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: George Dishman on 14 Aug 2005 07:56 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ph6uf1hiq7p65j7csvrf7m72pnt0sk1k7t(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:00:10 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:ns2tf1pjaglv62e0l8lvde8oa23vcct4at(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:42:40 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > >>>>The data is not suspect, it is what it is, but >>>>derived values such as eccentricity would need >>>>to be recalculated if your alternative model >>>>might influence their values. >>> >>> eccentricity determines the basic shapes of the curves. >> >>Yes, that's why I mentioned it specifically. >>I wanted you to understnd that I'm not going >>to say you are wrong just because you come up >>with a different value for the eccentricity >>but I will say you are wrong if, for example, >>the eccentricity derived from the spectroscopic >>data does not match the value obtained from >>the light curve when both are found using the >>Ritzian model. > > I would certainly like to compare an observed brightness curve with > radial > velocity. > The only decent one I have is that of RT Aurigae. ..and there is a big > problem. > > http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html > > Its radial velocity curve is exactly that of a star orbiting with an > eccentricity of about 2.5-3. > The authors claim that the cepheid actually expands and contracts in > exactly > the same manner. That is not impossible...but highly unlikely, in my mind. > I can also produce exactly the right shaped brightness curve, with the > same > eccentricity. > The problem lies in the fact that the phase difference I predict is not > the > same as the ones the authors claim. > However they seem to have gone to some trouble to make the velocity curve > match > what they thought should be correct. They admit the velocity curve is > vaguely > determined. > I say it is plain wrong. > > If you can refer me to other data like this I would be grateful. I'm afraid I can't but you might get someone in sci.astro.research to give you a pointer to some data. Don't try arguing your ideas there though, it's moderated but a request for information will be fine. >>> So does yaw angle. (my definintion: the angle between major axis and >>> LOS). >>> >>> The main information I require is the phase relationships between radial >>> velocity and brightness variation. That is not easy to get. I have it >>> for >>> RT >>> Aur, nothing else. >> >>OK, I understand your problem but your >>distance for RT Aur was wrong so perhaps >>you need to recalculate the eccentricity >>etc. using the correct distance. > > I am not concerned with distance for various reasons. Until you do, you cannot claim a match. > What is it? IIRC about 600 light years instead of your 120 but I got it from the Hipparcos catalogue. >>> There are currently about ten threads here telling you why sagnac >>> falsifies SR. >> >>The world is full of idiots. I guess they are >>in s.p.r, I'm only reading sci.astro. I'm glad >>you know better. > > I don't read sci.astro now...but I probably should. There's a lot of cranks here too. >>It says nothing until you correct the distance, >>but even a perfect match is irrelevant since >>the simple Ritzian model is ruled out by Sagnac, >>you need a better version that satisfies both. > > George, I am not interested in what happens in the lab or near a large > mass. > I am only interested in what happns to light that is emitted at c wrt its > source and which subsequently travels through almost empty space. Light emitted from the photosphere of a star is definitely "near a large mass", more so than in a lab on Earth ! George
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 14 Aug 2005 11:47 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:lg5uf1l6vo8cupmt8gtd67en14je3gpvau(a)4ax.com... | On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 03:12:01 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | | > | >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message | >news:k72tf1pggn8hf8slp76ho8vahit0c3j256(a)4ax.com... | >| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:52:36 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> | >wrote: | | >| > | >| >What mistake? You think Kepler's equation is a mistake? | >| | >| No that one. | >| | >| >You think my ellipse centred on zero is a mistake? | >| | >| nor that | >| | >| >You think my 1,000,000 points to your pathetic 70,000 is a mistake? | >| | >| I can use 1000000000000 if I want to...but 20000 is usually plenty. | >| | >| >You think my finding V1493 Aql that you can't do is a mistake? | >| | >| I can do it easily. | >| | >| >You think my 0.9999 eccentricity that you can't do is a mistake? | >| | >| I can do it easily. ...but I don't particularly want to. ...no stars | >are in | >| that kind of orbit. | >| | >| >You've got a strange idea of what a mistake is. | >| > | >| >What I'd like to know, though, is why a Wilson Can't Hack thinks he | >| >needs a star that isn't in a tiny orbit at the focus of a 1/2 spiral? | >| | >| The mistake I refer to is the one where you tried to simulate SHM with | >a | >| computer program that didn't use very small increments and didn't | >allow for the | >| fact that the force reversed direction at the origin. | >| That is why your curve 'overshot'. | >| | >| My ellipses don't. | > | >| >| >| X= -015.7757 Y= 018.5597 | >| >| >| X= -005.7256 Y= 031.9233 | >| >| >| X= 005.3521 Y= 040.9819 | > | >Care to print out dx/dt, dy/dt, "your ellipses don't"? | >Care to complete a full spiral, "your ellipses don't"? | >You've got a strange idea what a mistake is. | | For all practical purposes, the end error is far too small to affect the | outcome. That's why to get funny spikes, huh? Care to print out dx/dt, dy/dt? Care to complete a full spiral? Maybe you only want me to see pretty data. Never mind, I can see your spiral even if you can't. You've got a strange idea what a mistake is. | | The reason I produce only half an ellipse is that computers don't like running | into x/0. There is an arctan involved. I probably COULD devise a way around it | but it would amount to the same thing. | Newton's gravitation equation ensures that the curve is a proper ellipse. Think about this, H. You can't convince a relativist, you can't convince an astronomer and I'm your best chance you'll ever have. You can't convince me either, so I guess your theory is dead. | | >| >| | >| >| Henri produces beautiful and accurate ellipses. I sent you some | >more | >| >| coordinates. (The first were for e=0.25 not 0.5). Would you like to | >| >plot them. | >| >| I'll send the full 20000 if you wnat them. | >| > | >| > | >| >Send me Major axis 3.14159265/2 AU, eccentricity 0.99, 1,000,000 pts, | >| >centred on (0,0). | >| >If you can't I'll send them to you. | >| | >| I will send you a whole basic program that will produce ellipses with | >any | >| required eccentricity. It will also give you the velocity and velocity | >angles | >| for any number of equi-tempered points around the circumference. | >| | >| Who needs Kepler? | > | >I do. I need dx/dt = 0 at y= 0, dy/dt = 0 at x =0. | >Kepler gives me that. Wilson doesn't. | | Actually I give you: at y=0 dx/dt<0.00000001 * Vmax. That is good enough. | | I don't need values at the ends of minor axis but I do know that dy/dt ->0 | there. I looked at all the figures. I do, its called a sanity check. | | >You know where you can shove your whole basic program? | >Yeah, you guessed right. | | Do I detect a touch of jealousy? LOL! Yeah, sure. I'm really jealous. I wish I were as smart as you, YBM and moortel. You jealous of moortel, H? | .....You can't do it can you? | Keep trying. It has taken me about three years all up. I repeated mine on a spreadsheet in 3 hours. The tough part was =IF(I12=H2,1,0)+IF(I13=H2,1,0)+IF(I14=H2,1,0)+IF(I15=H2,1,0)+IF(I16=H2,1,0)+IF(I17=H2,1,0)+IF(I18=H2,1,0)+IF(I19=H2,1,0)+IF(I20=H2,1,0)+IF(I21=H2,1,0)=IF(I2=H2,1,0)+IF(I3=H2,1,0)+IF(I4=H2,1,0)+IF(I5=H2,1,0)+IF(I6=H2,1,0)+IF(I7=H2,1,0)+IF(I8=H2,1,0)+IF(I9=H2,1,0)+IF(I10=H2,1,0)+IF(I11=H2,1,0)=IF(I42=H2,1,0)+IF(I43=H2,1,0)+IF(I44=H2,1,0)+IF(I45=H2,1,0)+IF(I46=H2,1,0)+IF(I47=H2,1,0)+IF(I48=H2,1,0)+IF(I49=H2,1,0)+IF(I50=H2,1,0)+IF(I51=H2,1,0) =IF(I22=H2,1,0)+IF(I23=H2,1,0)+IF(I24=H2,1,0)+IF(I25=H2,1,0)+IF(I26=H2,1,0)+IF(I27=H2,1,0)+IF(I28=H2,1,0)+IF(I29=H2,1,0)+IF(I30=H2,1,0)+IF(I31=H2,1,0) Where I had to figure out the time index of the array, not easy on a spreadsheet. Jealous? | | >Who needs Wilson with his crackpot h-aether atoms in space, | >crackpot Lyraes going puff puff puff and his crackpot half-spirals? | >BaT is all yours, I don't wish to be associated with it. | | ...but it is the same theory as yours. Nah, I don't imagine crackpot h-aether atoms in space, crackpot Lyraes going puff puff puff or program crackpot half-spirals. | | > | >Androcles. | | | 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: Odysseus on 15 Aug 2005 03:44 George Dishman wrote: > [distance to RT Aurigae] > > IIRC about 600 light years instead of your 120 > but I got it from the Hipparcos catalogue. > The Hipparcos catalogue (under HIP 30827) gves a parallax of 2.09 mas, implying a distance of 478 parsecs or 1560 light-years. That range is at or beyond the limit for a useful parallax, even one measured by Hipparcos. With a reported standard error of 0.89 mas, the true distance could easily be anywhere from about two-thirds of that to double, although 600 LY seems on the low side. Googling for RT Aur's distance turns up numbers in the region of 400 pc. These are apparently based on the derivation of a distance modulus from the absolute magnitude, which in turn would have been calculated from the cepheid period-luminosity relation. At any rate a distance as small as 120 LY appears to be out of the question. -- Odysseus
From: Paul B. Andersen on 15 Aug 2005 15:25 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:18:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> >>>Secondly, the fact that the typical curve sha[es can be produced is suficient >>>reason to accept that most variable star curves are a direct consequence of >>>c+v. >> >>In other words, it doesn't matter that the predictions of >>the ballistic theory are wrong for a concrete binary with >>measured data, if Henri can dream up (in most cases physically >>impossible) data for a fantasy binary that will make the ballistic >>theory produce the observed light curve. >> >>Henry can infer what the parameters of the binary must be >>from the light curve, and the inferred data are not suspect. >>How can they be wrong? > > > Is this the same Paul Andersen who doesn't know that Asin(xt) +Asin(xt+180) = > 0? > > >>So he is inferring that a cepheid really is orbiting >>a 100+ solar masses invisible star. >>(Not a black hole - they don't exist in Henri's world!) > > > This new category of star is called the WCH (Wilson, Cool, Heavy). > Pass it on.... Quite. If that's what it takes, such a star MUST exist. How can it not? Paul
From: George Dishman on 16 Aug 2005 07:43
"Odysseus" <odysseus1479-at(a)yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message news:430047F6.D6301B03(a)yahoo-dot.ca... > George Dishman wrote: >> > [distance to RT Aurigae] >> >> IIRC about 600 light years instead of your 120 >> but I got it from the Hipparcos catalogue. >> > > The Hipparcos catalogue (under HIP 30827) gves a parallax of 2.09 > mas, implying a distance of 478 parsecs or 1560 light-years. I lost a factor of 2. I can never remember if the baseline is 1AU or 2AU. That and some rounding explains my error. > That > range is at or beyond the limit for a useful parallax, even one > measured by Hipparcos. With a reported standard error of 0.89 mas, > the true distance could easily be anywhere from about two-thirds of > that to double, although 600 LY seems on the low side. I should have said "at least 1200 LY." > Googling for RT Aur's distance turns up numbers in the region of 400 > pc. These are apparently based on the derivation of a distance > modulus from the absolute magnitude, which in turn would have been > calculated from the cepheid period-luminosity relation. At any rate a > distance as small as 120 LY appears to be out of the question. Definitely. George |