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 5 of 7 [98 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Author Message
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:01:03 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:v3rta2p16mn65lflosbgt6l0m8o07q0jiu@4ax.com...

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?

You are starting to sound like one of them.


Quote:
|
| >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?

Listen A, I am in no mood for your ravings, the gout is very bad.



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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:06 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:8vd0b2pa6ttquketul94iipinnoj8jvnme@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:01:03 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:v3rta2p16mn65lflosbgt6l0m8o07q0jiu@4ax.com...
|
| >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?
|
| You are starting to sound like one of them.
f*** you, answer the question, you snipping cunt. You ARE one them.



|
|
| >| >
| >| >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?
|
| Listen A, I am in no mood for your ravings, the gout is very bad.

This is not an agony aunt column in a women's magazine.
I don't give a flying f*** about your moods, if you can't respond
sensibly then piss off altogether. I asked you a question.
What makes you think time is connected to the way we see things, using
light?
Androcles


|
|
|
| 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: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 08:06:29 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:8vd0b2pa6ttquketul94iipinnoj8jvnme@4ax.com...

This is not an agony aunt column in a women's magazine.
I don't give a flying f*** about your moods, if you can't respond
sensibly then piss off altogether. I asked you a question.
What makes you think time is connected to the way we see things, using
light?

Where in the f*** did I say it was?

I have been asking exactly that for years.
You stole my question again.

ten bottles please...


Quote:
Androcles


|
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
|



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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:22 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:uj13b2pjvv7f0iuph3vfhhdmsibhh57dca@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 08:06:29 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:8vd0b2pa6ttquketul94iipinnoj8jvnme@4ax.com...
|
| >This is not an agony aunt column in a women's magazine.
| >I don't give a flying f*** about your moods, if you can't respond
| >sensibly then piss off altogether. I asked you a question.
| >What makes you think time is connected to the way we see things, using
| >light?
|
| Where in the f*** did I say it was?

When you said "Ritz says 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c", you fucking liar.You are a
relativist
and a snipping cunt.
Androcles.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:22:03 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:uj13b2pjvv7f0iuph3vfhhdmsibhh57dca@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 08:06:29 GMT, "Sorcerer"
Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
| wrote:
|
|
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:8vd0b2pa6ttquketul94iipinnoj8jvnme@4ax.com...
|
| >This is not an agony aunt column in a women's magazine.
| >I don't give a flying f*** about your moods, if you can't respond
| >sensibly then piss off altogether. I asked you a question.
| >What makes you think time is connected to the way we see things, using
| >light?
|
| Where in the f*** did I say it was?

When you said "Ritz says 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c", you fucking liar.You are a
relativist

Yes. Einstein stole the idea from Ritz. The bull about synching clocks was his
way of getting around the possibility that an aether might exist.

....but Einstein then claimed that "c was the speed of light in empty space",
which is of course a meaningless statement, as you are well aware. Speeds are
always relative to something.

Quote:
and a snipping cunt.

Watch it!... you old pommie pisspot....

Quote:
Androcles.



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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:03 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:fbm5b2p8nonrqf36ichj4mrtv0v3dhde8d@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:22:03 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:uj13b2pjvv7f0iuph3vfhhdmsibhh57dca@4ax.com...
| >| On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 08:06:29 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| ><Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| >| wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >| >news:8vd0b2pa6ttquketul94iipinnoj8jvnme@4ax.com...
| >|
| >| >This is not an agony aunt column in a women's magazine.
| >| >I don't give a flying f*** about your moods, if you can't respond
| >| >sensibly then piss off altogether. I asked you a question.
| >| >What makes you think time is connected to the way we see things, using
| >| >light?
| >|
| >| Where in the f*** did I say it was?
| >
| >When you said "Ritz says 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c", you fucking liar.You are a
| >relativist
|
| Yes.

Ok, we have that straightened out. From haetherialist to proprieter of
Wombat's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty. and back to relativist again.

Since you are now a relativist and have never been a mathematician,
this is how to derive the cuckoo transformations that you love:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
See how the speed of the light is constant? That's because 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
so both second hands read the same time when the light returns to A.
We also have 2BA/(t'B-tB) = -c so that the clock has two second hands,
one for each equation.
The cuckoo transformations are LINEAR, you got that? Einstein said
they were, he said "In the first place it is clear that the equations must
be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute
to space and time."
He never said what they were in the second place.


| Einstein stole the idea from Ritz.

That was before took his medication. It's time for yours, Henri.
You are defaming Ritz, but one expects confessed relativists to lie.
Typical relativist's bullshit.


| The bull about synching clocks was his
| way of getting around the possibility that an aether might exist.


You don't even know what negative numbers are, H. That's quite usual
for relativists who claim 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c and try to blame it on Ritz.

Two of these equations are wrong, Henri, and one is right. See if
you can work out which one is right:
h) 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c X
w) 2BA.cos(phi) / (t'B-tB) = c+v X
Tada!
C) AB/(tB-tA) = c << this one!! >>

You may need a hint, you 'C'unt. It is the third one labelled C.
C for correct, NOT h for aether and NOT w for willusionary wedge-on worbit.

|
| ...but Einstein then claimed that "c was the speed of light in empty
space",
| which is of course a meaningless statement, as you are well aware. Speeds
are
| always relative to something.
|
| >and a snipping cunt.
|
| Watch it!... you old pommie pisspot....

I always watch, H, especially what a lying ignorant relativist wabo will say
next.

|
| >Androcles.
| >
|
|
| 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: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:03:59 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:fbm5b2p8nonrqf36ichj4mrtv0v3dhde8d@4ax.com...

| >| Where in the f*** did I say it was?
|
| >When you said "Ritz says 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c", you fucking liar.You are a
| >relativist
|
| Yes.

Ok, we have that straightened out. From haetherialist to proprieter of
Wombat's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty. and back to relativist again.

Since you are now a relativist and have never been a mathematician,
this is how to derive the cuckoo transformations that you love:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm

Why do you worry about that transformation stuff?


Quote:
See how the speed of the light is constant? That's because 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
so both second hands read the same time when the light returns to A.
We also have 2BA/(t'B-tB) = -c so that the clock has two second hands,
one for each equation.
The cuckoo transformations are LINEAR, you got that? Einstein said
they were, he said "In the first place it is clear that the equations must
be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute
to space and time."
He never said what they were in the second place.

If the source is on the train then its light moves at c wrt the whole train.
If it is reflected off a mirror, it now travels at c wrt the train in the
opposite direction.
I cannot see the problem.

Quote:
| Einstein stole the idea from Ritz.

That was before took his medication. It's time for yours, Henri.
You are defaming Ritz, but one expects confessed relativists to lie.
Typical relativist's bullshit.

I'm afraid you are still mildly indoctrinated with Einsteiniana and aether
concepts concepts.
If your mind was free, you would immediately understand why 2AB/(tA'-tA) = TWLS
= OWLS = c, in any single frame experiment.

Quote:
| The bull about synching clocks was his
| way of getting around the possibility that an aether might exist.


You don't even know what negative numbers are, H. That's quite usual
for relativists who claim 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c and try to blame it on Ritz.

Two of these equations are wrong, Henri, and one is right. See if
you can work out which one is right:
h) 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c X
w) 2BA.cos(phi) / (t'B-tB) = c+v X
Tada!
C) AB/(tB-tA) = c << this one!!

You may need a hint, you 'C'unt. It is the third one labelled C.
C for correct, NOT h for aether and NOT w for willusionary wedge-on worbit.

(h) is also correct in single frame experiments (they usually are)
Cis also correct. However you must be able to cherck for clock drift...which
you can do using Einstein's accidental 'absolute sycnhing' method.




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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:53 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:16c8b2h79dfhsabso6j32okarg1pi3cjmt@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:03:59 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:fbm5b2p8nonrqf36ichj4mrtv0v3dhde8d@4ax.com...
|
| >| >| Where in the f*** did I say it was?
| >| >
| >| >When you said "Ritz says 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c", you fucking liar.You are a
| >| >relativist
| >|
| >| Yes.
| >
| >Ok, we have that straightened out. From haetherialist to proprieter of
| >Wombat's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty. and back to relativist again.
| >
| >Since you are now a relativist and have never been a mathematician,
| >this is how to derive the cuckoo transformations that you love:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
|
| Why do you worry about that transformation stuff?

Becasue of this:
Einstein's example of simultaneity
.... particular reference frame. so I don't know how a simple change of
reference
frame could account for them loosing sync. -- Wilson.

I'm explaining HOW to others, you don't know and refuse to learn, you are
a traitor to science. All you want to do is prattle on about your shithead
theory.


Why do you worry about the aether stuff? You know worbits should
be fully tiltable orbits, yet you lie to the world to promote your crackpot
theory. You are an einstein, and it is my job to expose fraudulent crackpots
like you and Einstein, you have no idea what truth is. Again, you are a
traitor
to science.
|
|
| >See how the speed of the light is constant? That's because 2AB/(t'A-tA) =
c,
| > so both second hands read the same time when the light returns to A.
| >We also have 2BA/(t'B-tB) = -c so that the clock has two second hands,
| >one for each equation.
| >The cuckoo transformations are LINEAR, you got that? Einstein said
| >they were, he said "In the first place it is clear that the equations
must
| >be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute
| >to space and time."
| >He never said what they were in the second place.
|
| If the source is on the train then its light moves at c wrt the whole
train.
| If it is reflected off a mirror, it now travels at c wrt the train in the
| opposite direction.
| I cannot see the problem.

That's because you didn't learn about negative numbers when you were six.
Travelling at c in the opposite direction is traveling at -c in the same
direction.
"Minus" MEANS opposite.
Obviously you are innumerate, as was Einstein. The train has a constant
velocity of v, the light has two constant velocities, c and -c. Thus
the value of the light's velocity in the track frame is v+c, v-c,
and Ritz and Newton knew that, as does Androcles. Einstein and Wilson
failed hard sums in second grade. This is why your program is a failure,
too.
You are a mentally retarded, that's why you can't see. Don't feel bad,
Einstein was retarded too. Go back to second grade, learn negative numbers.
Do they have adult education for wabos in Oz? I'm sure they do, even
abos can learn negative numbers. You need to go to abo school, Wilson.



|
| >| Einstein stole the idea from Ritz.
| >
| >That was before took his medication. It's time for yours, Henri.
| >You are defaming Ritz, but one expects confessed relativists to lie.
| >Typical relativist's bullshit.
|
| I'm afraid you are still mildly indoctrinated with Einsteiniana and aether
| concepts concepts.

That's you. You write bullshit programs with wedge-on worbits then
when your crap doesn't work above 30 ly you re-invent your h-aether theory
that you had from the beginning. You are not a mathematician, you are
a crackpot.
And all because you failed hard sums when you were six.


| If your mind was free, you would immediately understand why 2AB/(tA'-tA) =
TWLS
| = OWLS = c, in any single frame experiment.

You don't understand what c and -c mean, wabo. You understand
"opposite", but do not know how to write it down in algebra.
Your mind is too free, it wants to break the laws of physics because
it doesn't know the laws of mathematics.
Einstein didn't know either, he wrote c-v, c+v when he meant v+c, v-c.
that's saying the train changes direction at the mirror, and you as stupid
as he was. Still, at least the problem is identified.


Learn this rule, wabo. Opposite means minus. It's a LAW.



|
| >| The bull about synching clocks was his
| >| way of getting around the possibility that an aether might exist.
| >
| >
| >You don't even know what negative numbers are, H. That's quite usual
| >for relativists who claim 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c and try to blame it on Ritz.
| >
| >Two of these equations are wrong, Henri, and one is right. See if
| >you can work out which one is right:
| >h) 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c X
| >w) 2BA.cos(phi) / (t'B-tB) = c+v X
| >Tada!
| >C) AB/(tB-tA) = c << this one!! >>
| >
| >You may need a hint, you 'C'unt. It is the third one labelled C.
| >C for correct, NOT h for aether and NOT w for willusionary wedge-on
worbit.
|
| (h) is also correct in single frame experiments (they usually are)
| Cis also correct. However you must be able to cherck for clock
drift...which
| you can do using Einstein's accidental 'absolute sycnhing' method.

You are getting ahead of yourself, wabo.
Learn what "minus" means first. Get indoctrinated with arithmetic,
then we'll discuss algebra.
Minus c (-c) is light going in the opposite direction. Minus v (-v) is the
train going in the opposite direction. Learn to follow the rules and it will
all become easy. (And quit arguing until you know what you are talking
about.)

Androcles.


| 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: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:53:30 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:16c8b2h79dfhsabso6j32okarg1pi3cjmt@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:03:59 GMT, "Sorcerer"
Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
| wrote:
|
|
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:fbm5b2p8nonrqf36ichj4mrtv0v3dhde8d@4ax.com...
|
| >| >| Where in the f*** did I say it was?
| >|
| >| >When you said "Ritz says 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c", you fucking liar.You are a
| >| >relativist
| >|
| >| Yes.
|
| >Ok, we have that straightened out. From haetherialist to proprieter of
| >Wombat's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty. and back to relativist again.
|
| >Since you are now a relativist and have never been a mathematician,
| >this is how to derive the cuckoo transformations that you love:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
|
| Why do you worry about that transformation stuff?

Becasue of this:
Einstein's example of simultaneity
... particular reference frame. so I don't know how a simple change of
reference
frame could account for them loosing sync. -- Wilson.

I'm explaining HOW to others, you don't know and refuse to learn, you are
a traitor to science. All you want to do is prattle on about your shithead
theory.

Simultaneity is universal.
NOW here is now everywhere.

Quote:
Why do you worry about the aether stuff? You know worbits should
be fully tiltable orbits, yet you lie to the world to promote your crackpot
theory.

Fucking moron.
What you see from a point source star is the projection of its orbital velocity
onto the edge-on plane.

Quote:
You are an einstein, and it is my job to expose fraudulent crackpots
like you and Einstein, you have no idea what truth is. Again, you are a
traitor
to science.

I'm so far ahead of YOU it isn't funny....


Quote:
| If the source is on the train then its light moves at c wrt the whole
train.
| If it is reflected off a mirror, it now travels at c wrt the train in the
| opposite direction.
| I cannot see the problem.

That's because you didn't learn about negative numbers when you were six.
Travelling at c in the opposite direction is traveling at -c in the same
direction.
"Minus" MEANS opposite.
Obviously you are innumerate, as was Einstein. The train has a constant
velocity of v, the light has two constant velocities, c and -c. Thus
the value of the light's velocity in the track frame is v+c, v-c,
and Ritz and Newton knew that, as does Androcles. Einstein and Wilson
failed hard sums in second grade. This is why your program is a failure,
too.

You still don't know what a virtual image is...

Quote:
You are a mentally retarded, that's why you can't see. Don't feel bad,
Einstein was retarded too. Go back to second grade, learn negative numbers.
Do they have adult education for wabos in Oz? I'm sure they do, even
abos can learn negative numbers. You need to go to abo school, Wilson.

Speed is not a fucking vector, moron..

Quote:
| >| Einstein stole the idea from Ritz.
|
| >That was before took his medication. It's time for yours, Henri.
| >You are defaming Ritz, but one expects confessed relativists to lie.
| >Typical relativist's bullshit.
|
| I'm afraid you are still mildly indoctrinated with Einsteiniana and aether
| concepts concepts.

That's you. You write bullshit programs with wedge-on worbits then
when your crap doesn't work above 30 ly you re-invent your h-aether theory
that you had from the beginning. You are not a mathematician, you are
a crackpot.
And all because you failed hard sums when you were six.

I just matched another brightness curve. Not bad eh?

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wr20a.jpg

Yaw=-87
eccentricity = 0.28
mag change 0.44

Incidentally, notice how they authors doctored their own graph. The third cycle
is just a copy of the first.

Quote:


| If your mind was free, you would immediately understand why 2AB/(tA'-tA) =
TWLS
| = OWLS = c, in any single frame experiment.

You don't understand what c and -c mean, wabo. You understand
"opposite", but do not know how to write it down in algebra.
Your mind is too free, it wants to break the laws of physics because
it doesn't know the laws of mathematics.
Einstein didn't know either, he wrote c-v, c+v when he meant v+c, v-c.
that's saying the train changes direction at the mirror, and you as stupid
as he was. Still, at least the problem is identified.

Radio engineers were never taught the difference between a vector and a scalar.

Quote:
Learn this rule, wabo. Opposite means minus. It's a LAW.

....and (-) x (-) = +

Quote:
| >| The bull about synching clocks was his
| >| way of getting around the possibility that an aether might exist.
|
|
| >You don't even know what negative numbers are, H. That's quite usual
| >for relativists who claim 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c and try to blame it on Ritz.
|
| >Two of these equations are wrong, Henri, and one is right. See if
| >you can work out which one is right:
| >h) 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c X
| >w) 2BA.cos(phi) / (t'B-tB) = c+v X
| >Tada!
| >C) AB/(tB-tA) = c << this one!!
|
| >You may need a hint, you 'C'unt. It is the third one labelled C.
| >C for correct, NOT h for aether and NOT w for willusionary wedge-on
worbit.
|
| (h) is also correct in single frame experiments (they usually are)
| Cis also correct. However you must be able to cherck for clock
drift...which
| you can do using Einstein's accidental 'absolute sycnhing' method.

You are getting ahead of yourself, wabo.
Learn what "minus" means first. Get indoctrinated with arithmetic,
then we'll discuss algebra.
Minus c (-c) is light going in the opposite direction. Minus v (-v) is the
train going in the opposite direction. Learn to follow the rules and it will
all become easy. (And quit arguing until you know what you are talking
about.)

Learn the difference between a vector and a scalar you stupid pommie bastard.

Quote:

Androcles.


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:49 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:cttab2pe4m97ld2fk90k73l203sf093r85@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:53:30 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:16c8b2h79dfhsabso6j32okarg1pi3cjmt@4ax.com...
| >| On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:03:59 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| ><Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| >| wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >| >news:fbm5b2p8nonrqf36ichj4mrtv0v3dhde8d@4ax.com...
| >|
| >| >| >| Where in the f*** did I say it was?
| >| >| >
| >| >| >When you said "Ritz says 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c", you fucking liar.You
are a
| >| >| >relativist
| >| >|
| >| >| Yes.
| >| >
| >| >Ok, we have that straightened out. From haetherialist to proprieter of
| >| >Wombat's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty. and back to relativist again.
| >| >
| >| >Since you are now a relativist and have never been a mathematician,
| >| >this is how to derive the cuckoo transformations that you love:
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
| >|
| >| Why do you worry about that transformation stuff?
| >
| >Becasue of this:
| >Einstein's example of simultaneity
| >... particular reference frame. so I don't know how a simple change of
| >reference
| >frame could account for them loosing sync. -- Wilson.
| >
| >I'm explaining HOW to others, you don't know and refuse to learn, you are
| >a traitor to science. All you want to do is prattle on about your
shithead
| >theory.
|
| Simultaneity is universal.



Hey arsehole!

Question from arsehole: "Why do you worry about that transformation stuff?"

Answer to arsehole: Because arsehole doesn't understand it, I explain to
others.

Statement from arsehole: "Simultaneity is universal."

I don't give a f*** what simultaneity is or isn't, arsehole, "Einstein's
example
of simultaneity" is the thread where arsehole said "I don't know how ..."
and will
continue to not know how until the day he dies because he's a complete
fucking
moron who thinks a thread title is something I wrote. That's why I discuss
transformation with numerate people who know what minus means and
literate people who can read what they said themselves. Arseholes can't read
their own words, they "don't know how".





| NOW here is now everywhere.

Why do you worry about this now stuff?



|
| >Why do you worry about the aether stuff? You know worbits should
| >be fully tiltable orbits, yet you lie to the world to promote your
crackpot
| >theory.
|
| Fucking moron.
| What you see from a point source star is the projection of its orbital
velocity
| onto the edge-on plane.
|
| >You are an einstein, and it is my job to expose fraudulent crackpots
| >like you and Einstein, you have no idea what truth is. Again, you are a
| >traitor
| >to science.
|
| I'm so far ahead of YOU it isn't funny....

That's right, you are not funny.
Why do you worry about this now stuff?


|
|
| >| If the source is on the train then its light moves at c wrt the whole
| >train.
| >| If it is reflected off a mirror, it now travels at c wrt the train in
the
| >| opposite direction.
| >| I cannot see the problem.
| >
| >That's because you didn't learn about negative numbers when you were six.
| >Travelling at c in the opposite direction is traveling at -c in the same
| >direction.
| >"Minus" MEANS opposite.
| >Obviously you are innumerate, as was Einstein. The train has a constant
| >velocity of v, the light has two constant velocities, c and -c. Thus
| >the value of the light's velocity in the track frame is v+c, v-c,
| >and Ritz and Newton knew that, as does Androcles. Einstein and Wilson
| >failed hard sums in second grade. This is why your program is a failure,
| >too.
|
| You still don't know what a virtual image is...

You think you have two noses and four eyes, you can count them.
I've got news for you, Wilson. You don't know how to count,
you include virtual noses in with your apples.


|
| >You are a mentally retarded, that's why you can't see. Don't feel bad,
| >Einstein was retarded too. Go back to second grade, learn negative
numbers.
| >Do they have adult education for wabos in Oz? I'm sure they do, even
| >abos can learn negative numbers. You need to go to abo school, Wilson.
|
| Speed is not a fucking vector, moron..
|
| >| >| Einstein stole the idea from Ritz.
| >| >
| >| >That was before took his medication. It's time for yours, Henri.
| >| >You are defaming Ritz, but one expects confessed relativists to lie.
| >| >Typical relativist's bullshit.
| >|
| >| I'm afraid you are still mildly indoctrinated with Einsteiniana and
aether
| >| concepts concepts.
| >
| >That's you. You write bullshit programs with wedge-on worbits then
| >when your crap doesn't work above 30 ly you re-invent your h-aether
theory
| >that you had from the beginning. You are not a mathematician, you are
| >a crackpot.
| >And all because you failed hard sums when you were six.
|
| I just matched another brightness curve. Not bad eh?
|
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wr20a.jpg
|
| Yaw=-87
| eccentricity = 0.28
| mag change 0.44

e = 0.8
yaw = -84
p = 0.01y
Vm = 0.0012c
D= 0.3 LY.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wr20a.jpg

How come 0.8 = 0.28, Wabo?
I've caught you lying, Wilson. Not bad, eh?

You found that 0.3LY by parallax, I suppose.
Most real astronomers think the nearest star to our own is about 4 ly, but
what
do they know?
Did HST resolve it into a binary, Wilson? It managed to find some detail
of Mira at 400 ly, a binary at 0.3 LY should be easy, and Sirius at 8 ly is
an observed binary with a 50 year period.
Now you ARE funny, a virtual astronomer with four eyes. Not bad, eh?
You are so far behind me (20 years) it is hilarious.
ROFLMAO!

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif

I'll tell you what you've inadvertently done, Wilson. You've confirmed
the Androclean hypothesis first found by studying Henrietta Leavitt-Swan's
cepheid hypothesis relating distance to period.

The Androclean hypothesis:
Period, Distance and Major Axis form the sides of a similar triangle.
By that I mean
Distance: A = 0.3, B= 3, C= 30, D= 300 (parsecs)
Period: A = 0.03, B= 0.3, C = 3, D= 30 (days)
Semi Major Axis: A= 0.00015, B = 0.0015, C= 0.015, D = 0.15 (AU)

The parameters are the sides of a similar triangle, ADist, APeriod, Aaxis
produces the same curve as BDist, BPeriod, Baxis.

You can't match the distance, Wilson. All your worbits are wedge-on,
whereas my orbit is almost face on (pitched 85 degrees from yours).
That's why your Mickey Mouse program is useless.
I'm far closer to finding accurate distance than you'll ever be, I have a
secret.
Well, not really a secret, I've already given you enough clues, you stubborn
old fool.


| Incidentally, notice how they authors doctored their own graph. The third
cycle
| is just a copy of the first.

Yeah, that's common practice. Mine is two cycles, the second a duplicate of
the first. The human eye mispercieves a discontinuity without it, so it
helps.
Building a light curve takes a lot of observing time, the frigging sun
comes up and ruins it all day long. Algol's dip is 10 hours in 70 hours, so
none
of the curves you see are one cycle, they are all built of many cycles,
superimposed.
Nobody can reliably observe for 70 straight hours, not even with Hubble,
even if they could stay awake staring at a single star.
They close the doors to shut out the sun every day side of the orbit,
nobody wants the electronics fried. That's why the diagram uses phase
and not time, the period has to be calculated, not observed because it can't
be.
The way astronomy works is to take a snapshot every night at the same time
of the same star, then move on to the next star and repeat. The photo
collection
is then analyzed and the period found. Don't ever imagine it is easy.

"This night looked at Beta-Persei (Algol) and was much amazed to find its
brightness altered. It now appears to be fourth magnitude... I observed it
diligently for about an hour upwards...hardly believing that it changed its
brightness, because I had never heard of any star varying so quick in its
brightness. I thought it might be perhaps owing to an optical illusion,
a defect in my eyes or bad air, but the sequel will show that its change
is true and that it was not mistaken."
(John Goodricke, journal entry November 12, 1782)

The observation was for an hour or so. The sequel will show...
But Goodricke didn't use the velocity of light in his calculations,
and he didn't have a computer anyway. Algol has been a binary ever
since he said it was in 1782. It isn't really, the planet Androcles orbits
it.
He was only 18 years old anyway, dead at age 22, so it isn't really his
fault.
Newton was already dead, there was nobody else to correct Goodricke
and that's why the speed of light is constant in empty space, independent
of the motion of the source, and has been for 100 years. It isn't really.
Tusselad cannot produce the velocity curve of Algol, although he
imagines one exists. There is the clue to finding distance, but I'll
have to wait years to find someone that isn't a stubborn old goat
with his own crackpot theories to discuss it with, because you won't
listen and don't know what negative numbers are. Too old to learn,
senility has set in, and my grandson is too young, even though he knows
about negative numbers. He;s smarter than you and he listens.

| >
| >| If your mind was free, you would immediately understand why
2AB/(tA'-tA) =
| >TWLS
| >| = OWLS = c, in any single frame experiment.
| >
| >You don't understand what c and -c mean, wabo. You understand
| >"opposite", but do not know how to write it down in algebra.
| >Your mind is too free, it wants to break the laws of physics because
| >it doesn't know the laws of mathematics.
| >Einstein didn't know either, he wrote c-v, c+v when he meant v+c, v-c.
| >that's saying the train changes direction at the mirror, and you as
stupid
| >as he was. Still, at least the problem is identified.
|
| Radio engineers were never taught the difference between a vector and a
scalar.

Some people know that intuitively, but some also know the 10
axioms of a vector space. Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse,
and only worbits have points, real orbits are tilted.
Whoopee, you matched the simplest curve there is for a star 0.3 LY away.

When you can match this I'll consider you have some slight skill:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
It is beyond critical distance where slow light is passed by fast light,
totally fucking your "theory" up, down and sideways.
This might help:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sek3.jpg





|
| >Learn this rule, wabo. Opposite means minus. It's a LAW.
|
| ...and (-) x (-) = +
|
| >| >| The bull about synching clocks was his
| >| >| way of getting around the possibility that an aether might exist.
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >You don't even know what negative numbers are, H. That's quite usual
| >| >for relativists who claim 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c and try to blame it on Ritz.
| >| >
| >| >Two of these equations are wrong, Henri, and one is right. See if
| >| >you can work out which one is right:
| >| >h) 2AB/(t'A-tA) =c X
| >| >w) 2BA.cos(phi) / (t'B-tB) = c+v X
| >| >Tada!
| >| >C) AB/(tB-tA) = c << this one!! >>
| >| >
| >| >You may need a hint, you 'C'unt. It is the third one labelled C.
| >| >C for correct, NOT h for aether and NOT w for willusionary wedge-on
| >worbit.
| >|
| >| (h) is also correct in single frame experiments (they usually are)
| >| Cis also correct. However you must be able to cherck for clock
| >drift...which
| >| you can do using Einstein's accidental 'absolute sycnhing' method.
| >
| >You are getting ahead of yourself, wabo.
| >Learn what "minus" means first. Get indoctrinated with arithmetic,
| >then we'll discuss algebra.
| >Minus c (-c) is light going in the opposite direction. Minus v (-v) is
the
| >train going in the opposite direction. Learn to follow the rules and it
will
| >all become easy. (And quit arguing until you know what you are talking
| >about.)
|
| Learn the difference between a vector and a scalar you stupid pommie
bastard.

You never did get a degree, did you? I've heard they come easy in the
Outback,
Timo has a Queensland doctorate in phuckwittery. I hope he doesn't try to
use it
in Britain, we already have enough phuckwits of our own. We used to deport
them
once, but they still inbred.
Androcles.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6isbb2ljba29i77n0j5u9qoo125vt1vapq@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:03:53 GMT, HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
|
| >Simultaneity is universal.
| >NOW here is now everywhere.
|
| Don't be silly. What we see at the far limits of vision of (say) the
| Hubble telescope isn't "now" by any stretch of the imagination, the
| concept of "now" that far away is simply ludicrous.
| OK, think about a | bit nearer than that... half way? Is that any
different? Nope. At what
| distance does a "now" suddenly pop into existence?

Don't be so rabidly stupid. A person in Alabama hears my voice
on the phone AFTER I've spoken, but I hear the American AFTER
she has spoken. When we both speak at the same time, simultaneously,
NOW, we hear each other in the future, even though her same time
is 6 hours earlier than my same time (yes, I said earlier).
If an event occurs on Mars NOW, I won't know about it until later,
but that doesn't mean there isn't a NOW on Mars.
You are round the fucking bend, confusing time with the transmission
of information.
The answer to your ludicrous question is "ANY distance and ALL distances".
Time has sweet f***-all to do with distance.
You ought to be deported to Oz, you are as crazy as a Yankee pilgrim.
At least they volunteered to piss off out of Britain and had the guts to do
it.
Now here is now everywhere.
Androcles.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:24 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:49:26 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:cttab2pe4m97ld2fk90k73l203sf093r85@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:53:30 GMT, "Sorcerer"
Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
| wrote:


Quote:


| NOW here is now everywhere.

Why do you worry about this now stuff?




|
| >That's because you didn't learn about negative numbers when you were six.
| >Travelling at c in the opposite direction is traveling at -c in the same
| >direction.
| >"Minus" MEANS opposite.
| >Obviously you are innumerate, as was Einstein. The train has a constant
| >velocity of v, the light has two constant velocities, c and -c. Thus
| >the value of the light's velocity in the track frame is v+c, v-c,
| >and Ritz and Newton knew that, as does Androcles. Einstein and Wilson
| >failed hard sums in second grade. This is why your program is a failure,
| >too.
|
| You still don't know what a virtual image is...

You think you have two noses and four eyes, you can count them.
I've got news for you, Wilson. You don't know how to count,
you include virtual noses in with your apples.



| >| I'm afraid you are still mildly indoctrinated with Einsteiniana and
aether
| >| concepts concepts.
|
| >That's you. You write bullshit programs with wedge-on worbits then
| >when your crap doesn't work above 30 ly you re-invent your h-aether
theory
| >that you had from the beginning. You are not a mathematician, you are
| >a crackpot.
| >And all because you failed hard sums when you were six.
|
| I just matched another brightness curve. Not bad eh?
|
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wr20a.jpg
|
| Yaw=-87
| eccentricity = 0.28
| mag change 0.44

e = 0.8

typo. Have another look.

Quote:
yaw = -84
p = 0.01y
Vm = 0.0012c
D= 0.3 LY.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wr20a.jpg

How come 0.8 = 0.28, Wabo?
I've caught you lying, Wilson. Not bad, eh?

You found that 0.3LY by parallax, I suppose.

No.
This star is in the large magellanic cloud some 180,000 lys away.

0.3 LY is the distance over which light speed unification takes place, assuming
the published value for the period is correct.

At that distance, the brightness variation is around 0.44 mags, the observed
figure.

It stands to reason that the unification distance is roughly proportional to
the orbit radius and the period.

Quote:
Most real astronomers think the nearest star to our own is about 4 ly, but
what
do they know?
Did HST resolve it into a binary, Wilson? It managed to find some detail
of Mira at 400 ly, a binary at 0.3 LY should be easy, and Sirius at 8 ly is
an observed binary with a 50 year period.
Now you ARE funny, a virtual astronomer with four eyes. Not bad, eh?
You are so far behind me (20 years) it is hilarious.
ROFLMAO!

This is obviously far too hard for you.

I say this star is an algol type. It has a large WCH circling it. You should
agree.

It is claimed to be binary pair of almost identical stars.
I say the 'second star' is really a reflection of light from the very large
WCH.

Quote:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif

I'll tell you what you've inadvertently done, Wilson. You've confirmed
the Androclean hypothesis first found by studying Henrietta Leavitt-Swan's
cepheid hypothesis relating distance to period.

The Androclean hypothesis:
Period, Distance and Major Axis form the sides of a similar triangle.
By that I mean
Distance: A = 0.3, B= 3, C= 30, D= 300 (parsecs)
Period: A = 0.03, B= 0.3, C = 3, D= 30 (days)
Semi Major Axis: A= 0.00015, B = 0.0015, C= 0.015, D = 0.15 (AU)

The parameters are the sides of a similar triangle, ADist, APeriod, Aaxis
produces the same curve as BDist, BPeriod, Baxis.

You can't match the distance, Wilson. All your worbits are wedge-on,
whereas my orbit is almost face on (pitched 85 degrees from yours).

That merely applies a cosine factor to your radial velocities. Total waste of
time.

Quote:
That's why your Mickey Mouse program is useless.
I'm far closer to finding accurate distance than you'll ever be, I have a
secret.
Well, not really a secret, I've already given you enough clues, you stubborn
old fool.

The idea is to find thhe light unification distance not the actual distance.

The radial velocities in your Algol program are out by a factor of over 100.

Quote:
| Incidentally, notice how they authors doctored their own graph. The third
cycle
| is just a copy of the first.

Yeah, that's common practice. Mine is two cycles, the second a duplicate of
the first. The human eye mispercieves a discontinuity without it, so it
helps.
Building a light curve takes a lot of observing time, the frigging sun
comes up and ruins it all day long. Algol's dip is 10 hours in 70 hours, so
none
of the curves you see are one cycle, they are all built of many cycles,
superimposed.
Nobody can reliably observe for 70 straight hours, not even with Hubble,
even if they could stay awake staring at a single star.
They close the doors to shut out the sun every day side of the orbit,
nobody wants the electronics fried. That's why the diagram uses phase
and not time, the period has to be calculated, not observed because it can't
be.
The way astronomy works is to take a snapshot every night at the same time
of the same star, then move on to the next star and repeat. The photo
collection
is then analyzed and the period found. Don't ever imagine it is easy.

"This night looked at Beta-Persei (Algol) and was much amazed to find its
brightness altered. It now appears to be fourth magnitude... I observed it
diligently for about an hour upwards...hardly believing that it changed its
brightness, because I had never heard of any star varying so quick in its
brightness. I thought it might be perhaps owing to an optical illusion,
a defect in my eyes or bad air, but the sequel will show that its change
is true and that it was not mistaken."
(John Goodricke, journal entry November 12, 1782)

The observation was for an hour or so. The sequel will show...
But Goodricke didn't use the velocity of light in his calculations,
and he didn't have a computer anyway. Algol has been a binary ever
since he said it was in 1782. It isn't really, the planet Androcles orbits
it.

....and the planet Wilson2 orbits WR20a.

Quote:
He was only 18 years old anyway, dead at age 22, so it isn't really his
fault.
Newton was already dead, there was nobody else to correct Goodricke
and that's why the speed of light is constant in empty space, independent
of the motion of the source, and has been for 100 years. It isn't really.
Tusselad cannot produce the velocity curve of Algol, although he
imagines one exists. There is the clue to finding distance, but I'll
have to wait years to find someone that isn't a stubborn old goat
with his own crackpot theories to discuss it with, because you won't
listen and don't know what negative numbers are. Too old to learn,
senility has set in, and my grandson is too young, even though he knows
about negative numbers. He;s smarter than you and he listens.

fucking old fool.....


Quote:
stupid
| >as he was. Still, at least the problem is identified.
|
| Radio engineers were never taught the difference between a vector and a
scalar.

Some people know that intuitively, but some also know the 10
axioms of a vector space. Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse,
and only worbits have points, real orbits are tilted.
Whoopee, you matched the simplest curve there is for a star 0.3 LY away.

The fucking star IS NOT 0.3 LYs away. Light emitted at different orbit phases
remains relatively in place after about that distance.
Quote:

When you can match this I'll consider you have some slight skill:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif

I have matched this.

Quote:
It is beyond critical distance where slow light is passed by fast light,
totally fucking your "theory" up, down and sideways.
This might help:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sek3.jpg

That never happens.
The speed of light emitted from d\ifferent parts of the orbit is unified before
it reaches that stage.
So the critical distance is never SEEN to be exceeded.


Quote:
| >all become easy. (And quit arguing until you know what you are talking
| >about.)
|
| Learn the difference between a vector and a scalar you stupid pommie
bastard.

You never did get a degree, did you? I've heard they come easy in the
Outback,
Timo has a Queensland doctorate in phuckwittery. I hope he doesn't try to
use it
in Britain, we already have enough phuckwits of our own. We used to deport
them
once, but they still inbred.
Androcles.



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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:1bjdb2pf8qc6plqkc6emj2ed3uqf7ees2g@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:49:26 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:cttab2pe4m97ld2fk90k73l203sf093r85@4ax.com...
| >| On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:53:30 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| ><Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| >| wrote:
|
|
| >
| >
| >| NOW here is now everywhere.
| >
| >Why do you worry about this now stuff?
| >
| >
| >
|
| >| >
| >| >That's because you didn't learn about negative numbers when you were
six.
| >| >Travelling at c in the opposite direction is traveling at -c in the
same
| >| >direction.
| >| >"Minus" MEANS opposite.
| >| >Obviously you are innumerate, as was Einstein. The train has a
constant
| >| >velocity of v, the light has two constant velocities, c and -c. Thus
| >| >the value of the light's velocity in the track frame is v+c, v-c,
| >| >and Ritz and Newton knew that, as does Androcles. Einstein and Wilson
| >| >failed hard sums in second grade. This is why your program is a
failure,
| >| >too.
| >|
| >| You still don't know what a virtual image is...
| >
| >You think you have two noses and four eyes, you can count them.
| >I've got news for you, Wilson. You don't know how to count,
| >you include virtual noses in with your apples.
| >
| >
|
| >| >| I'm afraid you are still mildly indoctrinated with Einsteiniana and
| >aether
| >| >| concepts concepts.
| >| >
| >| >That's you. You write bullshit programs with wedge-on worbits then
| >| >when your crap doesn't work above 30 ly you re-invent your h-aether
| >theory
| >| >that you had from the beginning. You are not a mathematician, you are
| >| >a crackpot.
| >| >And all because you failed hard sums when you were six.
| >|
| >| I just matched another brightness curve. Not bad eh?
| >|
| >| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wr20a.jpg
| >|
| >| Yaw=-87
| >| eccentricity = 0.28
| >| mag change 0.44
| >
| > e = 0.8
|
| typo. Have another look.
|
| >yaw = -84
| >p = 0.01y
| >Vm = 0.0012c
| >D= 0.3 LY.
| >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wr20a.jpg
| >
| >How come 0.8 = 0.28, Wabo?
| >I've caught you lying, Wilson. Not bad, eh?
| >
| >You found that 0.3LY by parallax, I suppose.
|
| No.
| This star is in the large magellanic cloud some 180,000 lys away.
|
| 0.3 LY is the distance over which light speed unification takes place,
assuming
| the published value for the period is correct.

Only because you left out inclination (pitch).
I've published the effect of parameters now, I don't need any imaginary
"unification" theory.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
The colour is an indication of velocity, and it doesn't change with
distance.

Any light curve at any distance, H. They are ALL mine. You had your chance
and
blew it.


| At that distance, the brightness variation is around 0.44 mags, the
observed
| figure.

Any light curve at any distance, H. They ALL belong to me. You had your
chance
and blew it, trying to promote you crackpot velocity unification theory
because
you left out pitch. Nobody is going to buy that, you are a fraud and a
crank.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.--Sir Isaac Newton.

| It stands to reason that the unification distance is roughly proportional
to
| the orbit radius and the period.


You have no ability to reason, you are a fraud. Real orbits are tilted.
Wabo Wombat Wilson's Wedge-on Wedge-shaped Wobbly Worbits Pty is a
confidence trickster's company. I've told you that before, but you are too
stubborn to listen.


|
| >Most real astronomers think the nearest star to our own is about 4 ly,
but
| >what
| >do they know?
| >Did HST resolve it into a binary, Wilson? It managed to find some detail
| >of Mira at 400 ly, a binary at 0.3 LY should be easy, and Sirius at 8 ly
is
| >an observed binary with a 50 year period.
| >Now you ARE funny, a virtual astronomer with four eyes. Not bad, eh?
| >You are so far behind me (20 years) it is hilarious.
| >ROFLMAO!
|
| This is obviously far too hard for you.
|
| I say this star is an algol type. It has a large WCH circling it. You
should
| agree.


f*** you, you are a fraud, you left out pitch and said it didn't matter.
I want NO part of BaTh, I've said so all along. The star has a large planet
orbiting it, and the orbit is almost face on, it's not edge on. I name the
planet
in orbit around WR20 "Wilson's folly".


|
| It is claimed to be binary pair of almost identical stars.
| I say the 'second star' is really a reflection of light from the very
large
| WCH.


The morons always claim binaries, H. We both know it is a planet.
My only argument with you is your crackpot theory based on all
orbits being seen edge-on from Earth. Why you want to call a planet
a WCH is a mark of your crackpottery and egotism.

|
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
| >
| >I'll tell you what you've inadvertently done, Wilson. You've confirmed
| >the Androclean hypothesis first found by studying Henrietta
Leavitt-Swan's
| >cepheid hypothesis relating distance to period.
| >
| >The Androclean hypothesis:
| >Period, Distance and Major Axis form the sides of a similar triangle.
| >By that I mean
| >Distance: A = 0.3, B= 3, C= 30, D= 300 (parsecs)
| >Period: A = 0.03, B= 0.3, C = 3, D= 30 (days)
| >Semi Major Axis: A= 0.00015, B = 0.0015, C= 0.015, D = 0.15 (AU)
| >
| >The parameters are the sides of a similar triangle, ADist, APeriod, Aaxis
| >produces the same curve as BDist, BPeriod, Baxis.
| >
| >You can't match the distance, Wilson. All your worbits are wedge-on,
| >whereas my orbit is almost face on (pitched 85 degrees from yours).
|
| That merely applies a cosine factor to your radial velocities. Total waste
of
| time.

Yes, ducky, of course. "Wilson's folly" is merely 0.3 LY away. Let's go and
colonise it with crackpots, you belong there as the grandson of a deportee.


|
| >That's why your Mickey Mouse program is useless.
| >I'm far closer to finding accurate distance than you'll ever be, I have a
| >secret.
| >Well, not really a secret, I've already given you enough clues, you
stubborn
| >old fool.
|
| The idea is to find thhe light unification distance not the actual
distance.

Yeah, and find some bright green flying elephants on Wilson's folly, in
worbit around wr20 that is 0.3 LY away and edge-on as seen from Earth,
along the same line of sight as the LMC. It should be easy for HST to spot
Wilson's folly from the reflected light of it's primary. After all, Jupiter
is
quite bright and that's a WCH, it even has moons seen with a 30x telescope,
you fucking idiot.


| The radial velocities in your Algol program are out by a factor of over
100.

Oh.... I didn't realize. I'm certain I programmed in the right value for c.
The spectrum is out by a factor of 16 by default, but that deliberate
exaggeration is under the control of the user or you can't fucking see it,
you stupid cunt. (There is a minor bug, you have to re-run after changing
the spectrum magnification to 1.)



|
| >| Incidentally, notice how they authors doctored their own graph. The
third
| >cycle
| >| is just a copy of the first.
| >
| >Yeah, that's common practice. Mine is two cycles, the second a duplicate
of
| >the first. The human eye mispercieves a discontinuity without it, so it
| >helps.
| >Building a light curve takes a lot of observing time, the frigging sun
| >comes up and ruins it all day long. Algol's dip is 10 hours in 70 hours,
so
| >none
| >of the curves you see are one cycle, they are all built of many cycles,
| >superimposed.
| >Nobody can reliably observe for 70 straight hours, not even with Hubble,
| >even if they could stay awake staring at a single star.
| >They close the doors to shut out the sun every day side of the orbit,
| >nobody wants the electronics fried. That's why the diagram uses phase
| >and not time, the period has to be calculated, not observed because it
can't
| >be.
| >The way astronomy works is to take a snapshot every night at the same
time
| >of the same star, then move on to the next star and repeat. The photo
| >collection
| >is then analyzed and the period found. Don't ever imagine it is easy.
| >
| >"This night looked at Beta-Persei (Algol) and was much amazed to find its
| >brightness altered. It now appears to be fourth magnitude... I observed
it
| >diligently for about an hour upwards...hardly believing that it changed
its
| >brightness, because I had never heard of any star varying so quick in its
| >brightness. I thought it might be perhaps owing to an optical illusion,
| >a defect in my eyes or bad air, but the sequel will show that its change
| >is true and that it was not mistaken."
| >(John Goodricke, journal entry November 12, 1782)
| >
| >The observation was for an hour or so. The sequel will show...
| >But Goodricke didn't use the velocity of light in his calculations,
| >and he didn't have a computer anyway. Algol has been a binary ever
| >since he said it was in 1782. It isn't really, the planet Androcles
orbits
| >it.
|
| ...and the planet Wilson2 orbits WR20a.


The WCH called WR20b, "Wilson2" orbits WR20a, the planet "Wilson's folly"
orbits WR20.
You are getting your planets and WCHs mixed, but at least we agree it is a
planet.
I don't know what your problem is, I named it "Wilson's folly" after you.
Shall we call Jupiter "SolB" and the sun SolA?

|
| >He was only 18 years old anyway, dead at age 22, so it isn't really his
| >fault.
| >Newton was already dead, there was nobody else to correct Goodricke
| >and that's why the speed of light is constant in empty space, independent
| >of the motion of the source, and has been for 100 years. It isn't
really.
| >Tusselad cannot produce the velocity curve of Algol, although he
| > imagines one exists. There is the clue to finding distance, but I'll
| >have to wait years to find someone that isn't a stubborn old goat
| >with his own crackpot theories to discuss it with, because you won't
| >listen and don't know what negative numbers are. Too old to learn,
| >senility has set in, and my grandson is too young, even though he knows
| >about negative numbers. He;s smarter than you and he listens.
|
| fucking old fool.....

Nah. He's not yet nine years old. You are the fucking old fool.

|
|
| >stupid
| >| >as he was. Still, at least the problem is identified.
| >|
| >| Radio engineers were never taught the difference between a vector and a
| >scalar.
| >
| >Some people know that intuitively, but some also know the 10
| >axioms of a vector space. Time is not a vector, it has no additive
inverse,
| >and only worbits have points, real orbits are tilted.
| >Whoopee, you matched the simplest curve there is for a star 0.3 LY away.
|
| The fucking star IS NOT 0.3 LYs away. Light emitted at different orbit
phases
| remains relatively in place after about that distance.

I know it isn't, but now you contradict your own calculations.
It is somewhere along the line-of-sight with the LMC, but f*** knows
how far, in my "theory" of extinction light dims when it unificates so
we can't use apparent magnitude as a gauge, can we?
So it is somewhere equal or greater than 0.3 LY away.
That's really a good idea, Wilson, make distance measurement even foggier
than it already is. Astronomers will love you. NOT.




| >
| >When you can match this I'll consider you have some slight skill:
| > http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
|
| I have matched this.

No you haven't. I've shown you how. Light curves are ALL mine, Wilson. I own
the lot.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
I can match any curve out there with very little eccentricity, a lot of yaw
and the right pitch.
When I say pitch I mean angle, not sales pitch. That nova will repeat in 200
years,
so the width of the pulse is only a pixel wide on the screen.


|
| >It is beyond critical distance where slow light is passed by fast light,
| >totally fucking your "theory" up, down and sideways.
| > This might help:
| > http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sek3.jpg
|
| That never happens.

Not in BaTh, I know. That's why I also know you've never matched
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
and are as stupid as Phuckwit Duck, always contradicting yourself.
You've matched it but it never happens. You are fucking crazy.


| The speed of light emitted from d\ifferent parts of the orbit is unified
before
| it reaches that stage.
| So the critical distance is never SEEN to be exceeded.


Because you don't know how to program pitch... actually you do,
but you'd prefer not to so that you can have a crackpot theory the world
is going to accept. Too much ego, not enough science, Wilson.
You really are a lunatic.

Androcles.



|
|
| >| >all become easy. (And quit arguing until you know what you are talking
| >| >about.)
| >|
| >| Learn the difference between a vector and a scalar you stupid pommie
| >bastard.
| >
| >You never did get a degree, did you? I've heard they come easy in the
| >Outback,
| >Timo has a Queensland doctorate in phuckwittery. I hope he doesn't try to
| >use it
| >in Britain, we already have enough phuckwits of our own. We used to
deport
| >them
| >once, but they still inbred.
| >Androcles.
| >
|
|
| 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: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:08:47 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:1bjdb2pf8qc6plqkc6emj2ed3uqf7ees2g@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:49:26 GMT, "Sorcerer"
Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
| wrote:
|

| >yaw = -84
| >p = 0.01y
| >Vm = 0.0012c
| >D= 0.3 LY.
| >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wr20a.jpg
|
| >How come 0.8 = 0.28, Wabo?
| >I've caught you lying, Wilson. Not bad, eh?
|
| >You found that 0.3LY by parallax, I suppose.
|
| No.
| This star is in the large magellanic cloud some 180,000 lys away.
|
| 0.3 LY is the distance over which light speed unification takes place,
assuming
| the published value for the period is correct.

Only because you left out inclination (pitch).

If I include pitch, I have to decrease the radial velocity by the same amount.
The observed radial velocities take pitch into account. I don't have to worry
about it.


Quote:
I've published the effect of parameters now, I don't need any imaginary
"unification" theory.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
The colour is an indication of velocity, and it doesn't change with
distance.

Any light curve at any distance, H. They are ALL mine. You had your chance
and
blew it.

The interesting thing A, is that the matching of brightness curves generally
show that the effective distances are usually much less than the published
ones. I haven't found any that are greater. I want to correlate the ratio of
observed to predicted distance with variation period. That will really prove
something BIG.

Quote:
| At that distance, the brightness variation is around 0.44 mags, the
observed
| figure.

Any light curve at any distance, H. They ALL belong to me. You had your
chance
and blew it, trying to promote you crackpot velocity unification theory
because
you left out pitch. Nobody is going to buy that, you are a fraud and a
crank.

...the old professional jealousy showing up again....

Quote:
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.--Sir Isaac Newton.

| It stands to reason that the unification distance is roughly proportional
to
| the orbit radius and the period.


You have no ability to reason, you are a fraud. Real orbits are tilted.
Wabo Wombat Wilson's Wedge-on Wedge-shaped Wobbly Worbits Pty is a
confidence trickster's company. I've told you that before, but you are too
stubborn to listen.

The only info we have from point sources is the radial velocity. That equals
(real velocity) x cos(pitch).
If you have a pitch of 85 degrees and an observed radial velocity of x then the
true orbital velocity is x/cos85.
So in other words, forget all about pitch and just use my method of producing
ellipses.


Quote:


|
| >Most real astronomers think the nearest star to our own is about 4 ly,
but
| >what
| >do they know?
| >Did HST resolve it into a binary, Wilson? It managed to find some detail
| >of Mira at 400 ly, a binary at 0.3 LY should be easy, and Sirius at 8 ly
is
| >an observed binary with a 50 year period.
| >Now you ARE funny, a virtual astronomer with four eyes. Not bad, eh?
| >You are so far behind me (20 years) it is hilarious.
| >ROFLMAO!
|
| This is obviously far too hard for you.
|
| I say this star is an algol type. It has a large WCH circling it. You
should
| agree.


f*** you, you are a fraud, you left out pitch and said it didn't matter.
I want NO part of BaTh, I've said so all along. The star has a large planet
orbiting it, and the orbit is almost face on, it's not edge on. I name the
planet
in orbit around WR20 "Wilson's folly".

So you take the radial velocity, multiply it by pitch then divide it by pitch
again.
That's not very bright...


Quote:


|
| It is claimed to be binary pair of almost identical stars.
| I say the 'second star' is really a reflection of light from the very
large
| WCH.


The morons always claim binaries, H. We both know it is a planet.
My only argument with you is your crackpot theory based on all
orbits being seen edge-on from Earth. Why you want to call a planet
a WCH is a mark of your crackpottery and egotism.

I TOLD YOU. PITCH IS AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED IN THE OBSERVED RADIAL VELOCITY
CURVE.


Quote:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
|
| >I'll tell you what you've inadvertently done, Wilson. You've confirmed
| >the Androclean hypothesis first found by studying Henrietta
Leavitt-Swan's
| >cepheid hypothesis relating distance to period.
|
| >The Androclean hypothesis:
| >Period, Distance and Major Axis form the sides of a similar triangle.
| >By that I mean
| >Distance: A = 0.3, B= 3, C= 30, D= 300 (parsecs)
| >Period: A = 0.03, B= 0.3, C = 3, D= 30 (days)
| >Semi Major Axis: A= 0.00015, B = 0.0015, C= 0.015, D = 0.15 (AU)
|
| >The parameters are the sides of a similar triangle, ADist, APeriod, Aaxis
| >produces the same curve as BDist, BPeriod, Baxis.
|
| >You can't match the distance, Wilson. All your worbits are wedge-on,
| >whereas my orbit is almost face on (pitched 85 degrees from yours).
|
| That merely applies a cosine factor to your radial velocities. Total waste
of
| time.

Yes, ducky, of course. "Wilson's folly" is merely 0.3 LY away. Let's go and
colonise it with crackpots, you belong there as the grandson of a deportee.

It is NOT 0.3 lys away.

Fast light no longer catches slow light after 0.3 lys.
The fucking period is only 3.6 days.

Quote:
| >That's why your Mickey Mouse program is useless.
| >I'm far closer to finding accurate distance than you'll ever be, I have a
| >secret.
| >Well, not really a secret, I've already given you enough clues, you
stubborn
| >old fool.
|
| The idea is to find thhe light unification distance not the actual
distance.

Yeah, and find some bright green flying elephants on Wilson's folly, in
worbit around wr20 that is 0.3 LY away and edge-on as seen from Earth,
along the same line of sight as the LMC. It should be easy for HST to spot
Wilson's folly from the reflected light of it's primary. After all, Jupiter
is
quite bright and that's a WCH, it even has moons seen with a 30x telescope,
you fucking idiot.

You are now beyond help.

Quote:


| The radial velocities in your Algol program are out by a factor of over
100.

Oh.... I didn't realize. I'm certain I programmed in the right value for c.
The spectrum is out by a factor of 16 by default, but that deliberate
exaggeration is under the control of the user or you can't fucking see it,
you stupid cunt. (There is a minor bug, you have to re-run after changing
the spectrum magnification to 1.)



|
| >| Incidentally, notice how they authors doctored their own graph. The
third
| >cycle
| >| is just a copy of the first.
|
| >Yeah, that's common practice. Mine is two cycles, the second a duplicate
of
| >the first. The human eye mispercieves a discontinuity without it, so it
| >helps.
| >Building a light curve takes a lot of observing time, the frigging sun

| >Whoopee, you matched the simplest curve there is for a star 0.3 LY away.
|
| The fucking star IS NOT 0.3 LYs away. Light emitted at different orbit
phases
| remains relatively in place after about that distance.

I know it isn't, but now you contradict your own calculations.
It is somewhere along the line-of-sight with the LMC, but f*** knows
how far, in my "theory" of extinction light dims when it unificates so
we can't use apparent magnitude as a gauge, can we?
So it is somewhere equal or greater than 0.3 LY away.
That's really a good idea, Wilson, make distance measurement even foggier
than it already is. Astronomers will love you. NOT.

When I plug in all the accepted parameter values to any of these short period
'binaries', I find that the required distance to produce the observed
brightness variation is invariably a lot shorter than the published figure.

You cannot do this becasue your progrm is primative compared with mine .....but
if you could you would understand what I am talking about.

Quote:


|
| >When you can match this I'll consider you have some slight skill:
| > http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
|
| I have matched this.

No you haven't. I've shown you how. Light curves are ALL mine, Wilson. I own
the lot.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
I can match any curve out there with very little eccentricity, a lot of yaw
and the right pitch.
When I say pitch I mean angle, not sales pitch. That nova will repeat in 200
years,
so the width of the pulse is only a pixel wide on the screen.


|
| >It is beyond critical distance where slow light is passed by fast light,
| >totally fucking your "theory" up, down and sideways.
| > This might help:
| > http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sek3.jpg
|
| That never happens.

Not in BaTh, I know. That's why I also know you've never matched
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
and are as stupid as Phuckwit Duck, always contradicting yourself.
You've matched it but it never happens. You are fucking crazy.


| The speed of light emitted from d\ifferent parts of the orbit is unified
before
| it reaches that stage.
| So the critical distance is never SEEN to be exceeded.


Because you don't know how to program pitch... actually you do,
but you'd prefer not to so that you can have a crackpot theory the world
is going to accept. Too much ego, not enough science, Wilson.
You really are a lunatic.

Androcles.



|
|
| >| >all become easy. (And quit arguing until you know what you are talking
| >| >about.)
| >|
| >| Learn the difference between a vector and a scalar you stupid pommie
| >bastard.
|
| >You never did get a degree, did you? I've heard they come easy in the
| >Outback,
| >Timo has a Queensland doctorate in phuckwittery. I hope he doesn't try to
| >use it
| >in Britain, we already have enough phuckwits of our own. We used to
deport
| >them
| >once, but they still inbred.
| >Androcles.
|
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
|



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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henry Haapalainen
science forum Guru


Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 493

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Modern physics" is almost dead. It is full of mistakes and nobody seems to
be interested in doing something about it.

Henry Haapalainen
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 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 Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:06 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: 0.6006s ][ Queries: 16 (0.4977s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]