OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: bz on 21 Jun 2005 10:37 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:1moeb1ds0oodcit7ijs0tbe4me4rhq8m4t(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:21:23 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:6n0cb1loqahm4seaqa173k39vt7l1s9hqr(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>> Besides we are discussing the ballistics of an elastic ball bouncing >>>>> from a moving wall. >>>> >>>>We are? I dont see any elastic ball bouncing from a moving wall >>>>above.. >>> >>> That is how light behaves according to the BaT. >>> A ball traveling at v wrt the ground and approaching a wall moving at >>> -u, also wrt the ground, strikes the wall at v+u wrt the wall. It >>> rebounds at -(v+u) wrt the wall...which is -(v+2u) wrt the ground. >> >>As I understand it, photons don't really 'bounce' from a surface. >> >>They are absorbed and re-emitted. That would result in the emitted >>photons losing velocity (but perhaps gaining energy) when they 'bounce' >>from a moving surface. > > Strange how they are re-emitted at exactly the incident angle, don't you > think.... It would be much stranger if they weren't. ..... >>If sub/super luminal photons can be created in the atmosphere of a star >>and travel through the vacuum of space, they can be created in a >>particle accelerator and travel through the vacuum of the lab or by >>bouncing light off of a moving front surface mirror and travel through >>the air in the lab. >> >>If the air in the lab is too dense to allow the photons to move at >>super/sub luminal velocity, the atmosphere of the star must be much more >>likely to kill such photons. > > But the star atmosphere itself is moving at v wrt Earth. Yes, but next paragraph kills that objection. >>Any Henri Cepheid stars are going to leave behind them a dense ring of >>stellar gasses and THOSE gasses are going to cause a rapid extinction of >>any photons that pass through them. Those gasses are NOT going to be >>moving at the radial velocity of the visible star. > > Yes they are...most of it anyway. "Most of it" is going to average to 'zero velocity' wrt the barycenter involved because the stellar winds are going in all directions and will average out to zero. >>Like our solar wind, they are >>going to be going all directions from the visible star at speeds >>exceeding the stellar escape velocity. Photons going through the stellar >>winds are going to be speeded up and slowed down. This would produce >>both faster and slower than BaT predicted photons. > > This is unknown territory. > We can only speculate about the way photons change speed in turbulent > gases like these. It is an important topic..but first things first... These are first things. If they prevent BaT from ever being observed then there might as well not be a BaT [if there is a BaT it doesn't matter]. >>>>> If you know what actually PHYSICALLY happens when a laser beam >>>>> bounces off a moving atom, then your experiment might mean >>>>> something. >>>> >>>>Scattering from particles is pretty well documented and understood. >>> >>> using classical wave theory? >> >>What does THAT question have to do with anything? > > I think all interference, scattering, refraction etc effects are still > explained only by classssical wave theory. In which case BaT should be easy to demonstrate in the lab. Classical wave theory doesn't even give you any excuse for it not working. ..... >>> The MMX failed because light speed is souce dependent. >> >>Try rowing up river and back to starting point >>Row down river and back to starting point. > >>do this with a stationary starting point. > >>do this with a moving starting point. > > The usual question is what happens when you row ACROSS the river and > back again. MMX has one beam going up-river/down-river and the other beam going across the river. >>MMX falsified the theory that there is an absolute aether. >> >>MMX did NOT fail. It failed to show what they thought it would show, but >>it did not fail. > > No. It failed, and it FAILED. Science is built upon those kinds of failures. >>>>>>A property of space or a property of light. I vote for a property of >>>>>>light. >>>>> >>>>> Light, when emitted, doesn't know its ultimate target. >>>>> >>>>> So how could it adjust its speed to c wrt little planet Earth. >>>> >>>>Light doesn't NEED adjust its speed, it obeys the speed limit. >>> >>> relative to what? >> >>everything it interacts with. > > That's an SR postulate, not a fact. The postulate was based on data available pre postulate. Tests run post postulate have failed to invalidate the postulate. That is a fact. >>> speed must be specified relative to something. >> >>>>Its speed is a property of the photon- >>>>It is also a property of the interaction- >>>> between the emitter and the photon- >>>> between the photon and the absorber. >> >>Speed is c relative to the emitter. >>Speed is c relative to the absorber. > > That's an SR postulate, not a fact. The postulate was based on data available pre postulate. Tests run post postulate have failed to invalidate the postulate. That is a fact. ...... >>>>Its speed is a property of the photon- >>>>It is also a property of the interaction- >>>> between the emitter and the photon- >>>> between the photon and the absorber. >> >>The absorber does not need to exists when the emission takes place. > > How can it be moving at c wrt an absorber that doesn't even exist? > That's plain stupid. Anytime anyone anywhere measures its velocity they will measure c, according to SR. >>>>I didn't say absolutely synchd. >>> >>> SR says separated clocks cannot be synched except with the E-synch >>> method. >> >>There is a reason for that. >> >>> However, there is a simple way to absolutely synch clocks. >>> >>> Cm->v >>> _______C1____C2____C3____C4____C5 >>> >>> Move clocks Cm at constant speed along a line of equally separated >>> clocks. As it passes each one, adjust its time to that of the moving >>> clock. >> >>And how does that contradicts Einstein? >> >>There is a minor problem. It is that the moving clock is RUNNING at a >>different rate than the set of fixed clocks. > > It isn't. It's rate doesn't change with movement. But is does as seen from another FoR, according to SR. So, it is running at a different rate from the series of fixed clocks as seen from THEIR FoR. >>>>> very. >>>>> They have to be presynched, then set in motion. >>>>> We know that giving a clock a bit of a push doesn't change its >>>>> 'absolute' rate, don't we? I have proved that many times. >>>> >>>>Henri, you can't PROVE anything in science. You can predict, you can >>>>collect data that supports, you can invalidate. >>> >>> A rod cannot physically shrink and lengthen simultaneously. I take >>> that as an absoute truism. >> >>Depends on your favorite theory. Yours is BaT which is a subset of LET. >>LET believers think the rod physically shrinks. > > Come on Bob, don't be ridiculous. BaT "believes in a Local Ether" that is around the emitter. Every photon emitted moves at c wrt that local ether. That conclusion is as justified as your continual insistance that SR is an LET. If my statement is ridiculous, so are yours. >>>>You can't prove. You keep thinking you have proven things. That shows >>>>you have faith in your religion. It shows you are NOT practicing >>>>science. >>> >>> Can a rod physically lengthen and shrink simultaneously, as SR claims? >>> One would certainly need a lot of faith to maintain such a belief. >> >>SR doesn't claim it shrinks, LET makes that claim. >>You like LET. > > I don't like aether theories at all....but they might work locally. > For instance, does a large lump of glass constitute a 'local reference > frame' for all light inside it? > > Probably yes. Local Frame of Reference .NotEqual. Local Ether Theory. >>SR says it appears to shrink. > > ....but SR also says it appears to lengthen in the frames of all > observers who were initially moving in the direction of the push. > > ...so it doesn't really do either, does it.. It doesn't change, if you look at it from its FoR. If you look from another FoR, it appears to change. It is not an optical illusion. Your test equipment confirms your measurments. >>>>> Just ask yourself the question again. >>>>> If a clock is given a push, does it physically speed up or slow >>>>> down. >>>> >>>>Henri, if you are honest with yourself you will say that you have >>>>absolutely no idea what will happen because you have not personally >>>>performed the experiment. [since you don't like the data that others >>>>have gathered] >>> >>> See. You cannot answer. >> >>I answered several times. > > You gave the wrong answer. Just because you don't like my answers does not mean I have not answered. ..... >>> Atomic clocks speed up when in free fall because they are manmade and >>> not perfect. >> >>Not sufficent explanation. The change in speed is not due to an >>imperfection. Imperfections can be compensated for. >> >>How do you compensate for the fact that atomic clocks based on different >>oscillator frequencies show the SAME shift in speed? > > That is a logical consequence of release from internal gravitational > stresses. It is entirely illogical. You can explain identical clocks acting the same way, but you can not explain different types of clocks acting the same way unless you are acting on faith. basic physics, material science, different materials react to stress differently. Strain is distributed differently. When the stress is removed, the strain will cause different kinds of changes in dimensions. Clocks based on different priciples of operation would be effected differently. For example: Temperature effects the size of materials. Mechanical clocks can either gain time, or lose time as their temperature goes up. Not all clocks gain the same amount of time when the temperature is changed. The same thing would be true for gravity IF stresses due to gravity were the cause of the change in clock speed. It is NOT. > How do YOU account for the fact that similar clocks in any free fall > show the same degree of rate change? Not only similar clocks, ANY clocks. Clocks based on entirely different principles ALL show the same degree of rate change. The same change as predicted by SR/GR. This is NOT due to physical changes in the clocks mechanism. This is due to different rates of time as seen from outside the FoR of the clock. If you were in orbit WITH the clock, it would seem to be running correctly [and it is]. >>> Do you ever see figures for clocks in other orbits? >>> No of course you don't!.... Why??? Because they don't suport GR of >>> course. The establishment doesn't want to know about that. >>> >>>>> >>>>> LET equations are identical to those of SR. If anything supports SR >>>>> it also support LET. >>>> >>>>LET is untestable and has a major problem. >>>>How 'local' is the 'local' in an LET? >>>>How do you explain the 'local aether' moving along with one set of >>>>moving objects [an observer, a light source, test equipment] that >>>>passes very close to another inertial set moving in a different >>>>direction? >>>> >>>>Imagine 4 sets of train tracks >>>> >>>>1 [observer a & test equipment a] ===> >>>>2 [observer b & test equipment b] <=== >>>>3 [source a] ===> >>>>4 [source b] <=== >>>> >>>>1 & 3 move at same velocity >>>>2 & 4 move at same velocity >>>> >>>>How can the aeither from track 1 carry over to track 3 and the aether >>>>from track 2 carry to track 4 without mixing aethers? >>>> >>>>It is easy for Einsteinians to consider 1&3 part of the same inertial >>>>frame and to consider 2&4 part of another inertial frame. >>>> >>>>But LET kind of falls into pieces in such a case. >>> >>> No it doesn't. It merely says both light rays travel at the one speed >>> wrt the absolute aether frame and the measuring rods and clocks of the >>> moving observers change so that the speed of the light is always >>> measured as being c. >> >>Absolute aether has been invalidated by MMX and hundreds of other >>experiments. You can have an LET [if you can explane how it can span >>discontinuous FoRs], but not an absolute aether. > > I don't want one. I don't believe in an absolute aether. I don't accept > LET although I believe its principles MIGHT apply to local situations. How can you apply an LET to discontinuous FoRs? >>> As far as I can see, all so-called 'evidence' for SR seems to support >>> the 'local aether' principle. >> >>SR does away with the need for a local aether. It doesn't make it >>impossible for one to exist. >> >>Why carry a crutch you don't need? > > SR DOES need the aether. only HWSR needs an aether. [Henri Wilson SR]. Einsteins SR has no such need. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Craig Markwardt on 21 Jun 2005 11:14 H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > On 16 Jun 2005 09:18:27 -0500, Craig Markwardt > <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > >... snip ... > >> Emitted starlight does NOT travel at c wrt little planet Earth. How could it? > > > >It could if relativity were correct. In fact, it is well know that > >the light from stars travels at the speed c with respect to the earth, > >to within very narrow uncertainties. Earthbound interferometers such > >as the VLT Interferometer would not work properly if this were not > >true (and they do work properly). Radio VLBI observations of planets, > >spacecraft, stars and distant galaxies would not work properly if the > >speed of light were not c (and they do work properly). > > You are forgetting that light speed is unified by the Earth's atmosphere. Since the atmosphere has little to do with the fundamental principles of optical and radio interferometry, your comment is irrelevant. In fact, interferometry has been successfully performed *outside* the earth's atmosphere (Space VLBI, using the VSOP satellite), where your so-called "unification" is irrelevant. And finally, let's not forget that there are no known properties of the earth's atmosphere which could "unify" the speed of light. > >Thus the > >proper statement is, emitted starlight *does* appear to travel at c > >w.r.t. Earth. Your statement belies an obvious misunderstanding of > >Relativity. In it, light *must* travel at the same speed with respect > >to all frames. > > That is an unproven postulate, nothing more. Hardly. There have been many attempts to test the constancy of the speed of light. To cite a few, Schaefer, B. 1999, PRL, 82, 4964 (constancy of c with frequency) Will, C. 2001, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 4 (LLI tests in sec 2.1) http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-4 Wolf, P. & Gerrard, P. 1997, PRA, 56, 4405 (isotropicity of c) > >> It is quite ludicrous to think that light from a star emitted at one point in > >> its orbit should travel at the same speed towards little planet Earth as light > >> emitted half an orbit later. > >> Emitted light has only one speed reference AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T LITTLE PLANET > >> EARTH. > > > >That is one (refuted) possibility. Another possibility is that light > >travels at the same speed with respect to all measurers. By your > >logic, it would be ludicrous for binary pulsars to emit radiation at > >the same speed w.r.t. earth at the different positions in its orbit, > >and yet... it does! To very high precision. Nature does not exist to > >satisfy your intuition or sense of ludocrity. > > Then why do most variable stars brightness curves exactly match The BaT > predictions based on their light traveling at c+v, at least for a significant > part of the way? While your "theory" might be sufficient to explain single-band optical light curves, your "theory" also makes other predictions that can be falsified. For example, it predicts that "variable" stars are really in binary orbits, and would have binary orbital Doppler shifts, which they do *not*. In your theory, binary pulsars would emit radio pulses at different speeds w.r.t. earth at different parts of their orbits; this is clearly not the case (c.f. high precision pulsar timing, van Straten et al. Nature, 412, 158; http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108254). In your theory, ground- and space-based interferometry could not function, and yet it does. Thus, whether or not your theory "explains" variable star light curves, is quite irrelevant, since it is negated by other observations. Even for the variable stars that you claim to be able to explain, you ignore the fact that the light curves change with wavelength (ex. Cepheid, Mira and RR Lyrae variables). Since your model constructs an entirely geometric explanation for the propagation of light, it does not admit chromatic effects, and thus it is irrelevant. Finally, it is worth pointing out that variable star light curves can be successfully explained by other effects, *not* your ballastic model (eg. temperature dependent opacity effects). Thus, we are in a situation where we do not need your ballastic model for variable star light curves, and your ballastic model is excluded for other reasons. CM
From: David Evens on 21 Jun 2005 22:12 On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:48:08 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:36:58 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> >wrote: >>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:33:11 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:06:29 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> >>>wrote: >>>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:17:48 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>>>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >>>>> >>>>>Eclipsing binaries are a separate entity. >>>>> >>>>>Don't lie about me again please Ghost. >>>> >>>>seo you claim that your previous claims that Cepheids are >>>>multi-stellar objects, which contain elements that are never >>>>observered to occur in isolation, were never made. >>> >>>that sentence contains too many negatives for me to understand. >> >>Of course such a simple sentence is beyond your understanding. It >>demonstrates you to be stupidly wrong. >> > >That fellow Aristotle wants to go for a holiday with you, David. I see that you still pretend to be stupid enough to not understand my explanation of your previous pretense at not understanding. >HW. >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jun 2005 07:19 On 21 Jun 2005 10:14:39 -0500, Craig Markwardt <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > >> On 16 Jun 2005 09:18:27 -0500, Craig Markwardt >> <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: >> >> > >> >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: >> >... snip ... >> >> Emitted starlight does NOT travel at c wrt little planet Earth. How could it? >> > >> >It could if relativity were correct. In fact, it is well know that >> >the light from stars travels at the speed c with respect to the earth, >> >to within very narrow uncertainties. Earthbound interferometers such >> >as the VLT Interferometer would not work properly if this were not >> >true (and they do work properly). Radio VLBI observations of planets, >> >spacecraft, stars and distant galaxies would not work properly if the >> >speed of light were not c (and they do work properly). >> >> You are forgetting that light speed is unified by the Earth's atmosphere. > >Since the atmosphere has little to do with the fundamental principles >of optical and radio interferometry, your comment is irrelevant. In >fact, interferometry has been successfully performed *outside* the >earth's atmosphere (Space VLBI, using the VSOP satellite), where your >so-called "unification" is irrelevant. And finally, let's not forget >that there are no known properties of the earth's atmosphere which >could "unify" the speed of light. That's a strange thing to say. What do you understand by the term 'extinction'? > >> >Thus the >> >proper statement is, emitted starlight *does* appear to travel at c >> >w.r.t. Earth. Your statement belies an obvious misunderstanding of >> >Relativity. In it, light *must* travel at the same speed with respect >> >to all frames. >> >> That is an unproven postulate, nothing more. > >Hardly. There have been many attempts to test the constancy of the >speed of light. To cite a few, > > Schaefer, B. 1999, PRL, 82, 4964 (constancy of c with frequency) > > Will, C. 2001, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 4 (LLI tests in sec 2.1) > http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-4 > > Wolf, P. & Gerrard, P. 1997, PRA, 56, 4405 (isotropicity of c) These are all either TWLS experiments or OWLS isotropy experiments with all parts mutually at rest. In that latter case the BaT expects OWLS to be isotropic. No experiment has directly measured the speed of light from a moving source. Until recently, the means were not available to do so. >> >> It is quite ludicrous to think that light from a star emitted at one point in >> >> its orbit should travel at the same speed towards little planet Earth as light >> >> emitted half an orbit later. >> >> Emitted light has only one speed reference AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T LITTLE PLANET >> >> EARTH. >> > >> >That is one (refuted) possibility. Another possibility is that light >> >travels at the same speed with respect to all measurers. By your >> >logic, it would be ludicrous for binary pulsars to emit radiation at >> >the same speed w.r.t. earth at the different positions in its orbit, >> >and yet... it does! To very high precision. Nature does not exist to >> >satisfy your intuition or sense of ludocrity. >> >> Then why do most variable stars brightness curves exactly match The BaT >> predictions based on their light traveling at c+v, at least for a significant >> part of the way? > >While your "theory" might be sufficient to explain single-band optical >light curves, your "theory" also makes other predictions that can be >falsified. For example, it predicts that "variable" stars are really >in binary orbits, and would have binary orbital Doppler shifts, which >they do *not*. Many do...as predicted. >In your theory, binary pulsars would emit radio pulses >at different speeds w.r.t. earth at different parts of their orbits; >this is clearly not the case (c.f. high precision pulsar timing, van >Straten et al. Nature, 412, 158; http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108254). >In your theory, ground- and space-based interferometry could not >function, and yet it does. Thus, whether or not your theory "explains" >variable star light curves, is quite irrelevant, since it is negated by >other observations. Doppler shift according to the BaT is virtually the same as for NM and SR at observed speeds. There is no reason it should affect interferometry. Light speed doesn't change wavelength. It changes observed frequency at which 'wavecrests' arrive at the receiver. Even if it did, it would only mean that theories based on Einsteiniana are ill-conceived and probably wrong. The radial velocity curve of cepheid RT Aur is precisely that of a star in elliptical orbit, ecc=~0.25. Yet you will insist that it is a radially 'huff-puffing' star. > >Even for the variable stars that you claim to be able to explain, you >ignore the fact that the light curves change with wavelength >(ex. Cepheid, Mira and RR Lyrae variables). Since your model >constructs an entirely geometric explanation for the propagation of >light, it does not admit chromatic effects, and thus it is irrelevant. My predicted light curves refer to the energy form one particular star impinging on unit area at the receiver. They are expresed in terms of apparent brightness. I am presently incorporating a log scale...which doesn't markedly affect the curve shapes but DOES change the predicted distances at which things happen. > >Finally, it is worth pointing out that variable star light curves can >be successfully explained by other effects, *not* your ballastic model >(eg. temperature dependent opacity effects). Thus, we are in a >situation where we do not need your ballastic model for variable star >light curves, and your ballastic model is excluded for other reasons. Sorry, The BaT survives all known tests and is supported by a mass of evidence...from the MMX onwards. It also predicts almost all simple variable star light curves and is the ONLY theory that can reasonably explain the precise constancy of the periods of many of these oscillations. Do you really believe that a supposed 'choo-choo' star like delta Cep could maintain a period constant to withing seconds over tweny years if the process was NOT directly linked to its orbiot period? > >CM HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jun 2005 07:45
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:59:21 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: > >>>I have built such circuits and observed the curves myself. I think the >>>first time I saw such curves was on an Oscilliscope [heathkit] that I >>>build when I was 16. >> >> The RO curves are not the same as these. > >Henri, there are different kinds of relaxation oscillators with different >looking waveforms. I assure you that it is quite possible to produce any of >the cepheid wavforms with a relaxation oscillator using the proper circuit >elements. But why would we want to do that when we can produce the curves using the simple model of a star in elliptical orbit? ..Particularly when its brightness curve also matches that of a star in the same elliptical orbit. >>>>>It just so happens that the same unmistakeable curve is produced by >>>>>the acoustic waves / He+ <--> He+2 model. >>>> >>>> HoHohahhahah! Wherever did you read that? >>> >>>You have been given several references for that model. >> >> It isn't hard to concoct a theory when you know the answer you want. > >All theories start out trying to explain observed phenomia (the answer you >want to get). Your BaT as well as any others. > >Shapely in his 1914 paper "On the nature and cause of Cepheid variation." >explores various double star hypotheses available at the time and explains >why they must be rejected. One important point is that "various lines [in the >spectrum] show large irregular shifts, which are not progressive with the >phase of the star in its light-period." > >In other words, we are NOT seeing a doppler shift due to the motion of the >whole star, something is happening to the physical body of the star causing >different spectral lines (different elements) to show different shifts. >Different elements are moving inward and outward from the radiating surface >at different times during the cycle. That kind of process could occur completely independently. I have always accepted that many stars are genuinely varying 'intrinsically'. > >Of course, nothing was known or understood about how stars work at that time, >but some kind of pulsation of the star itself was found to be the most likely >cause of cepheid variation. Later, as fusion was understood and as the >characteristics of He+, He+2, and H+ absorbtion/radiation characteristics >became better known, the pulsation theory made even more sense. and NOW the BaT makes even MORE sense. > >> What about the HE and H "ionisation delays" they talk about? > >I have no idea what you are talking about at this moment. it's in the paper about RT Aur...speculating about the phase relationship between radial v and brightness. >>>> >>>> Very funny, Bob. >>> >>>My point is that it is easy to fit a curve. >>>It is easy to assign meanings to parameters. >>>It is much harder to establish that those assignments are correct. >> >> My program doesn't just find an equation that fits a curve. >> It produces a curve that fits an intricately constructed equation. > >No. Your program show the curve produced by an equation when the parameters >are adjusted manually until the curve 'looks right'. > >It is not like you fet in the parameters and got the right curve on the first >try. If I could get my hands on a few sets of parameters I could do it.... but they are hard to obtain. > >>>> RT Aur has the exact radial velocity curve of a star in elliptical >>>> orbit, e=~ 0.25. >>>> So do all other 'Cepheids'. >>> >>>No, Henri. Only two BaT stars of the proper masses, one of which is a >>>peculiar black hole that doesn't seem to be capturing mass from the >>>other star [if it were, there would be massive radiation of x and gamma >>>rays]. >> >> Speculation.. > >Phenomina observed around neutron stars and black holes. Not speculation. Lots of speculation. > >>>In short, your model depends on several things that have never been >>>observed. Several of those things have been looked for for over 100 >>>years and are still not observed. >> >> What? > >Subluminal photons, superluminal photons, evidence of BaT; an explanation of >cepheid varaiton based upon double stars. > >The data just doesn't support an orbit of any kind causing cepheid variation. > >Read Shapley's paper. > >>>Your curves look nice, Henri, but [not to throw you a curve] I suggest >>>you not place your FAITH in them unless you want to form your own >>>religion. >> >> SR is the religion. > >There may be some SR priests on usenet. >You certainly act like a BaT priest. > >I have no faith in either theory. That's a reasonable start. > >> It is based solely on the notion that the Earth is the centre of the >> universe. There is absolutely no justification for its existence. > >That is not a scientific statement. It is exaggeration. Once again, you show >your faith is strong. I cannot see the exaggeration. The only reason SR was supported was because it appeared to prop up the religious notion that the Earth was the centre of the universe. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |