Physics is dead!

Henri Wilson · science forum Guru Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 3381

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:27:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Paul B. Andersen · science forum Guru Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 814

Henri Wilson wrote:

Henri Wilson · science forum Guru Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 3381

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Paul B. Andersen · science forum Guru Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 814

Henri Wilson wrote:

Henri Wilson · science forum Guru Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 3381

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:41:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Paul B. Andersen · science forum Guru Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 814

Henri Wilson wrote:

Henri Wilson · science forum Guru Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 3381

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:21:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Eric Gisse · science forum Guru Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 1999

Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]

Sorcerer1 · science forum Guru Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 410

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:e8hah6$7t7$1@dolly.uninett.no...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:41:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| > <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
| >
| >> Henri Wilson wrote:
| >>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| >>> <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
| >
| >>> No Paul.
| >>>
| >>> The arguments of Paul Andersen are very amusing because HE cannot add
two sine
| >>> waves.
| >>>
| >>> Accept it Paul. You have made yet another blunder..
| >> So the BaTh doesn't predict that binaries should be variables
| >> because two similar sine waves that are 180 out of phase
| >> cancels each other?
| >
| > The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in
roughly
| > circular orbits.
| > The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness in
an
| > approximately sinusoidal manner. The two brigyhtness curves are 180 out
of
| > phase.
|
| The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in roughly
| circular orbits.
| The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness
| like this:
|
|| phase brightness
||
|| 0.0 1.22
|| 0.1 1.21
|| 0.17 1.97
|| 0.18 2.45
|| 0.19 5.90
|| 0.1913 60.00
|| 0.191310 infinite
|| 0.2 0.66
|| 0.3 0.64
|| 0.4 0.63
|| 0.5 0.62
|| 0.6 0.63
|| 0.7 0.64
|| 0.8 0.67
|| 0.808719 infinite
|| 0.8089 21.6
|| 0.809 11.80
|| 0.81 3.90
|| 0.9 1.34
|| 1.0 1.22
|
| "Approximately sinusoidal manner", Henri? Smile

|
| > I think even YOU could work out what the combined effect will be.
|
| I have.
| The combined effect is nothing like a straight line. Smile

| In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
| where the speed of light in vacuum is invariant.
|
| >> Hard to make up your mind, Henri? Smile

| I understand perfectly well why the BaTh predicts that
| binaries which are not variables, should be.
| Its wrong!
| Couldn't be simpler.
|
| Paul

In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
where the speed of light in vacuum is variant.
Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong,
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
Needless to say, Roberts is a shithead like you.
Androcles

Henri Wilson · science forum Guru Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 3381

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:49:56 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Sorcerer1 · science forum Guru Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 410

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:gikpa2d36liik22vcvp32gbf9skka889nl@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:49:56 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
| >news:e8hah6$7t7$1@dolly.uninett.no...
| >| Henri Wilson wrote:
| >| > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:41:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| >| > <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
| >| >
| >| >> Henri Wilson wrote:
| >| >>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:53:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| >| >>> <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
| >| >
| >| >>> No Paul.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> The arguments of Paul Andersen are very amusing because HE cannot
add
| >two sine
| >| >>> waves.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Accept it Paul. You have made yet another blunder..
| >| >> So the BaTh doesn't predict that binaries should be variables
| >| >> because two similar sine waves that are 180 out of phase
| >| >> cancels each other?
| >| >
| >| > The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in
| >roughly
| >| > circular orbits.
| >| > The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness
in
| >an
| >| > approximately sinusoidal manner. The two brigyhtness curves are 180
out
| >of
| >| > phase.
| >|
| >| The binary pair HD10875 consists of two similar stars that are in
roughly
| >| circular orbits.
| >| The BaTh predicts that each star would appear to vary in brightness
| >| like this:
| >|
| >|| phase brightness
| >||
| >|| 0.0 1.22
| >|| 0.1 1.21
| >|| 0.17 1.97
| >|| 0.18 2.45
| >|| 0.19 5.90
| >|| 0.1913 60.00
| >|| 0.191310 infinite
| >|| 0.2 0.66
| >|| 0.3 0.64
| >|| 0.4 0.63
| >|| 0.5 0.62
| >|| 0.6 0.63
| >|| 0.7 0.64
| >|| 0.8 0.67
| >|| 0.808719 infinite
| >|| 0.8089 21.6
| >|| 0.809 11.80
| >|| 0.81 3.90
| >|| 0.9 1.34
| >|| 1.0 1.22
| >|
| >| "Approximately sinusoidal manner", Henri? Smile

| >|
| >| > I think even YOU could work out what the combined effect will be.
| >|
| >| I have.
| >| The combined effect is nothing like a straight line. Smile

| >|
| >| >> Why do you then say that the BaTh predicts variable star
| >| >> brightness curves?
| >| >
| >| > Because it obviously DOES!!!!
| >|
| >| Exactly.
| >| It obviously predicts that just about all binaries
| >| should be variables.
| >| About half of all the stars are binaries.
| >| Few are variables.
| >|
| >| > ....and in case you aren't aware, all starlight in the universe is
NOT
| >| > specifically designed to travel to little planet Earth at precisely
c.
| >|
| >| Because Henri Wilson designed his Wonderland differently? Smile

| >| In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
| >| where the speed of light in vacuum is invariant.
| >|
| >| >> Hard to make up your mind, Henri? Smile

| >| >
| >| > Paul, I can understand that this is all a bit hard for you. However
you
| >could
| >| > at least make an effort instead of continually making a fool of
yourself
| >with
| >| > these stupid remaks.
| >|
| >| Hard for me? Smile

| >| I understand perfectly well why the BaTh predicts that
| >| binaries which are not variables, should be.
| >| Its wrong!
| >| Couldn't be simpler.
| >|
| >| Paul
| >
| >In case you are not aware, I live in the real world,
| >where the speed of light in vacuum is variant.
| >Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong,
| >"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
| >irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
| >Needless to say, Roberts is a shithead like you.
|
| ...but at least Roberts doesn't need fairies as well as blind faith......
|

Roberts says it, thus it is so, and he's part author of the Relativity
FAQs, sanctioned by Baez. If ever a statement gave total lack of
credibility to "modern" relativity, Roberts' statement above seals
down the coffin lid.
Spookfeed seems to be catching on, seems he took heed of my
page because now he's saying the time at the back end of a spacecraft
is different to the time at the front, as shown:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Of course he wants it to look like he thought of it first, kinda like you
really...
trouble is Wombat's Wedge-on Worbits have no credibility either.
As Douglas Rudd says:
"Androcles,
I've been looking at the controversies.
I've seen all of the stuff on your web pages. One thing that caught
my eye was learning that Einstein defined c as the two way speed of
light."

He's right, of course, and two-way isn't the speed of anything, so
Einstein's s**t falls at c = 2AB/(t'A-tA) = 0/0. You don't know
what negative numbers are, you think you have two noses 24 inches
apart between them because you looked in a mirror one foot away,
dont know how to count down, so you can't see the math blunder.
This is Henri's BaTh, not math or logic, and proof is completely irrelevant.
You did say you were a physicist for 45 years, right?

That prick of an assistant schoolmarm reckons about half of all stars
are binaries. He fucked up with the first ever "binary", Algol.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm#Tusselad

Androcles.

Henri Wilson · science forum Guru Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 3381

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:48:06 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Sorcerer1 · science forum Guru Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 410

Henri Wilson · science forum Guru Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 3381

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 06:54:32 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Sorcerer1 · science forum Guru Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 410

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:v3rta2p16mn65lflosbgt6l0m8o07q0jiu@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 06:54:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:hd5ra29tdr0lkrbjcqse4rdc254amu84pa@4ax.com...
| >| On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:48:06 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| ><Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| >| wrote:
|
| >| >Roberts says it, thus it is so, and he's part author of the Relativity
| >| >FAQs, sanctioned by Baez. If ever a statement gave total lack of
| >| > credibility to "modern" relativity, Roberts' statement above seals
| >| >down the coffin lid.
| >| >Spookfeed seems to be catching on, seems he took heed of my
| >| >page because now he's saying the time at the back end of a spacecraft
| >| >is different to the time at the front, as shown:
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
| >|
| >| What makes you think TIME is connected to the way we see things, using
| >light?
| >
| > What makes you think you can tell anyone what is wrong with SR if you
don't
| >understand it yourself? You don't even know what negative numbers are.
|
| You don't even know what a virtual image is....

Whether I do or don't has f*** all to do with relativity, this isn't
sci.physics.virtualimage.
I asked you a question.

What makes you think you can tell anyone what is wrong with SR if you don't
understand it yourself?

|
| >
| >
| >
| >| Both 'Time instant', and 'time flow' are universal.
| >
| >
| >Einstein defined time HIS way. It's a math game and the moron
| >said 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c. You, being innumerate, agree with him. <shrug>
| >What makes you think time is connected to the way we see things, using
| >light?
|
| He was correct .....but for entirely the wrong reasons.

You don't even know what a virtual face is, that's why you count two noses
and four eyes, you think they are real.

Did you know you are complete and total fucking lunatic?

|
| >| >Of course he wants it to look like he thought of it first, kinda like
| >you
| >| >really...
| >| > trouble is Wombat's Wedge-on Worbits have no credibility either.
| >| >As Douglas Rudd says:
| >| > "Androcles,
| >| > I've been looking at the controversies.
| >| >I've seen all of the stuff on your web pages. One thing that caught
| >| >my eye was learning that Einstein defined c as the two way speed of
| >| >light."
| >| >
| >| >He's right, of course, and two-way isn't the speed of anything, so
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
|

Google