosstalk or have specific impewdances and so on, but they all work by solving Maxwell's Equations and without those the prgorams couldn't be written. >>>>That would not give you equations that could be >>>>used in general, and it remains a classical wave >>>>model. >>> >>> that's what I wanted. A particle model that includes classical waves. >>> All >>> evidence points to photons behaving like that. >> >>Yes but you still don't have an equation so >>it isn't physics, just philosophical musings. >>There is a huge difference between a histogram >>of coil inductances falling of the end of a >>production line and the equations that allowed >>the designer to ensure that the mean value is >>what the customer ordered. > > Time you brought yourself up to date george. No equation - no program. >>>>Wrong, SR predicts the difference in speed should >>>>be c+/-v so it is compatible with SR. Ballistic >>>>theory predicts no fringe shift so is falsified. >>> >>> Ah! You finally accept that the speeds are c+/-v.... >> >>No, the "difference in speed" is what I said. > > That's what I thought you said. > You finally accept the fact. I have always accepted the fact that you didn't know the difference between the algebraic difference between speeds in one frame (closing speed as it is sometimes called) and the speed in another, or at least that you pretend to not know to facilitate your silly word joke. >>> Now maybe you will also accept my variable star theory...since it relies >>> on the >>> same principle. >> >>It doesn't, it relies on the difference being c >>and that isn't the value measured by Sagnac, >>your theory is measured to be wrong. > > Your a losing it George. Definitely time for a holiday.... More petty attempts at abuse Henry, you always make it easy to see where you know I am right, ballistic theory depends on the 'closing speed' being c, not c+v and you know that. >>>>No, you are stating a religious belief, experiments >>>>show that the stats can be predicted mathematically, >>>>which is physics, but individual instances cannot. >>> >>> George, it is theoretically possible to precisely model an arrow's >>> flight >>> through the air, taking into account such things as the initial aim, >>> wind >>> direction and variation, air temperature, etc. >> >>No it isn't, it is only possible to predict it >>up to the accuracy permitted by the uncertainty >>principle. >> >>> That's how physicists try to model mechanical behavior. >> >>That's how 19th century physicists worked. Modern >>physicists know it is a valid approximation for >>macroscopic behaviour but most cutting edge work >>is pushing the quantum level. > > ..and getting nowhere... Other than the invention of the transistor and everything that came from, lasers, laser and fibre gyros, and on and on. The whole of modern technology has come from relativity and QM. >>>>No, you read to much into it, electric and magnetic >>>>fields obviously are described by photons as above. >>> >>> Hahahahohohohohha! >> >>Pardon? I thought it was obvious that photons >>relate to the EM forces? >> >>> George, PHOTONS are described by FIELDS, a la Maxwell. >> >>Photons are not dsescribed by fields, they are >>described by Schroedinger's Wave Equation and >>quantum mechanics. > > Schroedinger doesn't describe an individual photon. I suggest you have a look at this though the topic is beyond the scope of our conversation: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/wave_equations.html Hit "next" a couple of times to here http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/FiniteSquareWell/FiniteSquareWell.htmland look at the graphic about two thirds down.Think of the potential curve as the cross-sectionof an optical fibre. Does the tail remind you ofthe evanescent wave?>>> How can FIELDS be>>> described by PHOTONS?>>>> E = rP/q>> Where's the physics?You snipped it earlier:>>>>... The>>>>definition of the electric field for example>>>>is:>>>>>>>> E = f / q>>>>>>>>and the definition of force is:>>>>>>>> f = dp/dt>>>>>>>>hence>>>>>>>> E = 1/q * dp/dt>>>>>>>>so if a stream of similar photons each carrying>>>>momentum P hit charge q at a mean rate of r>>>>photons per second, the field is:>>>>>>>> E = rP/qThat is the physics. Did you mean "where isthe philosophical interpretation?"? What thephysics (i.e. the equation) shows is that thefield E is a name given to the mean effect ofa flux of photons, it has no other physicalinterpretation.>>> Admit that nobody has a clue....except for me of course.>>>>ROFL, Henry you are only slightly less clueless>>than the other cranks around here, you cannot>>even cope with calculus never mind physics,>>and you only think you understand that because>>you confuse it with philosophy.>> George I probalby know a lot more about maths than you do.ROFL, get a life Henry, you couldn't evenwork out the ADoppler equation, I knew morethen you do now when I was 13.>>> Physicists can be engineers but engineers can't be physicists.>>>>Lucky I got my degree first then.>> All of mine were largely physics. I tended towards engineering later."All" of your are a faked photo of somebody elses.>>Nonsense, as I have told you before, look at how>>the slope of a pulsar's dispersion can be used to>>determine the electron column density. It will>>tell you more than you think about speeds.>> ..and it certainly backs up my unification idea.Yep, it shows SR is correct.> It also shows why DeSitter's 'disproof' of the BaTh was wrong.Nope, there is no unification in Ritz's theoryto which De Sitter's disproof was valid.>>> This is>>> not true and shows how primative and ignorant most humans are...even the>>> scientists.>>>>>> When relative light speed is included, as it should be, the wholepicture>>> changes.>>>>Sure, you get predictions of multiple images of>>binaries and then have to invoke speed changing>>fairies to give yourself an excuse for why we>>don't see that phenomenon.>> The conditions required for multiple imagery to occur are never reached> .....rarely even approached.Never even approached, hence ADoppler is alwaysundetectable. Reasonable really since it doesn'texist.>>>>> Willusions don't occur in the lab...in fact they are virtually>>>>> negligible>>>>> o>>>>>> George, theories are usually considered 'right' if they come up withthe>>>>> previously known answer....even if they are completely wrong.>>>>>>>>If they give the right answer, they are "right" by>>>>definition.>>>>>> George, I can easily 'fiddle' my above statistical diffraction theory to>>> match>>> the QM results, by introducing a few other likely factors. Would thatmake>>> it>>> correct in your mind?>>>>Nope, like your program you would prove you had>>nothing more than a curve fitting program.>> That's your last ditch argument....It's the first ditch, and valid you proved itby proving that the theme from Close Encounterswas a Keplerian orbit ;-)> when all else fails make stupid statements> like that one. My program can only produce a very stringent range ofcurves.> It so happens that most star curve fit into this range...And flutes (or whatever the synth was simulating).> Coincidence George?No, an indication of too many free parameters.>>The way to do it is to take the measured>>temperature curve and _calculate_ the luminosity>>variation that it produces using Planck's Law>>and then you have no factors to fiddle. That is>>physics, not your string of fudge factors.>> Move a planck curve sideway 1% and see what it does to the V band.0.01% at most Henry, usually less, and the answeris ... no more than 0.01% or less than 0.15K for atemperature of 6000K (remember the Stefan-BoltzmannLaw), completely irrelevant.George
From: T.M. Sommers on 31 Aug 2007 14:48 Henri Wilson wrote: > > ADoppler DOES exist. George merely wants it to go quietly away so his faith > wont be threatened. I'll try to explain briefly. > > According to BaTh, (ballistic theory) Wasn't that theory shown to be false about 95 years ago? > ADoppler occurs like this. > As light is emitted by an orbiting star, it moves at c wrt the star and > c+v.sin(ft) wrt planet Earth. Over time, the fast photons catch up with the > slower ones and vice versa causing a bunching or separation pattern across > space. I assume f is the frequency of the light. t is presumably a time, but what time? It appears possible to change the results just by changing the zero of time. v is presumably the orbital speed. In what frame is it measured? Is it the total linear speed, or the component in the direction of the observer? How does your theory account for the period-luminosity relationship for Cepheids? The A in ADoppler evidently means acceleration, but there is no acceleration dependence in your equation. So why don't all stars look like Cepheids? > The process does not continue forever because the speed of all light > moving in a particular direction tends to become unified. That sounds fishy. What accounts for it? > The arrival of the > 'photon density' pattern over time causes the star to APPEAR to vary in > brightness when in fact it is perfecty stable. You seem to be saying that Cepheids are not really variable, but appear variable because they are part of binary systems. So why don't all binaries look like Cepheids? Why don't opposite spiral arms of galaxies look different? Why don't the stars in close orbits around the black hole at the center of our galaxy look like Cepheids? > Since the 'ends' of INDIVIDUAL photons are also emitted by the accelerating > source, it was pointed out by George that these should also behave like the > macroscopic bunching that occurs BETWEEN photons. This is just the classical > wave theory, in which individual photons are regarded as being just small > snippets of the whole wave. That is possible...and it answered a big question > about the phase differences between the observed brightness and velocity curves > of Cepheids. However, it was obvious that the photon 'length changes' could not > be of the same order as the observed brightness variations. > > My theory says that photons DO contract and extend due to this source > acceleration and these effects are roughly in phase with the macroscopic > bunching...... BUT the changes are reduced markedly by a factor 'K', which may > be of the order 10^-5. That sounds like a fudge factor to me. What is the theoretical justification for K? > This appears logical because, whilst there appears to be > NO restriction on the way aligned photons might move wrt each other, photons > are likely to resist 'compression ' and extension like an conventional elastic > material. Are you saying that photons are not points but have extent and some internal structure, or are you just talking about wavelength? -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: Henri Wilson on 31 Aug 2007 19:11 On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:14:38 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:iqeed3dcbr4in2u4rgaomtd1mfegovg7o2(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:30:07 -0700, George Dishman >>>It is right. >>> >>>> but it's just kid's stuff.... >>> >>>Sure, the application of balistic theory to binary systems >>>is just kid's stuff. >> >> Then so is your SR Sagnac analysis... > >Sure, it is a few lines of algebra that you yourself >confirmed last year. > >>>> Now try applying it generally George. Don't forget to include yaw angle, >>>> eccentricity and observer distance >>> >>>You forget I already did that part: >>> >>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Ritz_Binary.html >>> >>>It took a couple of hours mainly getting the sizes >>>of the controls right, the maths of the orbit is one >>>line. >> >> It looks impressive but I can't get it to run. >> I can change the orbit parameters, but nothing happens on 'play'. >> It doesn't say what anything is. > >Remember I only wrote it as a suggestion for a GUI >for you. As a trivial part of that it includes the >3D view of the orbit. I won't add the plots to it >unless I have time to burn since it is only valid >for binaries and we have dealt with them, it isn't >applicable to Cepheids. It is useless...and it doesn't need orbit inclination. You wouldn't be able to complete a program that will actually generate brightness curves. Mine is now very comprehensive and user friendly. You could play with it while on your holiday. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe >> >> I originally considered using Kepler's equations but devised a much easier >> and >> more efficient way to do it. > >Well we have finished discussing binary pulsars and >contact binaries anyway so I won't do any more to >the program. Cepheid need a completely different >approach. Huff puffs, if they exist, would need an integrated approach since every 'ring' of the surface would be moving at a different radial speed. However the results wouldn't be very different from the curves I am already producing because the basic shape is virtually set by yaw angle and eccentricity. Velocity and distance only change the size of the curves. >>>Bottom line - until you provide an equation containing >>>K, there is no K in your theory. >> >> George, I have already calculated one value of K for you. It was ~5E-5 > >Whoopee a number. What the **** use is that when >you don't have an equation to put it into? George, the only reason I would require an equation would be to find a value of K. The maths and the principle behind it are pretty obvious anyway. >>>> Give up George. This is way beyond you. >>> >>>Sorry Henry, my equation is complete and correct, >>>your arrogance is just sour grapes because you >>>couldn't work it out and have spent years trying to >>>write a simulation to do it for you. >> >> George, my simulations are accurate. They also match most star curves. > >For binaries, your program does most of what is >needed other than showing the correct predicted >velocity curve, for Cepheids it is useless because >you cannot enter the temperature effects and it >needs another curve showing the radius. give it up George... >>>I have repeatedly - add a curve showing the predicted >>>observed velocity instead of your bodge of using the >>>true velocity with arrival time distortion, it is only half >>>the story and doesn't correspond to either the true >>>or observed values. Add in a true distance curve which >>>will be equivalent to the radius curve for a Cepheid, >>>and most importantly add scales to all your graphs. >> >> Hahaha. >> George the small radius change (if any) makes absolutely no difference to >> the >> observer distance. > >No but if you square it, you get the area change >which is dominant for K band (5 times more than >all other effects together) and comparing the >phase of the radius with the observed curve is >the only way to determine whether you are seeing >VDoppler or ADoppler. ....assuming there actually IS a radius change... >>>> BaTh has never been proven wrong. >>> >>>Sagnac, Shapiro, Ives and Stillwell, all prove it >>>wrong. >> >> well how come your Sagnac analysis relies on the same principle I use to >> produce brightness curves? > >Because my analysis used ballistic theory to >demonstrate that there would be no fringe shift. George, you admit that the SR sagnac diagram has the rays closing on the source at c+/-v, when viewed in the rest frame. Do you not then agree that to a third orbserver, the light from a distant orbiting star would 'close on' another star at c+v.sin(at)? WOULD NOT THAT THIRD OBSERVER DEDUCE THAT, TO AN OBSERVER ON THE SECOND STAR, THE FIRST STAR WOULD APPEAR TO VARY IN LUMINOSITY? >>>> All evidence points to it being correct... >>> >>>There isn't a single experiment where ballistic >>>theory is right other than those where it gives >>>the same prediction as SR, e.g. the MMx. >> >> George, why do you think TWLS is dead constant? > >Don't try to change the subject, can you name a >single experiment where applying Ritz's equation >gives an answer that differs from SR and matches >the exerimental result? TWLS is dead constant for the simple reason that light is ballistic. That is, it moves at c wrt its source and everything at rest wrt the source. So naturally tAB=tBA in any TWLS experiment and in that case, TWLS also = OWLS = c >>>> at least in 'empty' space. >>>> My program uses the same principle that SR relies on to explain Sagnac. >>> >>>Liar. >> >> Don't deny it George. You finallly admitted that the 'closing velocities' >> of >> the rays are c+/-v wrt the source in sagnac. That's exactly what I use.... >> CLOSING VELOCITIES OF C+V. > >Liar, you say the light moves at c wrt the source and >you use the Galilean Transforms so the CLOSING VELOCITY >is c in all frames in ballistic theory, you do NOT use >closing velocities of c+/-v. ....but that's not what your sagnac diagram shows... >>>Planck's Law says it is the major cause of the luminosity >>>variation V band, close to a factor of 2 for L Car. >> >> ..and ADoppler could easily account for that. > >Come on Henry, don't be stupid. The temperature accounts >for most of that from Planck's Law so you should have >said "..and ADoppler could easily account for the rest." >Until you remove the influence of temperature, you results >are grossly wrong. Until ADoppler is considered, almost the whole of astronomy is wrong. >> >> Hahaha! >> You will go down fighting till the end .... > >Just stating a fact Henry, every system we have examined >so far has turned out to have no detectable ADoppler. George, I think you have actually become psychologically 'blind'. Maybe the holiday will fix it... >> What about all those supposed eclipsing stars that aren't eclipsing at >> all? > >When I pointed out that you had misread the period >on the graphs for conatct binaries, you eventually >agreed they were actually eclipses. You are refering to one particular star, EF Dra. That was a genuine mistake because the two 'dips' of the curve are very similar in height. >> Many are just orbiting stars with eccentricity around 0.5 and their >> perihelions >> closest to Earth. > >You backed down on that claim, had you forgotten? I certainly did not. I said it is almost impossible to tell fom a light curve if a star is genuinely eclipsing or not. Only spectral data wil reveal the truth and even that may be suspect. Many stars classified as 'eclipsing' would not have been investigated further. >>>> >> >For a >>>> One is based on YOUR equation. It produces the same curves as my other >>>> method. >>> >>>Thanks for confirming my equation. >> >> It doesn't use your equation directly. Rather it uses the velocity >> difference >> at two finitely separated points and repeats the calculation around the >> whole >> orbit.. > >The confirmation is because your method gives the >same result as mine. It is very useful to have a way of checking the programming. Your method is much harder than mine...and only maginally faster. >>>> So instead of arguing you should be trying to apply it generally...just >>>> as I >>>> have done. >>> >>>You haven't, your predicted curve for observed velocity >>>(i.e. spectral shift) doesn't use it and is wrong. >> >> George, the predicted OBSERVED velocity curve in similar to the observed >> LUM >> curve....but maybe slightly out of phase and much smaller in proportional >> change. > >So you imagine, but your program doesn't calculate >it whatever you anticipate. Cepheid curves are like this: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg That's what I produce with my program. You can calculate the value of 'K' for any star simply by dividing the OBSERVED velocity variation by the luminosity change. >>>Yep, but since we know the shift is only 0.01% and >>>the filters are orders of magnitude wider, it affects >>>the temperature determination by at most a few >>>degrees in ~6000K, it is negligible in practice so >>>the temperature values remain valid. >> >> If those figures are true then the temperature cannot be determine >> accurately >> at all. > >Of course it can, the shift of 0.01% is one part >in 1600 for the K band so at most it produces a >few degrees error and since the levels at the ends >of the band are similar in practice far less. ADoppler can produce more than 0.01% shift. >>>> >No you haven't you waved your hands and got it wrong. >>>> >Radiation pressure doesn't affect light and for a >>>> >spacecraft on the far side of Jupiter, it would act in the >>>> >wrong direction anyway, the change would make the >>>> >arrival time even earlier than that due to the gravitational >>>> >effect. It doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. >>>> >>>> Wrong George. It would make the average speed less than c. >>> >>>Think about it instead of giving a knee-jerk Henry: >>> >>> ===== >>> Sun Jupiter craft >>> ===== >>> X >>> Y >>> >>> Earth >>> >>>The signal from the craft passes close to the surface of >>>Jupiter and is in the Sun's shadow from emission until >>>point X. Without the planet is would be slowed by the >>>solar radistion pressure, because it is in the shadow it >>>isn't slowed so arrives earlier. From X to Y the effect of >>>the sunlight is unchanged but light reflected from Jupiter >>>would push the signal towards Earth so again it arrives >>>earlier than it would otherwise do due to the presence >>>of the planet. >> >> That's pathetic George. > >I see you now realise it is correct, your suggestion >doesn't work. > >>>> A radar pulse fired at Venus when it between Earth and Sun takes lomger >>>> than >>>> one when the planet is in the opposite direction. >>>> >>>> ...and I'm not just talking about 'radiation pressure'. I'm sugesting >>>> forces >>>> unknown....maybe associated with the gravity field. >>> >>>Gravity is what caused your problem in the first place, >>>it accelerates the light between the craft and point X >>>and slows it between X and Y so the speed ends up >>>the same but the signal has moved ahead and arrives >>>early. >> >> That would be the case..but there is another stronger 'force' operating in >> the >> opposite direction. > >Ah "forces unknown". Henry, in science all we do >is apply the equations. If you do that in the >above scenario the signal arrives earlier because >of gravity and earlier because of the shadowing >when on the far side of the planet and ealier >because of the reflected light on this side. Three >earlies don't make a late. George, no matter what the process, the final velocity will be the same as the initial one. However D/(c+v) + D/(c-v) = 2Dc/(c^2-v^2).....so the time taken is always greater than D/c. >>>Anyway there is no point in wittering about "forces >>>unknown", we are talking science so we are talking >>>about nothing more than what ballistic theory predicts. >>>It says the light will arrive early when in fact it arrives >>>late and the suggestion of radiation pressure makes >>>the problem worse, it isn't a solution. >> >> George, radar to Venus takes longer when he planet is aligned between us >> and >> the sun than when it is in the opposite side. That is perfectly consistent >> with >> my theory of 'solar wind'...which includes factors as yet unknown. > >Forget the wind nonsense, it only makes matters worse. >You are saying nothing more than the Shapiro delay >should be early as a result of ballistic but it is late >because of "factors as yet unknown". That means ballistic >theory is wrong and you hope you can cover it up with >something else. George, you obviously don't understand how progress is made in Physics. Any 'unknown' requires an investigation and explanation.. I have identified one such phenomenon...one that has never been observed before because of the Einstein debacle. >> It doesnt have to be edge on. >> ALL possible orbits can be rotated around an axis perpendicular to the LOS >> to >> make them edge on...in which case ALL the velocites and accelerations >> around >> the whole orbit are multiplied by the same factor sec(pitch) > >The point is that we don't detect the Shapiro delay >for whatever reason so you have no orbital phase >reference with which to distinguish VDoppler from >ADoppler so you cannot prove anything either way >using that system. hahaha! George, you don't seem to understand what a 'simulation' is....very strange for any modern engineer.... >George > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 31 Aug 2007 19:15 On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:37:51 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:2nied3p1ash6ohj5uesptae3nehoef73mp(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:09:45 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>"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... >... >>>>>> 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. >> >> Equations must always be preceded by concepts George. > >Not in science, only if you are a philosopher. >In science equations start as empirical from >observation and the concept is developed to >fit the equations. In Ritz's case he started >with the MMx and suggested an equation to fit >which was subsequently falsified by Sagnac. >There is no concept involved since you cannot >explain his model in wave terms - there is no >way to convert his postulate into a second >order differential - and he wasn't suggesting >a particulate model AFAIK. George, the BaTh was supposedly disproved by De Sitter, not Sagnac.....who certainly knew nothing about ring gyros. The four mirror apparatus does not disprove the BaTh since the assumption that light reflects from moving mirrors at both incident speed and angle are wrong for reasons that I have given. >George > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 31 Aug 2007 19:18
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:27:59 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >Eric Gisse wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:06:13 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >>>Eric Gisse wrote: >>>>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:15:24 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>A type 1a supernova is a neutron star that has accreted enough >>>>hydrogen to initiate fusion on the outer surface. Basically, its a >>>>huge bomb. >>> >>>You have a source for that? Because everything I have read says >>>neutron stars are the end result of a supernova, not the >>>precursor to one, and that they are cold; their surfaces are cold >>>enough to be solid. Fusion on the surface is highly improbable. >> >> Yes, neutron stars are the end of a star but that doesn't mean they >> are dead objects. They are most definitely not cold > >Yes, I got that wrong. That'll learn me to write before checking >my facts. > >> [though their >> temperature has little bearing on a 1a supernova to my knowledge] >> unless your basis of comparison is the Fermi temperature. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova >> >> The Wiki article is pretty good. But the basic idea is that a neutron >> star is in close orbit with a star that still has a Hydrogen envelope >> somewhere. Star gets a shade close [within the Roche lobe] and starts >> getting torn apart. The neutron star starts accreting mass off the >> parent star, and eventually goes boom due to a runaway fusion reaction >> on the surface. > >Nowhere does that article say that neutron stars go boom. You >are confusing neutron stars and white dwarfs. They are different >beasties entirely. You will soon realise that geesey is totally confused about most things.. it is a waste time reading his puerile messages. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell. |