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: Paul B. Andersen on 20 Aug 2005 10:20 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:12:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:49:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>Do you think neutron stars are formed 'instantatly'? >>>>> >>>>>You are the one who claims that there is about four times more dark matter in >>>>>the universe than hot stuff. >>>>>The WCH answers the questions. >>>>>It is small, cool and heavy....and named after H. Wilson, the discoverer. >>>>> >>>>>When it orbits a star, the star wobbles and emits light according to the BaT. >>>>>We see the effect in the form of a brightness variation. This can happen in a >>>>>few hours......Lyrae stars. >>>>> >>>>>Pulsars could be two WCHs in very close orbit. >>>>> >>>>>Androcles thinks all WCHs are just big planets....and that might be one way of >>>>>looking at them.....except that these are much, much more dense than ordinary >>>>>planets. >>>>> >>>>>Please don't try to publish this idea in your name Paul. There is evidence on >>>>>google. >>>> >>>>OK. I won't. :-) >>>> >>>>BTW, is your invisible WCH blue like a fairy or pink like an elephant? >>> >>> >>>For inclusion in your plagiarized paper, I hereby give permission for you to >>>state that they are pink with green spots. Some wear earings. >>> >> >>Quite. >>So we can conclude that the number of persons considering >>the WCHs to be a serious proposition is zero. > > > Anyone who can conclude that little planet Earth is the centre of the universe > as far as all starlight is concerned should be able to conclude just about > anything. I see. So you have come to the conclusion "that little planet Earth is the centre of the universe as far as all starlight is concerned", and think that you might as well believe in WCHs. You are living in Wonderland, aren't you? Paul
From: Odysseus on 20 Aug 2005 16:07 George Dishman wrote: > > "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > news:lls9g19ait8fpafhv5c75nh2v8uhjd1oqq(a)4ax.com... [distance to RT Aurigae] > > > > .....and there is obviously a great deal of uncertainty. > > The standard error was quoted in Odysseus' > post as 0.89 mas. > I understand a standard error of 0.89 mas given for a parallax of 2.09 mas to imply that there's a 68% chance that the true distance of RT Aurigae is between 1100 and 2700 light-years, assuming the error distribution to be symmetrical. So I think as far as this measurement is concerned "a great deal of uncertainty" is a fair assessment -- no more than one can expect from so small a parallax. However, the cepheid period-luminosity relation is capable of considerably more reliable estimates than this; I believe the expected error in distances calculated in this manner is less than 10%. Derived distances cited here and there fall in the 1300-1600 LY range (somewhat biased toward the lower side, tending to cluster around 1400 LY), so I think the uncertainty is very much less, in light of all the available information, than implied by the parallax alone -- especially considering that RT Aur is of the well-characterized 'classical' cepheid type. -- Odysseus
From: George Dishman on 20 Aug 2005 18:08 "Odysseus" <odysseus1479-at(a)yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message news:43078D73.12FF56D2(a)yahoo-dot.ca... > George Dishman wrote: >> >> "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> news:lls9g19ait8fpafhv5c75nh2v8uhjd1oqq(a)4ax.com... > > [distance to RT Aurigae] >> > >> > .....and there is obviously a great deal of uncertainty. >> >> The standard error was quoted in Odysseus' >> post as 0.89 mas. >> > > I understand a standard error of 0.89 mas given for a parallax of > 2.09 mas to imply that there's a 68% chance that the true distance of > RT Aurigae is between 1100 and 2700 light-years, assuming the error > distribution to be symmetrical. So I think as far as this measurement > is concerned "a great deal of uncertainty" is a fair assessment -- no > more than one can expect from so small a parallax. > > However, the cepheid period-luminosity relation is capable of > considerably more reliable estimates than this; I believe the > expected error in distances calculated in this manner is less than > 10%. Derived distances cited here and there fall in the 1300-1600 LY > range (somewhat biased toward the lower side, tending to cluster > around 1400 LY), so I think the uncertainty is very much less, in > light of all the available information, than implied by the parallax > alone -- especially considering that RT Aur is of the > well-characterized 'classical' cepheid type. I'm not sure if you are aware of the context. Henri is suggesting that RT Aur is not a cepheid but that it is part of a binary system with an unseen companion and that a Ritzian model for light propagation produces the light curve. To do that, he needs (IIRC, it was some time ago) a distance of about 120LY. A rough estimate without calculation would be an order greater than 2.09 mas (since that is circa 1200) so around 21 mas or about 20 standard deviations from the measured value. It may not be significant though because he can adjust various other parameters (e.g. eccentricity and inclination) so may be able to match any value. best regards George
From: Henri Wilson on 20 Aug 2005 19:37 On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:51:53 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ldmbg1t874e8te0aiodjthqhb4lre6hdlv(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:32:01 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>It is in deed. Now remember that axes are >>>orthogonal and draw a spacetime diagram and >>>you will see the consequence is what I said >>>above. >> >> The length will be the same irrespective of the speed. > >If you just repeat your preconceptions, you >won't learn and your arguments will always >be directed at irrelevant strawmen. Try doing >as I suggested. George, can you not get away from the idea that 'lengths' have to be measured to be LENGTHS. The length of space occupied by a rod does not change with speed. The proof is trivial...as I have pointed out many times. Human attempts to compare a rod's length at different speeds may produce conflicting results because of flaws in the measuring techniques. >>>Precisely, that is exactly what I am saying. >>> >>>> 'Lengths of space' and 'intervals of time' are natural phenomena. >>> >>>No they aren't, 'space' and 'time' or 'spacetime' >>>is the natural phenomenon while 'Lengths of space' >>>and 'intervals of time' are numbers read off >>>rulers and clocks and those relate back to axes. >>>Change the orientation of the axes and you change >>>only the measurement, not the underlying reality. >> >> ..but George, a 'length of space' can be specified very easily without >> being >> measured. > >No, a region of space can be defined but the >length of that region is a measurement. OK, call it a region of space if you want to include more than one spatial dimension.. > >> Just take a piece of wood......that defines a length of space. >> >> It doesn't need a number to be a 'length of space'.. > >Yes it does, otherwise it is just "some space". Like an orbit is just 'some time'. That's all it has to be for my experiment. The 'some' part is constant. > >> A rigid rod defines a 'fixed length of space'. >> An orbit defines a 'fixed length of time'. > >Same problem Henri, you are just repeating >preconception that are untrue in GR. Use >those asumptions in your proof and it is >invalid. George, GR doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. > >>>> We humans >>>> try to devise accurate methods of comparing different lenths and times. >>>> We >>>> have >>>> been very successful...but by no means perfect. >>>> >>>> The fact that 'an orbit' - which obviously can have only ONE time >>>> duration - >>> >>>That 'an orbit' can have only one time duration is >>>an assumption that conflicts with GR and that is the >>>one and only flaw in your so-called proof. >> >> George, it is my intention to conflict with GR. > >My mistake, I thought you were trying to prove >it wrong. If all you are doing is say you don't >like it, I think we have all got that message. I don't even want to consider any stupid theory that goes to ridiculous lengths to distort space in order to make light speed constant as it falss down a gravity well. > >>>Find a way >>>to either prove that assumption or adjust your proof >>>to remove it and you would succeed. If you are forced >>>to include it as an assumption then you fail. >> >> George, when are you going to accept that observer behavior cannot affect >> the >> observed? > >When are you going to start litening to what I >say instead of inventing alternatives? Look >back through this post and see if you can find >why I say that. You are repeating over and over that the orbit duration depends on who measures it. I am trying to convince you that no matter what figure you out n the orbit duration, it will n ot change due to clock movement. Define the orbit duration as 1, 100, 1000 or 1000000 'time units' and that value will not change due to any observer activity. > >> The orbit is the same duration no matter who looks at it. It isn't going >> to >> change just because an observer happens to fire his rocket engine. >> >>>> can be measured to have MORE than ONE duration, is evidence that our >>>> measuring >>>> techniques are faulty. >>>> The same applies to rods. A rod has ONE length. It will not change no >>>> matter >>>> how it is moved. Different measured lengths signify inaccurate methods. >>> >>>Different components for x and y only signifies >>>what you said before, that direction in space >>>is not absolute. The same applies to z, y, z, t >>>components in the spacetime of GR. >> >> 't' doesn't have a spatial direction. > >Inventing more things for me to say Henri? >At no time did I suggest 't' was spatial. The 't' in GR is actually 'ct' (c=1) which has the dimensions of length. It is a length described in terms of the time light takes to travel that length if moving at c. It is NOT spacetime. It is spacespace. > >George > 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 20 Aug 2005 19:39
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:20:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:12:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>So we can conclude that the number of persons considering >>>the WCHs to be a serious proposition is zero. >> >> >> Anyone who can conclude that little planet Earth is the centre of the universe >> as far as all starlight is concerned should be able to conclude just about >> anything. > >I see. >So you have come to the conclusion "that little planet Earth is >the centre of the universe as far as all starlight is concerned", >and think that you might as well believe in WCHs. > >You are living in Wonderland, aren't you? Message ignored. Andersen obviously drunk again! > >Paul > 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. |