FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Physics is dead!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 7 [98 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Author Message
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:31 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]

Quote:

You live in a dreamworld where the speeds of all the photons in the universe
are adjusted by the fairies so that they are moving at c towards all the good
christians on little planet Earth, the centre of the universe..

Naturally this is what you think physicists believe because you have no
idea what you are talking about.

Quote:


Hard to make up your mind, Henri? :-)

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.

You don't ahave the faintest idea how the BaTh operates.

Neither do you.

Quote:


Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:05 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

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

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



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

You have failed to include the all important unification factor.


Quote:
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

Sorry Paul, it is.....just a small ripple.

Quote:
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.

That is what one would expect. They are well away from the critical distance.
You must also include the all important unification factor.


Quote:
....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.

You live in a dreamworld where the speeds of all the photons in the universe
are adjusted by the fairies so that they are moving at c towards all the good
christians on little planet Earth, the centre of the universe..

Quote:

Hard to make up your mind, Henri? :-)

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.

You don't ahave the faintest idea how the BaTh operates.

Quote:

Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Paul B. Andersen
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 814

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
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? :-)

Quote:
I think even YOU could work out what the combined effect will be.

I have.
The combined effect is nothing like a straight line. :-)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
....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.

Quote:
Hard to make up your mind, Henri? :-)

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
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

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

Quote:
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.
I think even YOU could work out what the combined effect will be.


Quote:
Why do you then say that the BaTh predicts variable star
brightness curves?

Because it obviously DOES!!!!
.....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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Paul B. Andersen
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 814

PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

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

Henri Wilson wrote:
How come the BaTh predicts variable star brightness curves?
You mean how come the BaTh predicts that binaries
which are not variables should be variables?
Simple.
It is because the BaTh is wrong.
It is because SRians like you don't know how to add two similar sine waves that
are 180 out of phase.
Ask one of your 1st year students to show you, Paul.
So the predictions of the BaTh are wrong
because SRians can't add sine waves? :-)

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?
Why do you then say that the BaTh predicts variable star
brightness curves?

Hard to make up your mind, Henri? :-)

Paul
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

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

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
How come the BaTh predicts variable star brightness curves?

You mean how come the BaTh predicts that binaries
which are not variables should be variables?
Simple.
It is because the BaTh is wrong.

It is because SRians like you don't know how to add two similar sine waves that
are 180 out of phase.
Ask one of your 1st year students to show you, Paul.

So the predictions of the BaTh are wrong
because SRians can't add sine waves? Smile

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..

Quote:

Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Paul B. Andersen
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 814

PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
How come the BaTh predicts variable star brightness curves?

You mean how come the BaTh predicts that binaries
which are not variables should be variables?
Simple.
It is because the BaTh is wrong.

It is because SRians like you don't know how to add two similar sine waves that
are 180 out of phase.
Ask one of your 1st year students to show you, Paul.

So the predictions of the BaTh are wrong
because SRians can't add sine waves? :-)

Paul
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:23 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

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

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 1 Jun 2006 16:00:32 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)
It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.
Unlike your theory, SR actually makes predictions.

Idiot!
How come the BaTh predicts variable star brightness curves?

You mean how come the BaTh predicts that binaries
which are not variables should be variables?
Simple.
It is because the BaTh is wrong.

It is because SRians like you don't know how to add two similar sine waves that
are 180 out of phase.
Ask one of your 1st year students to show you, Paul.

Quote:
So you are right.
The BaTh does indeed make predictions.
That's why it's falsified.

Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Paul B. Andersen
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 814

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 1 Jun 2006 16:00:32 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)
It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.
Unlike your theory, SR actually makes predictions.

Idiot!
How come the BaTh predicts variable star brightness curves?

You mean how come the BaTh predicts that binaries
which are not variables should be variables?
Simple.
It is because the BaTh is wrong.

So you are right.
The BaTh does indeed make predictions.
That's why it's falsified.

Paul
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 1 Jun 2006 16:00:32 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)

It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.

Unlike your theory, SR actually makes predictions.

Idiot!
How come the BaTh predicts variable star brightness curves?

Idiot!
How come BaTh does not predict something that is not predicted by
another theory?

PD
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On 1 Jun 2006 16:00:32 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)

It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.

Unlike your theory, SR actually makes predictions.

Idiot!
How come the BaTh predicts variable star brightness curves?



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)

It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.

Unlike your theory, SR actually makes predictions.

Quote:


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On 1 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0700, "dedanoe" <dedanoe@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)

It isn't my fault if SRians lack the ability to plot the movement of a vertical
light beam in a moving frame.

If they HAD any ability they wouldn't be backing a dead theory.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Dobri Karagorgov
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:17 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

ashes to ashes -- dust to dust!!!

DEDANOE ajt Wink)
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 11:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:11:52 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:umq972d2q0o565a6j2a2bak66ktnv57mqu@4ax.com...
On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:52:46 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch


Quote:
it will end up as a nice SRT demo. If it doesn't work out, post a message
and ask what the error is. In any case it will be useful!

SR claims the beams move diagonally at c...and this causes them to take
longer
to reach the top in the moving observer frame.

They don't. Whilst infinitesimal elements of a beam follow their own
separate
diagonal paths in the moving frame, the beam as a whole remains vertical.

"the beams move diagonally" is about the motion, and not about the
alignment. Thus that disagreement is about semantics!

It is not semantics, It is plain geometrical physics.

Plot the bloody thing. You will find that no 'continuous light beam' moves
diagonally.

Each infinitesimal element of the vertical light beam follows a different
diagonal path in the moving frame.
It does not constitute light. ..it is nothing but a point on a graph. There is
absolutely no reason why anyone but a complete idiot would assume it moves
diagonally at c.


Quote:
The 'ininitesimal elements' do not constitute a light beam moving at c.
They
are nothing but points on a graph. They 'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2)

It's your claim that they 'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2).

Photon are not ball bearings.

Quote:
If you want to make it a
paradox in SRT, you have to make it plausible that according to SRT "they
'move' at sqrt(c*2+v^2)." I don't think that you did that.

SRT says nothing about 'infinitesimal elements' of a light beam.


Quote:

Harald

The beam takes the same time to reach the top no matter what moving
observer
measures that time.

Absolutely nonsense. Vertical has only meaning on a planet or similar
object, and on planet Earth a vertical light beam from the North Pole
would
be parallel to a horizontal beam from the Equator.

JC

Funny Babylonian speech confusion: the two of you mean entirely different
things. Which makes that conversation nonsense, but not the statements.
Not physics is dead, but communication is! ;-)

He looks like a newcomer....so give him a chance...

He isn't aware that the 'other frames' under discussion are all moving
horizontally.


Harald



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 7 [98 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:32 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Compare and contrast physics and chemistry parent Chem 0 Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:26 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 235) John Baez Research 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:32 pm
No new posts Writing physics for the public and other matters - parano... Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:29 pm
No new posts (OT) Moderator Vacancy Announcement: sci.physics.plasma Martin X. Moleski, SJ Relativity 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:05 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.5559s ][ Queries: 16 (0.5070s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]