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: Henri Wilson on 23 Jun 2005 08:25 On 20 Jun 2005 20:28:28 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >bz wrote: >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: >> > 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." > >Full article available here: >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1914CMWCI..92....1S&db_key=AST > >Henri, there is no excuse for you not to read this one! I did...and I'm not impressed. He was obviously a relativist who believed that all starlight travels at c to little planet Earth. The is nothing in ithe paper that suggests I am wrong. The fact that brightness variation occurs at a very constant rate, varying only slightly over many years, agrees with the BaT's time compression concept. I would say tat a cepheid is a largeish star around which a neutron star or other WCH is orbiting quite rapidly. Note: a neutron star would not create a noticeable eclipse. The pair are themselves in orbit around another large mass, a process that can make the period of the binary appear considerably shorter than it really is. > >Jerry 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 08:31 On 20 Jun 2005 21:28:05 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Jerry wrote: >> bz wrote: > >> > 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." >> >> Full article available here: >> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1914CMWCI..92....1S&db_key=AST >> >> Henri, there is no excuse for you not to read this one! > >Henri, you keep claiming that the period of Cepheid variables >is absolutely consistent. But even in 1914, anomalous timing >variations were observed in Cepheid behavior that were >inconsistent with the hypothesis that they are double stars. > >To quote Shapely: "Further observations of SW Andromadae, made >since the last report, have confirmed the previous results, >showing that the time of the rise to maximum light varies >from the mean predicted time by ten or fifteen minutes within >the short interval of two or three days, but evidently without >exhibiting regular periodicity....If the observed oscillations >were definitely periodic, it would perhaps be possible to >attribute them in some kind of a binary system to orbital >changes, such as the rotation of the line of apsides. But the >sudden and unpredictable changes in the light-variation, very >likely accompanied by analogous oscillations in the velocity- >curve, introduce another difficulty into the binary system >theory." It probably involves a ternary system. > >Jerry 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 08:32 On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:12:27 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote: >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. a REALLY long holiday would be ideal. > >>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. 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 08:41 On 20 Jun 2005 18:56:36 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:21:23 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: > >> >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.... > >Natural consequence of constructive interference at reflected angle >equal to incident angle, as the waves are coherently re-radiated. >Basic physics 101. Classical wave theory. > >> >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. > >NO. Don't you know anything about the solar wind? which solar wind? Our sun is not spinning around a neutron star every five days. > >> >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. > >Wrong. You are speculating. > >> >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... > >Every time you are confronted with data that BaT can't explain, >you claim that physics doesn't have the answer. In reality, >it is only YOU that haven't the foggiest notion. > >> I think all interference, scattering, refraction etc effects are still >> explained only by classssical wave theory. > >Then you should know why reflected angle equals incident angle. In classical wave terms, yes. > >> >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. > >No. It showed that classical notions of the aether >were false. That is not failure. > >> That's an SR postulate, not a fact. > >Constancy of c is an experimental observation, not an >arbitrary postulate. You know OWLS has never been measured..so why do you claim it has. This repetitive behavior of SRians really lowers their credibility. > >> >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. > >Why do atomic clocks in different orbits require different corrections >for GR effects? Free fall is free fall. Figures please. Anyway, different orbits mean different speeds throught the Earth's fields. > >The cesium atoms in a cesium beam clock on the earth are in free fall. >They are free of gravitational stress. > >The cesium atoms in a fountain clock are in free fall. > >The rubidium atoms in a rubidium glass cell are NOT in free fall. >Yet they behave require exactly the same corrections as a cesium >beam clock when liften into orbit. > >Your "logical consequence" is totally illogical. > >> How do YOU account for the fact that similar clocks in any free fall show the >> same degree of rate change? > >They do not. Compare GPS with GLONASS. Compare with cesium atoms >in free fall in a fountain clock. They may be in the same free fall ..but are they cutting the Earth's fields at the same speed? > >Jerry 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: Jerry on 23 Jun 2005 08:44
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 20 Jun 2005 20:28:28 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >bz wrote: > >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >> news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: > >> > 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." > > > >Full article available here: > >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1914CMWCI..92....1S&db_key=AST > > > >Henri, there is no excuse for you not to read this one! > > I did...and I'm not impressed. He was obviously a relativist who believed that > all starlight travels at c to little planet Earth. > The is nothing in ithe paper that suggests I am wrong. > > The fact that brightness variation occurs at a very constant rate, varying only > slightly over many years, agrees with the BaT's time compression concept. Irregularities appear in EVERY HYPOTHETICAL ORBIT. Model that! > I would say tat a cepheid is a largeish star around which a neutron star or > other WCH is orbiting quite rapidly. Note: a neutron star would not create a > noticeable eclipse. > The pair are themselves in orbit around another large mass, a process that can > make the period of the binary appear considerably shorter than it really is. Your curves appear similar in gross to Cepheid curves. They do NOT resemble Cepheid curves in DETAIL. How do you explain the random 0.03 magnitude fluctuations in the Polaris light curve? Your BaT theory requires epicycle upon epicycle... Jerry |