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


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:31 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

In article <clVtg.19173$_z6.7622@reader1.news.jippii.net>, Henry
Haapalainen <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

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

Henry Haapalainen



For those actually doing physics, Modern Physics is alive and well.

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:55 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:eo6gb21olc0dea4km6e767geum09ejcr78@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:08:47 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"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.

Yeah, shame, isn't it? Much better to decrease c+v by magic than
do it right, then you can have a theory all to yourself.



| The observed radial velocities take pitch into account. I don't have to
worry
| about it.

That's the whole point. The spectrum takes velocity into account.
We observe c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch), but Wilson wants to say we
observe c+v.cos(yaw) for 0.3 LY and only c for the rest of the distance.
It's worse than I thought. Wombat's Wilson's Wobbly Worbits are rectangles
with sides 0,-v,0,v.

Wilson wants his own theory, so Wilson will leave out pitch to get it.

|
| >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.

There are lots of interesting things, H, but not if you don't program
correctly. You'll have interesting things of your own invention which are of
no interest to anyone else if you leave out pitch.
My DISCOVERY (you can call it a theory if you wish, I've never claimed
to have a theory), is that I can find the distance to a cepheid from the
shape
of its curve. What is fucking me up and preventing me from publishing
the exact distances is that damned pitch. Measurements of magnitude
and Leavitt-Swan's method is still the best there is, but that is limited
to stars declared to be cepheids, and omits all close-orbit "binaries"
which are really cepheids. Cepheids aren't even on the main sequence
of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram:
http://www.smallscalechemistry.colostate.edu/PowerfulPictures/SpectroscopyAndTheStars.pdfand of course that page has it's doppler fucked up, showing cf' = f ----- c-vinstead of c+vf' = f ----- cYou and I know that cepheids are ordinary stars with planets,and the only other people in the world that *know* it are Sekerinand Fritzius.I am the only person in the world that has pinpointed whereEinstein's f*** up is, and you can't see it because you never learnednegative numbers and think light has to go back to it's sourceto be a velocity.| I haven't found any that are greater. I want to correlate the ratio of| observed to predicted distance with variation period. That will reallyprove| something BIG.Predicted distance is found from the apparent magnitude of a cepheid,a "standard candle", and is the work of Henrietta Leavitt-Swan. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/baleav.html"Leavitt's work with variable stars led to her most important contributionto the field: the cepheid variable period-luminosity relationship. Byintense observation of a certain class of variable star, the cepheids,Leavitt discovered a direct correlation between the t
ime it took a star togo from bright to dim to how bright it actually was. Knowing thisrelationship helped other astronomers, such as Edwin Hubble, to make theirown groundbreaking discoveries. "What Henrietta Leavitt Swan found by observation I've turned intoAndrocles' law. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/Alaw.GIFThis is really quite simple, mathematically.What Leavitt didn't know was that a cepheid is a star and planet.We know from Kepler's 3rd law that there is a relation between theperiod and the size of the orbit. The shuttle has a period of aboutan hour and a half, a geosynchronous satellite has a period ofa day and the moon has a period of a month. If you know the period,you know the size of the orbit.If you have those two parameters, you have the third from the shapeof the light curve and Androcles' law.So we can find distance just from the period, because that gives usthe size of the orbit, and finding distance is something BIG -- except--it is fucked by the inclination of the orbit. Back to the drawing board.Find a cepheid in another galaxy and you can estimate the distance tothat galaxy. M31 is somewhere between 1.8 and 2.5 light years away.There
are no observed distances, nobody has a tape measure that long.If you find an observed distance, you've found a BIG tape measure,proving you a BIG idiot.|| >| 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....I know you are jealous. You are bound to be, you are not a mathematician.You think you can write down 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c and be believed.Look...Let AB be 300,000 km. Let t'A-tA = 22 * 300,000/2 = 300,000 km/sec, the speed of light.Nobody disputes that.Now add a velocity for B relative to A.For simplicity, let that be 150,000 km/sec.So we have AB = 300,000 km at the instant tA.After one second, AB = 450,000 km and the light has reached 300,000 km.After 2 seconds, AB = 600,000 km, and the light has reached B.After 4 seconds the light has return to AAB is now 900,000 km at t'A and 2AB/4 = 450,000 km/sec.Einstein thinks B stops moving.I've
shown how the cuckoo transformations are derived in http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htmbecause I'm a mathematician and Einstein was a fool or a huckster.|| >RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.| >|>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >| >RULE I.| >We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are bothtrue| >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 withsimplicity,| >and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.--Sir Isaac Newton.| >| >| It stands to reason that the unification distance is roughlyproportional| >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 aretoo| >stubborn to listen.|| The only info we have from point sources is the radial velocity.Cepheids vary in magnitude. That is info, you are a liar.| That equals| (real velocity) x cos(pit
ch).Of course it does. The real velocity is v.cos(yaw), so we see v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)| If you have a pitch of 85 degrees and an observed radial velocity of xthen the| true orbital velocity is x/cos85.Nonsense. The true orbital velocity is v.cos(yaw). Where you get 'x' fromnobody knows.| So in other words, forget all about pitch and just use my method ofproducing| ellipses.ALL light curves are MINE, at ANY distance. Your light curves are for stars0.3 ly away, and you invented foggy h-aether to give them more distancebecause you left out pitch. Nobody will believe you.|| >| >| >|| >| >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 somedetail| >| >of Mira at 400 ly, a binary at 0.3 LY should be easy, and Sirius at 8ly| >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.|
Quote:
| >| >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 largeplanet| >orbiting it, and the orbit is almost face on, it's not edge on. I namethe| >planet| >in orbit around WR20 "Wilson's folly".|| So you take the radial velocity, multiply it by pitch then divide it bypitch| again.| That's not very bright...You are right, it isn't. That's why I don't divide again.You leave out pitch altogether and invent h-aether. That's downright fuckingstupid.You've probably got yaw and pitch confused because you can't think inthree dimensions. My program even includes roll, although I never use it.I use three dimensions automatically, I think that way.|| >| >| >|| >| 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 RADIALVELOCITY| CURVE.That's yaw. You think in 2-D only. Pitch, roll, yaw. Three dimensions, threerotations. You can forget roll, it makes no difference to light curves.You CANNOT forget pitch and yaw.||| >| > 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. Totalwaste

| >of| >| time.| >| >Yes, ducky, of course. "Wilson's folly" is merely 0.3 LY away. Let's goand| >colonise it with crackpots, you belong there as the grandson of adeportee.|| It is NOT 0.3 lys away.Yes, ducky. Take your medication.|| Fast light no longer catches slow light after 0.3 lys.| The fucking period is only 3.6 days.Yes ducky, that's because you left out pitch and confused it with yaw.The BaTh universe is two dimensional. Not even Einstein was that stupid.You did it deliberately to promote h-aether. You are either an idiot ora fraud, just like Einstein.|| >| >That's why your Mickey Mouse program is useless.| >| >I'm far closer to finding accurate distance than you'll ever be, Ihave 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 tospot| >Wilson's folly from the reflected light of it's primary. After all,Ju
piter| >is| >quite bright and that's a WCH, it even has moons seen with a 30xtelescope,| >you fucking idiot.|| You are now beyond help.I never wanted help, especially from a 2-D idiot that doesn't know yaw frompitch.|| >| >| >| 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 forc.| >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 seeit,| >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 aduplicate| >of| >| >the first. The human eye mispercieves a discontinuity without it, soit| >| >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 LYaway.| >|| >| The fucking star IS NOT 0.3 LYs away. Light emitted at different orbi
t| >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 shortperiod| 'binaries', I find that the required distance to produce the observed| brightness variation is invariably a lot shorter than the publishedfigure.|| You cannot do this becasue your progrm is primative compared with mine.....but| if you could you would understand what I am talking about.You don't know yaw arse from black pitch.Androcles.|| >| >| >| >| >| >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. Iown| >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 ofyaw| >and the right pitch.| >When I say pitch I mean angle, not sales pitch. That nova will repeat in200| >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 fastlight,| >| >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 isunified| >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 eno
ugh science, Wilson.| >You really are a lunatic.| >| >Androcles.| >| >| >| >|| >|| >| >| >all become easy. (And quit arguing until you know what you aretalking| >| >| >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 tryto| >| >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
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:55:28 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:eo6gb21olc0dea4km6e767geum09ejcr78@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:08:47 GMT, "Sorcerer"
Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
| wrote:
|

| >| 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.

Yeah, shame, isn't it? Much better to decrease c+v by magic than
do it right, then you can have a theory all to yourself.



| The observed radial velocities take pitch into account. I don't have to
worry
| about it.

That's the whole point. The spectrum takes velocity into account.
We observe c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch), but Wilson wants to say we
observe c+v.cos(yaw) for 0.3 LY and only c for the rest of the distance.
It's worse than I thought. Wombat's Wilson's Wobbly Worbits are rectangles
with sides 0,-v,0,v.

NoNoNo!!!!!!

It is not 'c' for the rest of the distance at all. The value will be slightly
less than the c + (the speed of the star 'system' wrt Earth).

I say light from different parts of the orbit stops moving relatively after the
'unification distance'.

The fact is, this seems to be consistent for all thhe stars I have
investigated.
The required distance is always considerably less than the Hipparcos one. It si
never greater.

Quote:

Wilson wants his own theory, so Wilson will leave out pitch to get it.

I do not leave out pitch.
What YOU have doen is assign a pitch of 85 deg to Algol in order to reduce its
radial speeds by cos 85, which gives you a factor of 12 to play with.
That's cheating and totally unproductive. By being honest I have come up with a
sensational discovery that will surely flatten Einstein for good..


Quote:
generally
| show that the effective distances are usually much less than the published
| ones.

There are lots of interesting things, H, but not if you don't program
correctly. You'll have interesting things of your own invention which are of
no interest to anyone else if you leave out pitch.

I don't leave out pitch. There is no way you can obtain a value for pitch when
dealing with a point source. All I need is the radial velocity vs time curve.
That automatically includes pitch.

I realise that's too hard for a pommie...

Quote:
My DISCOVERY (you can call it a theory if you wish, I've never claimed
to have a theory), is that I can find the distance to a cepheid from the
shape
of its curve. What is fucking me up and preventing me from publishing
the exact distances is that damned pitch. Measurements of magnitude
and Leavitt-Swan's method is still the best there is, but that is limited
to stars declared to be cepheids, and omits all close-orbit "binaries"
which are really cepheids. Cepheids aren't even on the main sequence
of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram:
http://www.smallscalechemistry.colostate.edu/PowerfulPictures/SpectroscopyAndTheStars.pdfand of course that page has it's doppler fucked up, showing cf' = f ----- c-vinstead of c+vf' = f ----- cYou and I know that cepheids are ordinary stars with planets,and the only other people in the world that *know* it are Sekerinand Fritzius.I am the only person in the world that has pinpointed whereEinstein's f*** up is, and you can't see it because you never learnednegative numbers and think light has to go back to it's sourceto be a velocity.| I haven't found any that are greater. I want to correlate the ratio of| observed to predicted distance with variation period. That will reallyprove| something BIG.Predicted distance is found from the apparent magnitude of a cepheid,a "standard candle", and is the work of Henrietta Leavitt-Swan. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/baleav.html"Leavitt's work with variable stars led to her most important
contributionto the field: the cepheid variable period-luminosity relationship. Byintense observation of a certain class of variable star, the cepheids,Leavitt discovered a direct correlation between the time it took a star togo from bright to dim to how bright it actually was. Knowing thisrelationship helped other astronomers, such as Edwin Hubble, to make theirown groundbreaking discoveries. "What Henrietta Leavitt Swan found by observation I've turned intoAndrocles' law. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/Alaw.GIFThis is really quite simple, mathematically.What Leavitt didn't know was that a cepheid is a star and planet.We know from Kepler's 3rd law that there is a relation between theperiod and the size of the orbit. The shuttle has a period of aboutan hour and a half, a geosynchronous satellite has a period ofa day and the moon has a period of a month. If you know the period,you know the size of the orbit.If you have those two parameters, you have the third
from the shapeof the light curve and Androcles' law.So we can find distance just from the period, because that gives usthe size of the orbit, and finding distance is something BIG -- except--it is fucked by the inclination of the orbit. Back to the drawing board.Find a cepheid in another galaxy and you can estimate the distance tothat galaxy. M31 is somewhere between 1.8 and 2.5 light years away.There are no observed distances, nobody has a tape measure that long.If you find an observed distance, you've found a BIG tape measure,proving you a BIG idiot.|| >| 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....I know you are jealous. You are
bound to be, you are not a mathematician.You think you can write down 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c and be believed.Look...Let AB be 300,000 km. Let t'A-tA = 22 * 300,000/2 = 300,000 km/sec, the speed of light.Nobody disputes that.Now add a velocity for B relative to A.For simplicity, let that be 150,000 km/sec.So we have AB = 300,000 km at the instant tA.After one second, AB = 450,000 km and the light has reached 300,000 km.After 2 seconds, AB = 600,000 km, and the light has reached B.After 4 seconds the light has return to AAB is now 900,000 km at t'A and 2AB/4 = 450,000 km/sec.Einstein thinks B stops moving.I've shown how the cuckoo transformations are derived in http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htmbecause I'm a mathematician and Einstein was a fool or a huckster.|| >RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.| >|>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >| >RULE I.| >We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are
bothtrue| >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 withsimplicity,| >and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.--Sir Isaac Newton.| >| >| It stands to reason that the unification distance is roughlyproportional| >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 aretoo| >stubborn to listen.|| The only info we have from point sources is the radial velocity.Cepheids vary in magnitude. That is info, you are a liar.| That equals| (real velocity) x cos(pitch).Of course it does. The real velocity is v.cos(yaw), so we see v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)| If you have a pitch of 85 degrees and an observed radial velocity of xthen the| true orbital
velocity is x/cos85.Nonsense. The true orbital velocity is v.cos(yaw). Where you get 'x' fromnobody knows.| So in other words, forget all about pitch and just use my method ofproducing| ellipses.ALL light curves are MINE, at ANY distance. Your light curves are for stars0.3 ly away, and you invented foggy h-aether to give them more distancebecause you left out pitch. Nobody will believe you.|| >| >| >|| >| >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 somedetail| >| >of Mira at 400 ly, a binary at 0.3 LY should be easy, and Sirius at 8ly| >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 largeplanet| >orbiting it, and the orbit is almost face on, it's not edge on. I namethe| >planet| >in orbit around WR20 "Wilson's folly".|| So you take the radial velocity, multiply it by pitch then divide it bypitch| again.| That's not very bright...You are right, it isn't. That's why I don't divide again.You leave out pitch altogether and invent h-aether. That's downright fuckingstupid.You've probably got yaw and pitch confused because you can't think inthree dimensions. My program even includes roll, although I never use it.I use three dimensions automatically, I think that way.|| >| >| >|| >| 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 RADIALVELOCITY| CURVE.That's yaw. You think in 2-D only. Pitch, roll, yaw. Three dimensions, threerotations. You can forget roll, it makes no difference to light curves.You CANNOT forget pitch and yaw.||| >| > 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. Totalwaste| >of| >| time.| >| >Yes, ducky, of course. "Wilson's folly" is merely 0.3 LY away. Let's goand| >colonise it with crackpots, you belong there as the grandson of adeportee.|| It is NOT 0.3 lys away.Yes, ducky. Take your medication.|| Fast light no longer catches slow light after 0.3 lys.| The fucking period is only 3.6 days.Yes ducky, that's because you left out pitch and confused it with yaw.The BaTh universe is two dimensional. Not even Einstein was that stupid.You did it deliberately to promote h-aether. You are either an idiot ora fraud, just like Einstein.|| >|
That's why your Mickey Mouse program is useless.| >| >I'm far closer to finding accurate distance than you'll ever be, Ihave 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 tospot| >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 30xtelescope,| >you fucking idiot.|| You are now beyond help.I never wanted help, especially from a 2-D idiot that doesn't know yaw frompitch.|| >| >| >| 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 forc.| >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 seeit,| >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 aduplicate| >of| >| >the first. The human eye mispercieves a discontinuity without it, soit| >| >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 LYaway.| >|| >| 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 shortperiod| 'binaries', I find that the required distance to produce the observed| brightness variation is invariably a lot shorter than the publishedfigure.|| You cannot do this becasue your progrm is primative compared with mine.....but| if you could you would understand what I am talking about.You don't know yaw arse from black pitch.Androcles.|| >| >| >| >| >| >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. Iown| >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 ofyaw| >and the right pitch.| >When I say pitch I mean angle, not sales pitch. That nova will repeat in200| >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 fastlight,| >| >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 isunified| >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 aretalking| >| >| >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 tryto| >| >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.|


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: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:31:57 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:

Quote:
In article <clVtg.19173$_z6.7622@reader1.news.jippii.net>, Henry
Haapalainen <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

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

Henry Haapalainen



For those actually doing physics, Modern Physics is alive and well.

It can tear up all its astronomy books for a start.
All the starlight in the universe does NOT travel to little planet Earth at c,
as the church would have us believe..


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: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

The basic mistakes ought to be corrected, instead they build new fantasy
theories (like quarks) on them. Math is a good tool but it cannot help in
doing the needed corrections. Physics must be understood.

Henry Haapalainen
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:51 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:t3sib2hbbqg2q7uep57a076br4p3shgooq@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:55:28 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:eo6gb21olc0dea4km6e767geum09ejcr78@4ax.com...
| >| On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:08:47 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| ><Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| >| wrote:
| >|
|
| >| >| 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.
| >
| >Yeah, shame, isn't it? Much better to decrease c+v by magic than
| >do it right, then you can have a theory all to yourself.
| >
| >
| >
| >| The observed radial velocities take pitch into account. I don't have to
| >worry
| >| about it.
| >
| >That's the whole point. The spectrum takes velocity into account.
| >We observe c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch), but Wilson wants to say we
| >observe c+v.cos(yaw) for 0.3 LY and only c for the rest of the distance.
| >It's worse than I thought. Wombat's Wilson's Wobbly Worbits are
rectangles
| >with sides 0,-v,0,v.
|
| NoNoNo!!!!!!
|
| It is not 'c' for the rest of the distance at all. The value will be
slightly
| less than the c + (the speed of the star 'system' wrt Earth).

Moron.


|
| I say light from different parts of the orbit stops moving relatively
after the
| 'unification distance'.

Moron.

|
| The fact is,


Whenever I see a sentence starting with "In fact", "Actually", "The fact
is", "it is clear",
"in agreement with experience", or similar assertions, I know that what
follows is going
to be a lie. People subconsciously say that to reassure themselves their
lies will be believed.
Now let me see...

| this seems to be consistent for all thhe stars I have
| investigated.

Aha... as I thought.

In agreement with experience we further assume Wilson doesn't even own a
telescope
and has never investigated a star in his life.






| The required distance is always considerably less than the Hipparcos one.
It si
| never greater.
|
| >
| >Wilson wants his own theory, so Wilson will leave out pitch to get it.
|
| I do not leave out pitch.
| What YOU have doen is assign a pitch of 85 deg to Algol in order to reduce
its
| radial speeds by cos 85, which gives you a factor of 12 to play with.
| That's cheating and totally unproductive. By being honest I have come up
with a
| sensational discovery that will surely flatten Einstein for good..

Lying moron. There is nowhere in your program for me to enter a value.
It's bad enough that you are a shithead without you having to justify it.
|
|
| >generally
| >| show that the effective distances are usually much less than the
published
| >| ones.
| >
| >There are lots of interesting things, H, but not if you don't program
| >correctly. You'll have interesting things of your own invention which are
of
| >no interest to anyone else if you leave out pitch.
|
| I don't leave out pitch. There is no way you can obtain a value for pitch
when
| dealing with a point source.

Why don't you leave out eccentricity as well, Wilson? There is no way
you can obtain a value for eccentricity, major axis, longitude of
periastron,
angle of inclination, period or distance when dealing with a point source.
Cepheids are point sources that expand and contract, Wilson. We can see they
do.
Forget fucking physics, physics is dead. Wilson killed it so he could
promote
his fucking MORON theory.
If I'm caught with my pants down, Wilson, I get red in the face and pull
them up, laugh about it and get on with the job.
What I don't understand is when you are caught with your pants down, you
actually bend over to be fucked. You must be a masochist.

There is no way you can obtain a value for distance for a point source,
so pitch is zero and the distance is 0.3 ly.-- Shithead Wilson.




All I need is the radial velocity vs time curve.
| That automatically includes pitch.
|
| I realise that's too hard for a pommie...

I realise you are a stupid cunt.

|
| >My DISCOVERY (you can call it a theory if you wish, I've never claimed
| >to have a theory), is that I can find the distance to a cepheid from the
| >shape
| >of its curve. What is fucking me up and preventing me from publishing
| >the exact distances is that damned pitch. Measurements of magnitude
| >and Leavitt-Swan's method is still the best there is, but that is limited
| >to stars declared to be cepheids, and omits all close-orbit "binaries"
| >which are really cepheids. Cepheids aren't even on the main sequence
| >of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram:

Damn. Text fucks up with long URL names....


[Snip and repair.]

and of course that page has it's doppler fucked up, showing
c
f' = f -----
c-v
instead of
c+v
f' = f -----
c
You and I know that cepheids are ordinary stars with planets,and the only
other people in the world that *know* it are Sekerin and Fritzius.
I am the only person in the world that has pinpointed where
Einstein's f*** up is, and you can't see it because you never learned
negative numbers and think light has to go back to it's source
to be a velocity.

| 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.


Predicted distance is found from the apparent magnitude of a cepheid,
a "standard candle", and is the work of Henrietta Leavitt-Swan.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/baleav.html

" Leavitt's work with variable stars led to her most important
contributionto the field: the cepheid variable period-luminosity
relationship. Byintense observation of a certain class of variable star, the
cepheids,Leavitt discovered a direct correlation between the time it took a
star togo from bright to dim to how bright it actually was. Knowing
thisrelationship helped other astronomers, such as Edwin Hubble, to make
their own groundbreaking discoveries. "What Henrietta Leavitt Swan found by
observation I've turned into Androcles' law.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/Alaw.GIF
This is really quite simple, mathematically.
What Leavitt didn't know was that a cepheid is a star and planet.
We know from Kepler's 3rd law that there is a relation between the
period and the size of the orbit. The shuttle has a period of about
an hour and a half, a geosynchronous satellite has a period of
a day and the moon has a period of a month. If you know the period,
you know the size of the orbit.If you have those two parameters,
you have the third from the shape of the light curve and Androcles' law.
So we can find distance just from the period, because that gives us
the size of the orbit, and finding distance is something BIG -- except--
it is fucked by the inclination of the orbit. Back to the drawing board.

Find a cepheid in another galaxy and you can estimate the distance to
that galaxy. M31 is somewhere between 1.8 and 2.5 light years away.
There are no observed distances, nobody has a tape measure that long.

If you find an observed distance, you've found a BIG tape measure,
proving you a BIG idiot.

I'll leave it there. Physics is dead. Wilson murdered it.


Androcles
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:16 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 04:51:28 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:t3sib2hbbqg2q7uep57a076br4p3shgooq@4ax.com...

|
| NoNoNo!!!!!!
|
| It is not 'c' for the rest of the distance at all. The value will be
slightly
| less than the c + (the speed of the star 'system' wrt Earth).

Moron.

Have it your way...


Quote:

Moron.

Insults from you are of no consequence...


Quote:
Whenever I see a sentence starting with "In fact", "Actually", "The fact
is", "it is clear",
"in agreement with experience", or similar assertions, I know that what
follows is going
to be a lie. People subconsciously say that to reassure themselves their
lies will be believed.
Now let me see...

| this seems to be consistent for all thhe stars I have
| investigated.

Aha... as I thought.

In agreement with experience we further assume Wilson doesn't even own a
telescope
and has never investigated a star in his life.

I don't own a telescope. I can see enough stars here with my naked eye. They
look the same through a trelescope. Didn't you know that?

Anyway, stars are boring unless one has the right gear and know what one is
looking for.

Quote:
| What YOU have doen is assign a pitch of 85 deg to Algol in order to reduce
its
| radial speeds by cos 85, which gives you a factor of 12 to play with.
| That's cheating and totally unproductive. By being honest I have come up
with a
| sensational discovery that will surely flatten Einstein for good..

Lying moron. There is nowhere in your program for me to enter a value.
It's bad enough that you are a shithead without you having to justify it.

What the f*** are you talking about?

It allows you to change fifteen different parameters.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe


Quote:
Why don't you leave out eccentricity as well, Wilson? There is no way
you can obtain a value for eccentricity, major axis, longitude of
periastron,
angle of inclination, period or distance when dealing with a point source.
Cepheids are point sources that expand and contract, Wilson. We can see they
do.

There is a problem with cepheids. The claimed radial velocity curve of RT Aur
(The only one I can find) doesn't match my predictions. This could be because
the author faked the bloody thing. He admitted to there being great
uncertainty.

Quote:
Forget fucking physics, physics is dead. Wilson killed it so he could
promote
his fucking MORON theory.

It's all coming together now. I might publish it soon. I've only got about
another ten good years.

Quote:
If I'm caught with my pants down, Wilson, I get red in the face and pull
them up, laugh about it and get on with the job.
What I don't understand is when you are caught with your pants down, you
actually bend over to be fucked. You must be a masochist.

There is no way you can obtain a value for distance for a point source,
so pitch is zero and the distance is 0.3 ly.-- Shithead Wilson.

Don't lie. I didn't say anything like that....you fucking drunken pomm....



Quote:
| >My DISCOVERY (you can call it a theory if you wish, I've never claimed
| >to have a theory), is that I can find the distance to a cepheid from the
| >shape
| >of its curve. What is fucking me up and preventing me from publishing
| >the exact distances is that damned pitch. Measurements of magnitude
| >and Leavitt-Swan's method is still the best there is, but that is limited
| >to stars declared to be cepheids, and omits all close-orbit "binaries"
| >which are really cepheids. Cepheids aren't even on the main sequence
| >of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram:

Damn. Text fucks up with long URL names....


[Snip and repair.]

and of course that page has it's doppler fucked up, showing
c
f' = f -----
c-v
instead of
c+v
f' = f -----
c
You and I know that cepheids are ordinary stars with planets,and the only
other people in the world that *know* it are Sekerin and Fritzius.
I am the only person in the world that has pinpointed where
Einstein's f*** up is, and you can't see it because you never learned
negative numbers and think light has to go back to it's source
to be a velocity.

In recent posts, you have claimed both that 'c = 0' and 'c = infinity'.

have you been checked for Alzheimer's recently?

Quote:
| 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.


Predicted distance is found from the apparent magnitude of a cepheid,
a "standard candle", and is the work of Henrietta Leavitt-Swan.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/baleav.html

Yes I know....
Do you beleive it?

Quote:
" Leavitt's work with variable stars led to her most important
contributionto the field: the cepheid variable period-luminosity
relationship. Byintense observation of a certain class of variable star, the
cepheids,Leavitt discovered a direct correlation between the time it took a
star togo from bright to dim to how bright it actually was. Knowing
thisrelationship helped other astronomers, such as Edwin Hubble, to make
their own groundbreaking discoveries. "What Henrietta Leavitt Swan found by
observation I've turned into Androcles' law.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/Alaw.GIF
This is really quite simple, mathematically.
What Leavitt didn't know was that a cepheid is a star and planet.
We know from Kepler's 3rd law that there is a relation between the
period and the size of the orbit.

....and the mass of the central star...

Quote:
The shuttle has a period of about
an hour and a half, a geosynchronous satellite has a period of
a day and the moon has a period of a month. If you know the period,
you know the size of the orbit.If you have those two parameters,
you have the third from the shape of the light curve and Androcles' law.
So we can find distance just from the period, because that gives us
the size of the orbit, and finding distance is something BIG -- except--
it is fucked by the inclination of the orbit. Back to the drawing board.

Find a cepheid in another galaxy and you can estimate the distance to
that galaxy. M31 is somewhere between 1.8 and 2.5 light years away.
There are no observed distances, nobody has a tape measure that long.

If you find an observed distance, you've found a BIG tape measure,
proving you a BIG idiot.

I'll leave it there. Physics is dead. Wilson murdered it.

......says the jealous radio engineer....

Quote:
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 16, 2006 10:16 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 02:31:03 +0300, "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi>
wrote:

Quote:
The basic mistakes ought to be corrected, instead they build new fantasy
theories (like quarks) on them. Math is a good tool but it cannot help in
doing the needed corrections. Physics must be understood.

Well you can understand Einstein's second postulate by running my little demo
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/GR-aether.exe

Einstein claims that all starlight in the universe is specifically designed to
travel towards little planet Earth at c.
How absolutely ridiculous...

Quote:

Henry Haapalainen



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 16, 2006 1:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:qb3kb211m5go8a4df059jaarkjdjis9gqf@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 04:51:28 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:t3sib2hbbqg2q7uep57a076br4p3shgooq@4ax.com...
|
| >|
| >| NoNoNo!!!!!!
| >|
| >| It is not 'c' for the rest of the distance at all. The value will be
| >slightly
| >| less than the c + (the speed of the star 'system' wrt Earth).
| >
| >Moron.
|
| Have it your way...


I will. All Light Curves are MINE, saith Lord Androcles.
You can have your 2-dimension bath with its missing pitch.
|
|
| >
| >Moron.
|
| Insults from you are of no consequence...

Missing pitch in two dimensional theories is of no consequence.

|
|
| >Whenever I see a sentence starting with "In fact", "Actually", "The fact
| >is", "it is clear",
| >"in agreement with experience", or similar assertions, I know that what
| >follows is going
| >to be a lie. People subconsciously say that to reassure themselves their
| >lies will be believed.
| >Now let me see...
| >
| >| this seems to be consistent for all thhe stars I have
| >| investigated.
| >
| >Aha... as I thought.
| >
| >In agreement with experience we further assume Wilson doesn't even own a
| >telescope
| >and has never investigated a star in his life.
|
| I don't own a telescope. I can see enough stars here with my naked eye.
They
| look the same through a trelescope. Didn't you know that?


Star through telescope:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060716.html

They look different to me.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060707.html

You must be one of those astromomers without a telescope that
thinks the universe is flat,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.PNG
You should join FECES.



| Anyway, stars are boring unless one has the right gear and know what one
is
| looking for.
|

Anyway, grapes are sour unless one has the right gear and know what one is
looking for, you jealous old fart.





| >| What YOU have doen is assign a pitch of 85 deg to Algol in order to
reduce
| >its
| >| radial speeds by cos 85, which gives you a factor of 12 to play with.
| >| That's cheating and totally unproductive. By being honest I have come
up
| >with a
| >| sensational discovery that will surely flatten Einstein for good..
| >
| >Lying moron. There is nowhere in your program for me to enter a value.
| >It's bad enough that you are a shithead without you having to justify it.
|
| What the f*** are you talking about?

I'm talking about your wrongram not allowing me to enter pitch.

|
| It allows you to change fifteen different parameters.

Only 6 are essential.
Distance
Period
Eccentricity
SemiMajorAxis
Yaw
Pitch.

You left out pitch because your universe is two-dimensional.
You are a fucking moron.



|
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
|
|
| >Why don't you leave out eccentricity as well, Wilson? There is no way
| >you can obtain a value for eccentricity, major axis, longitude of
| >periastron,
| >angle of inclination, period or distance when dealing with a point
source.
| >Cepheids are point sources that expand and contract, Wilson. We can see
they
| >do.
|
| There is a problem with cepheids. The claimed radial velocity curve of RT
Aur
| (The only one I can find) doesn't match my predictions. This could be
because
| the author faked the bloody thing. He admitted to there being great
| uncertainty.

There is a problem with a two dimensional universe and missing pitch.

v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch), Wilson.

X, Y and Z, Wilson.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatx.gif
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmaty.gif
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatz.gif

You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory.
You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch.



| >Forget fucking physics, physics is dead. Wilson killed it so he could
| >promote
| >his fucking MORON theory.
|
| It's all coming together now. I might publish it soon. I've only got about
| another ten good years.


You'll love to be laughed at on your death bed, you've wasted the last 6
bad years, what make you think you have 10 good ones?

|
| >If I'm caught with my pants down, Wilson, I get red in the face and pull
| >them up, laugh about it and get on with the job.
| > What I don't understand is when you are caught with your pants down,
you
| > actually bend over to be fucked. You must be a masochist.
| >
| >There is no way you can obtain a value for distance for a point source,
| >so pitch is zero and the distance is 0.3 ly.-- Shithead Wilson.
|
| Don't lie. I didn't say anything like that....you fucking drunken pomm....

You are fucked. You faked the bloody thing.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
Yours says: D= 0.3 LY
Mine matches the data, but mine has pitch, I can match at ANY distance.
You faked the bloody thing, you fucking STOOOPID drunken wabo.

There is no way you can obtain a value for distance for a point source,
so pitch is zero and the distance is 0.3 ly.-- Shithead Wilson, inventor
of foggy aether.
"Foggy aether" is trademark of Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty.
ALL light curves are MINE, Wilson. I own them ALL.
All planets discovered from light curves are mine too, including "Wilson's
folly".

|
|
| >| >My DISCOVERY (you can call it a theory if you wish, I've never claimed
| >| >to have a theory), is that I can find the distance to a cepheid from
the
| >| >shape
| >| >of its curve. What is fucking me up and preventing me from publishing
| >| >the exact distances is that damned pitch. Measurements of magnitude
| >| >and Leavitt-Swan's method is still the best there is, but that is
limited
| >| >to stars declared to be cepheids, and omits all close-orbit "binaries"
| >| >which are really cepheids. Cepheids aren't even on the main sequence
| >| >of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram:
| >
| >Damn. Text fucks up with long URL names....
| >
| >
| >[Snip and repair.]
| >
| >and of course that page has it's doppler fucked up, showing
| > c
| >f' = f -----
| > c-v
| >instead of
| > c+v
| >f' = f -----
| > c
| >You and I know that cepheids are ordinary stars with planets,and the only
| > other people in the world that *know* it are Sekerin and Fritzius.
| >I am the only person in the world that has pinpointed where
| >Einstein's f*** up is, and you can't see it because you never learned
| >negative numbers and think light has to go back to it's source
| >to be a velocity.
|
| In recent posts, you have claimed both that 'c = 0' and 'c = infinity'.


Yep, c is undefined in SR. 'c' is not the speed of light, 'C' is.

| have you been checked for Alzheimer's recently?

I don't need to, I still know what "undefined" means. c = 0 and c =
infinity.
You should check for senility and sanity.


|
| >| 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.
| >
| >
| >Predicted distance is found from the apparent magnitude of a cepheid,
| >a "standard candle", and is the work of Henrietta Leavitt-Swan.
| > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/baleav.html
|
| Yes I know....
| Do you beleive it?

Androcles' Law? Of course I do, it's mine. Leavitt-Swan provided
the real data for it. Her approximate distances can be refined from
my law and the shape of the curve. That will really prove something
BIG.
Someday someone is going to do as big a task as the human genome
project, building a huge database of light curves, professional and
amateur, find best fit curves to them and KNOW distances within
within one stellar unit (3.9 light years to Proxima Centauri). The power
of the computer is enormous. 2,500 cepheids is nothing to a computer.
I've just installed a gigabyte of RAM and a 300 Gigabyte hard drive on
my daughter's machine. My granddaughter fill the old one with pictures
of herself, she's of that age now (in the middle of puberty, needs a
tiny bra that will last about two months). It's great being a grandfather.
I'll be building a second computer for my grandson soon.


| >" Leavitt's work with variable stars led to her most important
| >contributionto the field: the cepheid variable period-luminosity
| >relationship. Byintense observation of a certain class of variable star,
the
| >cepheids,Leavitt discovered a direct correlation between the time it took
a
| >star togo from bright to dim to how bright it actually was. Knowing
| >thisrelationship helped other astronomers, such as Edwin Hubble, to make
| >their own groundbreaking discoveries. "What Henrietta Leavitt Swan found
by
| >observation I've turned into Androcles' law.
| >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/Alaw.GIF
| >This is really quite simple, mathematically.
| >What Leavitt didn't know was that a cepheid is a star and planet.
| >We know from Kepler's 3rd law that there is a relation between the
| >period and the size of the orbit.
|
| ...and the mass of the central star...

Ok... that too. The point is I can crunch data from a database to provide
distances, but I don't have the database and damned if I'm doing data entry.
As you know, the light curves have huge error bars on them, that needs
cleaning up first. Most of it is from amateur astronomers anyway. Some
are good, some not so good. You dont even have a telescope, let alone
a calibration of the brightness of a star.


|
| >The shuttle has a period of about
| >an hour and a half, a geosynchronous satellite has a period of
| >a day and the moon has a period of a month. If you know the period,
| >you know the size of the orbit.If you have those two parameters,
| >you have the third from the shape of the light curve and Androcles' law.
| >So we can find distance just from the period, because that gives us
| >the size of the orbit, and finding distance is something BIG -- except--
| >it is fucked by the inclination of the orbit. Back to the drawing board.
| >
| >Find a cepheid in another galaxy and you can estimate the distance to
| >that galaxy. M31 is somewhere between 1.8 and 2.5 light years away.
| >There are no observed distances, nobody has a tape measure that long.
| >
| >If you find an observed distance, you've found a BIG tape measure,
| >proving you a BIG idiot.
| >
| >I'll leave it there. Physics is dead. Wilson murdered it.
|
| .....says the jealous radio engineer....

It's true. Your curve is good enough for
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
but your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you won't
use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch.
I expect 10 bad years from you, just like the last 6. Physics is dead,
Wilson, Roberts, Baez and Einstein murdered it.

Androcles.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:04:28 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:qb3kb211m5go8a4df059jaarkjdjis9gqf@4ax.com...

| >In agreement with experience we further assume Wilson doesn't even own a
| >telescope
| >and has never investigated a star in his life.
|
| I don't own a telescope. I can see enough stars here with my naked eye.
They
| look the same through a trelescope. Didn't you know that?


Star through telescope:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060716.html

That's not a star.

Quote:

They look different to me.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060707.html

that's not a star.

Quote:

You must be one of those astromomers without a telescope that
thinks the universe is flat,

No it's the 4D equivalent of a Klein bottle.....known as a 'Wilson manifold'.

Quote:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.PNG
You should join FECES.

You ARE FECES.

Quote:
| Anyway, stars are boring unless one has the right gear and know what one
is
| looking for.
|

Anyway, grapes are sour unless one has the right gear and know what one is
looking for, you jealous old fart.

f*** off pommie bastard...


Quote:
|
| >Lying moron. There is nowhere in your program for me to enter a value.
| >It's bad enough that you are a shithead without you having to justify it.
|
| What the f*** are you talking about?

I'm talking about your wrongram not allowing me to enter pitch.

You can enter it if you like. You have to subtract it again later.

Quote:
| It allows you to change fifteen different parameters.

Only 6 are essential.
Distance
Period
Eccentricity
SemiMajorAxis
Yaw
Pitch.

You left out the most important....radial velocity.

Quote:

You left out pitch because your universe is two-dimensional.
You are a fucking moron.

The available star data includes just radial velocity vs time and brightness
variation vs time.
The former includes pitch.

Quote:
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
|
|
| >Why don't you leave out eccentricity as well, Wilson? There is no way
| >you can obtain a value for eccentricity, major axis, longitude of
| >periastron,
| >angle of inclination, period or distance when dealing with a point
source.
| >Cepheids are point sources that expand and contract, Wilson. We can see
they
| >do.
|
| There is a problem with cepheids. The claimed radial velocity curve of RT
Aur
| (The only one I can find) doesn't match my predictions. This could be
because
| the author faked the bloody thing. He admitted to there being great
| uncertainty.

There is a problem with a two dimensional universe and missing pitch.

v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch), Wilson.

That's right.
I use edge on orbits to adjust yaw angle and then rotate around an axis
perpendicular to the LOS to adjust for pitch.
Thus, pitch and radial velocity are related directly by the cosine.
The observed radial velocities are (actual x cos(pitch)).

All orbits can be obtained in this way.

Quote:

X, Y and Z, Wilson.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatx.gif
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmaty.gif
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatz.gif

You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory.
You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch.

I don't leave out the pitch.
It is automatically included in the observed radial velocity data.
.....far too hard for an old pommie radio engineer...


Quote:
| >Forget fucking physics, physics is dead. Wilson killed it so he could
| >promote
| >his fucking MORON theory.
|
| It's all coming together now. I might publish it soon. I've only got about
| another ten good years.


You'll love to be laughed at on your death bed, you've wasted the last 6
bad years, what make you think you have 10 good ones?

You're a waste of space as well as time.

Quote:
| >If I'm caught with my pants down, Wilson, I get red in the face and pull
| >them up, laugh about it and get on with the job.
| > What I don't understand is when you are caught with your pants down,
you
| > actually bend over to be fucked. You must be a masochist.
|
| >There is no way you can obtain a value for distance for a point source,
| >so pitch is zero and the distance is 0.3 ly.-- Shithead Wilson.
|
| Don't lie. I didn't say anything like that....you fucking drunken pomm....

You are fucked. You faked the bloody thing.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
Yours says: D= 0.3 LY
Mine matches the data, but mine has pitch, I can match at ANY distance.
You faked the bloody thing, you fucking STOOOPID drunken wabo.

fuckkkkkkkkk!

Pitch is included, idiot.

Quote:
There is no way you can obtain a value for distance for a point source,
so pitch is zero and the distance is 0.3 ly.-- Shithead Wilson, inventor
of foggy aether.
"Foggy aether" is trademark of Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty.
ALL light curves are MINE, Wilson. I own them ALL.
All planets discovered from light curves are mine too, including "Wilson's
folly".

My program can match ALL brightness curves. Yours is a heap of s**t..


Quote:
| >You and I know that cepheids are ordinary stars with planets,and the only
| > other people in the world that *know* it are Sekerin and Fritzius.
| >I am the only person in the world that has pinpointed where
| >Einstein's f*** up is, and you can't see it because you never learned
| >negative numbers and think light has to go back to it's source
| >to be a velocity.
|
| In recent posts, you have claimed both that 'c = 0' and 'c = infinity'.


Yep, c is undefined in SR. 'c' is not the speed of light, 'C' is.

| have you been checked for Alzheimer's recently?

I don't need to, I still know what "undefined" means. c = 0 and c =
infinity.
You should check for senility and sanity.

'c' is a universal constant. It is also the speed of light wrt its source.


Quote:
| Yes I know....
| Do you beleive it?

Androcles' Law? Of course I do, it's mine. Leavitt-Swan provided
the real data for it. Her approximate distances can be refined from
my law and the shape of the curve. That will really prove something
BIG.
Someday someone is going to do as big a task as the human genome
project, building a huge database of light curves, professional and
amateur, find best fit curves to them and KNOW distances within
within one stellar unit (3.9 light years to Proxima Centauri). The power
of the computer is enormous. 2,500 cepheids is nothing to a computer.
I've just installed a gigabyte of RAM and a 300 Gigabyte hard drive on
my daughter's machine. My granddaughter fill the old one with pictures
of herself, she's of that age now (in the middle of puberty, needs a
tiny bra that will last about two months). It's great being a grandfather.
I'll be building a second computer for my grandson soon.

I'm already a great grandfather.


Quote:
| >observation I've turned into Androcles' law.
| >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/Alaw.GIF
| >This is really quite simple, mathematically.
| >What Leavitt didn't know was that a cepheid is a star and planet.
| >We know from Kepler's 3rd law that there is a relation between the
| >period and the size of the orbit.
|
| ...and the mass of the central star...

Ok... that too. The point is I can crunch data from a database to provide
distances, but I don't have the database and damned if I'm doing data entry.
As you know, the light curves have huge error bars on them, that needs
cleaning up first. Most of it is from amateur astronomers anyway. Some
are good, some not so good. You dont even have a telescope, let alone
a calibration of the brightness of a star.

Why do I want a fucking telescope when everything I need is on the 'net.

Quote:
| >The shuttle has a period of about
| >an hour and a half, a geosynchronous satellite has a period of
| >a day and the moon has a period of a month. If you know the period,
| >you know the size of the orbit.If you have those two parameters,
| >you have the third from the shape of the light curve and Androcles' law.
| >So we can find distance just from the period, because that gives us
| >the size of the orbit, and finding distance is something BIG -- except--
| >it is fucked by the inclination of the orbit. Back to the drawing board.
|
| >Find a cepheid in another galaxy and you can estimate the distance to
| >that galaxy. M31 is somewhere between 1.8 and 2.5 light years away.
| >There are no observed distances, nobody has a tape measure that long.
|
| >If you find an observed distance, you've found a BIG tape measure,
| >proving you a BIG idiot.
|
| >I'll leave it there. Physics is dead. Wilson murdered it.
|
| .....says the jealous radio engineer....

It's true. Your curve is good enough for
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif

where is the ''''''observed''''' doppler curve?

Quote:
but your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you won't
use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch.

I don't need Kepler's equations because I derive my ellipes straight from
Newton.

Quote:
I expect 10 bad years from you, just like the last 6. Physics is dead,
Wilson, Roberts, Baez and Einstein murdered it.

You will end up in a defamation court one of thhese days...

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: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:29 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:fdflb2dlbd82vmq6lvbcfra2n8qt5n3o4f@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:04:28 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:qb3kb211m5go8a4df059jaarkjdjis9gqf@4ax.com...
|
| >| >In agreement with experience we further assume Wilson doesn't even own
a
| >| >telescope
| >| >and has never investigated a star in his life.
| >|
| >| I don't own a telescope. I can see enough stars here with my naked eye.
| >They
| >| look the same through a trelescope. Didn't you know that?
| >
| >
| >Star through telescope:
| > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060716.html
|
| That's not a star.

The 12,258th on the left, 6,335th down from the top is most
definitely a star.
So are the other 997,343 of them. Didn't you count them?

"In infrared light, however, dust glows more and obscures less,
allowing nearly one million stars to be recorded in the above photograph."

Perhaps you can't read either.

|
| >
| >They look different to me.
| >
| > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060707.html
|
| that's not a star.

Phuckwit Duck is very good at saying what things are not, too.
What do you think it is, green cheese?

|
| >
| >You must be one of those astromomers without a telescope that
| >thinks the universe is flat,
|
| No it's the 4D equivalent of a Klein bottle.....known as a 'Wilson
manifold'.

I see. How very informative.

|
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.PNG
| >You should join FECES.
|
| You ARE FECES.

Actually I've never been a member of the Flat Earth Conspirators Executive
Society, they won't let me join.

|
| >| Anyway, stars are boring unless one has the right gear and know what
one
| >is
| >| looking for.
| >|
| >
| >Anyway, grapes are sour unless one has the right gear and know what one
is
| >looking for, you jealous old fart.
|
| f*** off pommie bastard...

When I choose, jealous old wabo.

|
| >| >
| >| >Lying moron. There is nowhere in your program for me to enter a value.
| >| >It's bad enough that you are a shithead without you having to justify
it.
| >|
| >| What the f*** are you talking about?
| >
| >I'm talking about your wrongram not allowing me to enter pitch.
|
| You can enter it if you like. You have to subtract it again later.

Only if the universe is two dimensional.


|
| >| It allows you to change fifteen different parameters.
| >
| >Only 6 are essential.
| >Distance
| >Period
| >Eccentricity
| >SemiMajorAxis
| >Yaw
| >Pitch.
|
| You left out the most important....radial velocity.

The angular velocity is approximately 2pi/period radians per day,
and never constant. The radial velocity is approximately zero.

| >
| >You left out pitch because your universe is two-dimensional.
| >You are a fucking moron.
|
| The available star data includes just radial velocity vs time and
brightness
| variation vs time.
| The former includes pitch.

Yes, cepheids puff up and down like blowfish, don't they, shithead?
They are nice huff-puff stars with a radial velocity.


|
| >| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
| >|
| >|
| >| >Why don't you leave out eccentricity as well, Wilson? There is no way
| >| >you can obtain a value for eccentricity, major axis, longitude of
| >| >periastron,
| >| >angle of inclination, period or distance when dealing with a point
| >source.
| >| >Cepheids are point sources that expand and contract, Wilson. We can
see
| >they
| >| >do.
| >|
| >| There is a problem with cepheids. The claimed radial velocity curve of
RT
| >Aur
| >| (The only one I can find) doesn't match my predictions. This could be
| >because
| >| the author faked the bloody thing. He admitted to there being great
| >| uncertainty.
| >
| >There is a problem with a two dimensional universe and missing pitch.
| >
| >v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch), Wilson.
|
| That's right.
| I use edge on orbits to adjust yaw angle and then rotate around an axis
| perpendicular to the LOS to adjust for pitch.

You don't know the pitch, Wilson.


| Thus, pitch and radial velocity are related directly by the cosine.
| The observed radial velocities are (actual x cos(pitch)).
|
| All orbits can be obtained in this way.

No no, cepheids are huff puff stars with radial velocity, Wilson. You said
so.


|
| >
| >X, Y and Z, Wilson.
| > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatx.gif
| > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmaty.gif
| > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatz.gif
| >
| >You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory.
| >You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch.
|
| I don't leave out the pitch.

How do I change it, then?

| It is automatically included in the observed radial velocity data.
| ....far too hard for an old pommie radio engineer...

Yes, it is far too hard. I can't find it's combo box in your wrongram
to change it. Where did you hide it?


|
|
| >| >Forget fucking physics, physics is dead. Wilson killed it so he could
| >| >promote
| >| >his fucking MORON theory.
| >|
| >| It's all coming together now. I might publish it soon. I've only got
about
| >| another ten good years.
| >
| >
| >You'll love to be laughed at on your death bed, you've wasted the last 6
| >bad years, what make you think you have 10 good ones?
|
| You're a waste of space as well as time.

I'm sure. How do I change the pitch in your wrongram?


| >| >If I'm caught with my pants down, Wilson, I get red in the face and
pull
| >| >them up, laugh about it and get on with the job.
| >| > What I don't understand is when you are caught with your pants down,
| >you
| >| > actually bend over to be fucked. You must be a masochist.
| >| >
| >| >There is no way you can obtain a value for distance for a point
source,
| >| >so pitch is zero and the distance is 0.3 ly.-- Shithead Wilson.
| >|
| >| Don't lie. I didn't say anything like that....you fucking drunken
pomm....
| >
| >You are fucked. You faked the bloody thing.
| > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
| >irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
| >Yours says: D= 0.3 LY
| >Mine matches the data, but mine has pitch, I can match at ANY distance.
| >You faked the bloody thing, you fucking STOOOPID drunken wabo.
|
| fuckkkkkkkkk!
Yep, you are fucked.

| Pitch is included, idiot.

I want to change it so that I get the right distance. Where is the combo
box?


| >There is no way you can obtain a value for distance for a point source,
| >so pitch is zero and the distance is 0.3 ly.-- Shithead Wilson, inventor
| >of foggy aether.
| >"Foggy aether" is trademark of Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits
Pty.
| >ALL light curves are MINE, Wilson. I own them ALL.
| >All planets discovered from light curves are mine too, including
"Wilson's
| >folly".
|
| My program can match ALL brightness curves. Yours is a heap of s**t..

I matched yours in a second and I got approximately the right distance.
Where is the combo box for pitch, oh inventor of foggy aether?




|
|
| >| >You and I know that cepheids are ordinary stars with planets,and the
only
| >| > other people in the world that *know* it are Sekerin and Fritzius.
| >| >I am the only person in the world that has pinpointed where
| >| >Einstein's f*** up is, and you can't see it because you never learned
| >| >negative numbers and think light has to go back to it's source
| >| >to be a velocity.
| >|
| >| In recent posts, you have claimed both that 'c = 0' and 'c = infinity'.
| >
| >
| >Yep, c is undefined in SR. 'c' is not the speed of light, 'C' is.
| >
| >| have you been checked for Alzheimer's recently?
| >
| >I don't need to, I still know what "undefined" means. c = 0 and c =
| >infinity.
| >You should check for senility and sanity.
|
| 'c' is a universal constant. It is also the speed of light wrt its source.

Yeah, sure. Wilson foggy aether keeps it that way, and cepheids
are huff puff stars with radial velocity. We don't need pitch, no
worbits needed either. Huff puff stars don't have worbits.


|
|
| >| Yes I know....
| >| Do you beleive it?
| >
| >Androcles' Law? Of course I do, it's mine. Leavitt-Swan provided
| >the real data for it. Her approximate distances can be refined from
| >my law and the shape of the curve. That will really prove something
| >BIG.
| > Someday someone is going to do as big a task as the human genome
| >project, building a huge database of light curves, professional and
| >amateur, find best fit curves to them and KNOW distances within
| >within one stellar unit (3.9 light years to Proxima Centauri). The power
| >of the computer is enormous. 2,500 cepheids is nothing to a computer.
| >I've just installed a gigabyte of RAM and a 300 Gigabyte hard drive on
| >my daughter's machine. My granddaughter fill the old one with pictures
| >of herself, she's of that age now (in the middle of puberty, needs a
| >tiny bra that will last about two months). It's great being a
grandfather.
| >I'll be building a second computer for my grandson soon.
|
| I'm already a great grandfather.

And senile. Huff-puff stars have radial velocities. Radial velocity along
the star's radius. Worbits have tangential velocities. Tangent to the
worbit.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WorbitHuffPuff.bmp
Physics is definitely dead.


|
|
| >| >observation I've turned into Androcles' law.
| >| >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/Alaw.GIF
| >| >This is really quite simple, mathematically.
| >| >What Leavitt didn't know was that a cepheid is a star and planet.
| >| >We know from Kepler's 3rd law that there is a relation between the
| >| >period and the size of the orbit.
| >|
| >| ...and the mass of the central star...
| >
| >Ok... that too. The point is I can crunch data from a database to provide
| >distances, but I don't have the database and damned if I'm doing data
entry.
| >As you know, the light curves have huge error bars on them, that needs
| >cleaning up first. Most of it is from amateur astronomers anyway. Some
| >are good, some not so good. You dont even have a telescope, let alone
| >a calibration of the brightness of a star.
|
| Why do I want a fucking telescope when everything I need is on the 'net.

Experience. First hand knowledge. Appreciation of the work involved. Fun.
You can't see Algol, but you've got WR20 that I can't see, Carina is a
southern hemisphere constellation. But, senility has set in.


The Astrophysical Journal 610 L109 (2004)
Despite much theoretical and observational progress, there is no known
firm upper limit to the masses of stars. Our understanding of the interplay
between the immense radiation pressure produced by massive stars in
formation and the opacity of infalling material is subject to theoretical
uncertain ... Comment: ApJL, accepted

MON.NOT.ROY.ASTRON.SOC. 316 143 (2000)
We present new radio and optical observations of the colliding-wind
system WR146 aimed at understanding the nature of the companion to the
Wolf-Rayet star and the collision of their winds. The radio observations
reveal emission from three components: the WR stellar wind, the non-thermal
wind-wind ... Comment: 9 pages, 5 figures,
ftp://fto.drao.nrc.ca/pub/smd/wr146/accepted.ps.gz To be published in
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society


In other words they are fucking lost, groping in the dark, like you.




|
| >| >The shuttle has a period of about
| >| >an hour and a half, a geosynchronous satellite has a period of
| >| >a day and the moon has a period of a month. If you know the period,
| >| >you know the size of the orbit.If you have those two parameters,
| >| >you have the third from the shape of the light curve and Androcles'
law.
| >| >So we can find distance just from the period, because that gives us
| >| >the size of the orbit, and finding distance is something BIG --
except--
| >| >it is fucked by the inclination of the orbit. Back to the drawing
board.
| >| >
| >| >Find a cepheid in another galaxy and you can estimate the distance to
| >| >that galaxy. M31 is somewhere between 1.8 and 2.5 light years away.
| >| >There are no observed distances, nobody has a tape measure that long.
| >| >
| >| >If you find an observed distance, you've found a BIG tape measure,
| >| >proving you a BIG idiot.
| >| >
| >| >I'll leave it there. Physics is dead. Wilson murdered it.
| >|
| >| .....says the jealous radio engineer....
| >
| >It's true. Your curve is good enough for
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
|
| where is the ''''''observed''''' doppler curve?

I'm asking you that. I can't see WR20 from here.



|
| >but your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you
won't
| >use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch.
|
| I don't need Kepler's equations because I derive my ellipes straight from
| Newton.

You get points on your worbits.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG
That's because you are half-arsed.
Your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you won't
use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch.


|
| >I expect 10 bad years from you, just like the last 6. Physics is dead,
| >Wilson, Roberts, Baez and Einstein murdered it.
|
| You will end up in a defamation court one of thhese days...

Not when I can prove what I say. Your lawyer won't go near it unless
you pay him a fat fee up front, and then you'd lose anyway. Fuckin' radial
velocity... ROFLMAO! Dig a deeper hole, Wilson. You might make it
to England yet.

Androcles.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:14 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:29:33 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:fdflb2dlbd82vmq6lvbcfra2n8qt5n3o4f@4ax.com...

| >| I don't own a telescope. I can see enough stars here with my naked eye.
| >They
| >| look the same through a trelescope. Didn't you know that?
|
|
| >Star through telescope:
| > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060716.html
|
| That's not a star.

The 12,258th on the left, 6,335th down from the top is most
definitely a star.
So are the other 997,343 of them. Didn't you count them?

"In infrared light, however, dust glows more and obscures less,
allowing nearly one million stars to be recorded in the above photograph."

Perhaps you can't read either.

So what? All I can see is a lot of spots.


Quote:
|
| > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060707.html
|
| that's not a star.

Phuckwit Duck is very good at saying what things are not, too.
What do you think it is, green cheese?

It's a fucking galaxy.

Quote:
| >You must be one of those astromomers without a telescope that
| >thinks the universe is flat,
|
| No it's the 4D equivalent of a Klein bottle.....known as a 'Wilson
manifold'.

I see. How very informative.

Mobius strip -. Klien bottle -> Wilson manifold.


Quote:
| >I'm talking about your wrongram not allowing me to enter pitch.
|
| You can enter it if you like. You have to subtract it again later.

Only if the universe is two dimensional.

Fucking stupid old bastard..


Quote:
|
| >| It allows you to change fifteen different parameters.
|
| >Only 6 are essential.
| >Distance
| >Period
| >Eccentricity
| >SemiMajorAxis
| >Yaw
| >Pitch.
|
| You left out the most important....radial velocity.

The angular velocity is approximately 2pi/period radians per day,
and never constant. The radial velocity is approximately zero.

The radial velocity is determined through observed doppler shifts.

Even I believe they are basically true.

Quote:
| >You left out pitch because your universe is two-dimensional.
| >You are a fucking moron.
|
| The available star data includes just radial velocity vs time and
brightness
| variation vs time.
| The former includes pitch.

Yes, cepheids puff up and down like blowfish, don't they, shithead?
They are nice huff-puff stars with a radial velocity.

Well I'm not convinced what they are. I cannot get decent radial velocity
curves. The only one I have, published by an obvious relativist crackpot, is
about 60 degrees out from what I would expect.

Quote:
| >| (The only one I can find) doesn't match my predictions. This could be
| >because
| >| the author faked the bloody thing. He admitted to there being great
| >| uncertainty.
|
| >There is a problem with a two dimensional universe and missing pitch.
|
| >v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch), Wilson.
|
| That's right.
| I use edge on orbits to adjust yaw angle and then rotate around an axis
| perpendicular to the LOS to adjust for pitch.

You don't know the pitch, Wilson.

I don't have to know the pitch. That is the beauty of my method.

Quote:
| Thus, pitch and radial velocity are related directly by the cosine.
| The observed radial velocities are (actual x cos(pitch)).
|
| All orbits can be obtained in this way.

No no, cepheids are huff puff stars with radial velocity, Wilson. You said
so.

No. Andersen said so. I will not be convinced until I get decent velocity
curves.
Certainly, cepheid brightness curves can be matched with BaTh predictioed ones
but so can huff-puff stars.

Quote:
|
|
| >X, Y and Z, Wilson.
| > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatx.gif
| > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmaty.gif
| > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatz.gif
|
| >You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory.
| >You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch.
|
| I don't leave out the pitch.

How do I change it, then?

I dont have to. It is automatically included in the radial velocity data.

Quote:
| It is automatically included in the observed radial velocity data.
| ....far too hard for an old pommie radio engineer...

Yes, it is far too hard. I can't find it's combo box in your wrongram
to change it. Where did you hide it?

It is in my old program, www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

Quote:
| >| >Forget fucking physics, physics is dead. Wilson killed it so he could
| >| >promote
| >| >his fucking MORON theory.
| >|
| >| It's all coming together now. I might publish it soon. I've only got
about
| >| another ten good years.
|
|
| >You'll love to be laughed at on your death bed, you've wasted the last 6
| >bad years, what make you think you have 10 good ones?
|
| You're a waste of space as well as time.

I'm sure. How do I change the pitch in your wrongram?

Forget it.You don't need it. Just plug in the maximum radial velocity.

Quote:
| >You are fucked. You faked the bloody thing.
| > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
| >irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
| >Yours says: D= 0.3 LY
| >Mine matches the data, but mine has pitch, I can match at ANY distance.
| >You faked the bloody thing, you fucking STOOOPID drunken wabo.
|
| fuckkkkkkkkk!
Yep, you are fucked.

| Pitch is included, idiot.

I want to change it so that I get the right distance. Where is the combo
box?

Look, velocity, pitch and distance are linearly related.

Changing any will have the same effect.
Like I said, all we have to go on are brightness curves and RADIAL velocity vs
time.

Quote:
|
| >ALL light curves are MINE, Wilson. I own them ALL.
| >All planets discovered from light curves are mine too, including
"Wilson's
| >folly".
|
| My program can match ALL brightness curves. Yours is a heap of s**t..

I matched yours in a second and I got approximately the right distance.
Where is the combo box for pitch, oh inventor of foggy aether?

f*** pitch.


Quote:
| >infinity.
| >You should check for senility and sanity.
|
| 'c' is a universal constant. It is also the speed of light wrt its source.

Yeah, sure. Wilson foggy aether keeps it that way, and cepheids
are huff puff stars with radial velocity. We don't need pitch, no
worbits needed either. Huff puff stars don't have worbits.

Hiuf-puff stars will behave very like stars in orbit. They don't refute the
BaTh even if they aARE huff-puffing. They actually support OUR theory.

Quote:
| >| Yes I know....
|
| >of the computer is enormous. 2,500 cepheids is nothing to a computer.
| >I've just installed a gigabyte of RAM and a 300 Gigabyte hard drive on
| >my daughter's machine. My granddaughter fill the old one with pictures
| >of herself, she's of that age now (in the middle of puberty, needs a
| >tiny bra that will last about two months). It's great being a
grandfather.
| >I'll be building a second computer for my grandson soon.
|
| I'm already a great grandfather.

And senile. Huff-puff stars have radial velocities. Radial velocity along
the star's radius. Worbits have tangential velocities. Tangent to the
worbit.

And that''s what we measure.

Quote:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WorbitHuffPuff.bmp
Physics is definitely dead.

Radial velocity, as defined by Andersen, is the component of orbital velocity
in the direction of Earth.

I accept that definition, even though he is usually wrong.


Quote:
|
| Why do I want a fucking telescope when everything I need is on the 'net.

Experience. First hand knowledge. Appreciation of the work involved. Fun.
You can't see Algol, but you've got WR20 that I can't see, Carina is a
southern hemisphere constellation. But, senility has set in.

You should know...

Quote:
The Astrophysical Journal 610 L109 (2004)
Despite much theoretical and observational progress, there is no known
firm upper limit to the masses of stars. Our understanding of the interplay
between the immense radiation pressure produced by massive stars in
formation and the opacity of infalling material is subject to theoretical
uncertain ... Comment: ApJL, accepted

MON.NOT.ROY.ASTRON.SOC. 316 143 (2000)
We present new radio and optical observations of the colliding-wind
system WR146 aimed at understanding the nature of the companion to the
Wolf-Rayet star and the collision of their winds. The radio observations
reveal emission from three components: the WR stellar wind, the non-thermal
wind-wind ... Comment: 9 pages, 5 figures,
ftp://fto.drao.nrc.ca/pub/smd/wr146/accepted.ps.gz To be published in
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society


In other words they are fucking lost, groping in the dark, like you.

Bullshit.

I would burn ALL astronomy books that assume starlight travels at c to little
planet Earth.

The whole of astrophysics is wrong, WRONG WWRROONNGG!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote:
| >|
| >| >I'll leave it there. Physics is dead. Wilson murdered it.
| >|
| >| .....says the jealous radio engineer....
|
| >It's true. Your curve is good enough for
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
|
| where is the ''''''observed''''' doppler curve?

I'm asking you that. I can't see WR20 from here.

It is WR20a


Quote:
| >use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch.
|
| I don't need Kepler's equations because I derive my ellipes straight from
| Newton.

You get points on your worbits.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG
That's because you are half-arsed.
Your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you won't
use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch.

Have a look at my orbits. They are produced on the screen every time
eccentricity is changed. If you believe they are not ellipses then go see an
optometrist.


Quote:
| >I expect 10 bad years from you, just like the last 6. Physics is dead,
| >Wilson, Roberts, Baez and Einstein murdered it.
|
| You will end up in a defamation court one of thhese days...

Not when I can prove what I say. Your lawyer won't go near it unless
you pay him a fat fee up front, and then you'd lose anyway. Fuckin' radial
velocity... ROFLMAO! Dig a deeper hole, Wilson. You might make it
to England yet.

f*** England. Too bloody cold for me... .and overrun with 'colonials'.

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: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:qdjmb2hjkeapc830q4l601tl1rcfv9315h@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:29:33 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:fdflb2dlbd82vmq6lvbcfra2n8qt5n3o4f@4ax.com...
|
| >| >| I don't own a telescope. I can see enough stars here with my naked
eye.
| >| >They
| >| >| look the same through a trelescope. Didn't you know that?
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >Star through telescope:
| >| > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060716.html
| >|
| >| That's not a star.
| >
| >The 12,258th on the left, 6,335th down from the top is most
| >definitely a star.
| >So are the other 997,343 of them. Didn't you count them?
| >
| >"In infrared light, however, dust glows more and obscures less,
| >allowing nearly one million stars to be recorded in the above
photograph."
| >
| >Perhaps you can't read either.
|
| So what? All I can see is a lot of spots.

They all look like spots without a trelescope. Didn't you know that?
I'd get myself a trelescope if I were you, but I'm not you, so I got
myself a telescope instead.

|
| >| >
| >| > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060707.html
| >|
| >| that's not a star.
| >
| >Phuckwit Duck is very good at saying what things are not, too.
| >What do you think it is, green cheese?
|
| It's a fucking galaxy.

How would you know? You haven't got a trelescope or even a telescope.
It's a nebula, a fuzzy spot. All you can see is a lot of fuzzy spots.
BTW, galaxies were not invented until after 1905, but there were canals
on Mars.
http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html
"It was at Lowell that the only consistent observations of canals,
originally
termed canale by Secchi (1858) and Schiaparelli (1877), were made.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica 11th Edition (1910) doubts their being
waterways, noting that their breadth of many miles made it absurd
to to call them canals, but believed that the oft-noted seasonal changes
were evidence of blue-green vegetation. "

Fucking exciting, isn't it? Lowell was a professor, of course. Another great
bullshit artist like you.

http://astro.nineplanets.org/twn/types.html

Early in this [20th] century, there was a great debate as to the nature of
the nebulae like this one which at that time could not be resolved into
individual stars. Thanks in large part to the work of Edwin Hubble whose
famous paper "The Realm of the Nebulae" finally put the issue to rest, we
now know that these are really vast conglomerates billions of stars which
are very much more distant from the Earth than other nebulae. Our own Milky
Way galaxy is just one of the billions of galaxies now known to exist. A
typical galaxy is 100,000 light-years in diameter.

Ever wondered why HST wasn't called the Lowell Space Trelescope?
It won't be called the Wilson Space Trelescope either.
You wouldn't know a Martian canal from a cool heavy, shithead.



| >| >You must be one of those astromomers without a telescope that
| >| >thinks the universe is flat,
| >|
| >| No it's the 4D equivalent of a Klein bottle.....known as a 'Wilson
| >manifold'.
| >
| >I see. How very informative.
|
| Mobius strip -. Klien bottle -> Wilson manifold.

I see. How very informative. The shithead that never learnt negative
numbers, leaves out pitch and roll and thinks stars are spots is now
an expert in topology.
Pray tell us, expert, which metric are you using? Is it the Euclidian,
the manhattan, the trelescopian... ah, of course... the wabonian.
Please remind us once again what the wabonian metric is?



|
|
| >| >I'm talking about your wrongram not allowing me to enter pitch.
| >|
| >| You can enter it if you like. You have to subtract it again later.
| >
| >Only if the universe is two dimensional.
|
| Fucking stupid old bastard..

Exactly. That's just what you are.

|
|
| >|
| >| >| It allows you to change fifteen different parameters.
| >| >
| >| >Only 6 are essential.
| >| >Distance
| >| >Period
| >| >Eccentricity
| >| >SemiMajorAxis
| >| >Yaw
| >| >Pitch.
| >|
| >| You left out the most important....radial velocity.
| >
| >The angular velocity is approximately 2pi/period radians per day,
| >and never constant. The radial velocity is approximately zero.
|
| The radial velocity is determined through observed doppler shifts.

| Even I believe they are basically true.

It is cos(pitch) multiplied by tangential velocity that is observed, stupid
wabo.

|
| >| >You left out pitch because your universe is two-dimensional.
| >| >You are a fucking moron.
| >|
| >| The available star data includes just radial velocity vs time and
| >brightness
| >| variation vs time.
| >| The former includes pitch.
| >
| >Yes, cepheids puff up and down like blowfish, don't they, shithead?
| >They are nice huff-puff stars with a radial velocity.
|
| Well I'm not convinced what they are. I cannot get decent radial velocity
| curves.

If you haven't got a trelescope, you won't have a sprectometer.
I don't own a spectrometer either, but I know someone that does.
But then, you can't even program a spectrum, can you?
"The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative positions
and intensities of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by
a Doppler shift." --Tusselad
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/algols.gif


| The only one I have, published by an obvious relativist crackpot, is
| about 60 degrees out from what I would expect.

Oh, so you think the canals of Mars are at the wrong angles.
I've got news for you.
They don't exist, and neither do radial velocities, SHITHEAD.


|
| >| >| (The only one I can find) doesn't match my predictions. This could
be
| >| >because
| >| >| the author faked the bloody thing. He admitted to there being great
| >| >| uncertainty.
| >| >
| >| >There is a problem with a two dimensional universe and missing pitch.
| >| >
| >| >v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch), Wilson.
| >|
| >| That's right.
| >| I use edge on orbits to adjust yaw angle and then rotate around an axis
| >| perpendicular to the LOS to adjust for pitch.
| >
| >You don't know the pitch, Wilson.
|
| I don't have to know the pitch. That is the beauty of my method.

Yeah... the beauty of bullshit... lovely, isn't it?
I am getting so fucking tired of you, cunt. I want some real criticism,
not the word of a jackass.

|
| >| Thus, pitch and radial velocity are related directly by the cosine.
| >| The observed radial velocities are (actual x cos(pitch)).
| >|
| >| All orbits can be obtained in this way.
| >
| >No no, cepheids are huff puff stars with radial velocity, Wilson. You
said
| >so.
|
| No. Andersen said so. I will not be convinced until I get decent velocity
| curves.

You haven't programmed a spectrum. Mine isn't real, it's a teaching
spectrum. Set it to x1 as it should be. The fucking pixels are too big,
that's my only reason for magnifying it, you cunt.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algolspectrum.GIF


| Certainly, cepheid brightness curves can be matched with BaTh predictioed
ones
| but so can huff-puff stars.

You can't match V1493 Aql. with huff puff.
One axiom is worth all the fucking theories you can muster.
Dumbbell stars (WR20, Algol) huff-puff stars (d-Cep), recurrent novae,
flare stars, all have their own theory. The principle of relativity is an
axiom.
That's why my program is called "Copernicus" and yours is called
"Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty".






| >|
| >| >
| >| >X, Y and Z, Wilson.
| >| > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatx.gif
| >| > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmaty.gif
| >| > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatz.gif
| >| >
| >| >You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot
theory.
| >| >You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch.
| >|
| >| I don't leave out the pitch.
| >
| >How do I change it, then?
|
| I dont have to. It is automatically included in the radial velocity data.

I know *you* don't. I asked how do *I*, as the (sole) user of your
wrongram, change it?

You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory.
You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch.


|
| >| It is automatically included in the observed radial velocity data.
| >| ....far too hard for an old pommie radio engineer...
| >
| >Yes, it is far too hard. I can't find it's combo box in your wrongram
| >to change it. Where did you hide it?
|
| It is in my old program, www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe


That had to be scrapped, it wasn't readable and came up with run-time
errors.
BUT...
The curve did not change when you set ROLL to 90 because Wombat
Wilson didn't know the correct names for pitch and roll.
When a plane rolls, wabo, it doesn't pitch into the ground, it also yaws.
Rework your old program, take out the fucking dark colours, rename
the Combo box called "ROLL" to "PITCH" and run it again.
Or just use mine.

|
| >| >| >Forget fucking physics, physics is dead. Wilson killed it so he
could
| >| >| >promote
| >| >| >his fucking MORON theory.
| >| >|
| >| >| It's all coming together now. I might publish it soon. I've only got
| >about
| >| >| another ten good years.
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >You'll love to be laughed at on your death bed, you've wasted the last
6
| >| >bad years, what make you think you have 10 good ones?
| >|
| >| You're a waste of space as well as time.
| >
| >I'm sure. How do I change the pitch in your wrongram?
|
| Forget it.You don't need it. Just plug in the maximum radial velocity.

f*** off. Your old "roll" is what I'm looking for, of course it is needed.
You couldn't program a piss-up in a brewery, wabo, you are fucking senile.
Six fuckin' years and you still don't have anything.



| >| >You are fucked. You faked the bloody thing.
| >| > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
| >| >irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
| >| >Yours says: D= 0.3 LY
| >| >Mine matches the data, but mine has pitch, I can match at ANY
distance.
| >| >You faked the bloody thing, you fucking STOOOPID drunken wabo.
| >|
| >| fuckkkkkkkkk!
| >Yep, you are fucked.
| >
| >| Pitch is included, idiot.
| >
| >I want to change it so that I get the right distance. Where is the combo
| >box?
|
| Look, velocity, pitch and distance are linearly related.

Program in the pitch, you had it before but called it roll. Then I'll look.


|
| Changing any will have the same effect.
| Like I said, all we have to go on are brightness curves and RADIAL
velocity vs
| time.

You've got your worms mixed up and pismounciated "radial".
"Radial" is for huff puff, "tangential" (that you call "peripheral") is for
worbits, you illiterate old goat, and you don't know roll from pitch.
http://tinyurl.com/qs8bs





| >| >
| >| >ALL light curves are MINE, Wilson. I own them ALL.
| >| >All planets discovered from light curves are mine too, including
| >"Wilson's
| >| >folly".
| >|
| >| My program can match ALL brightness curves. Yours is a heap of s**t..
| >
| >I matched yours in a second and I got approximately the right distance.
| >Where is the combo box for pitch, oh inventor of foggy aether?
|
| f*** pitch.

It's vital. You can't approximate distance without pitch, oh great inventor
of canals on Mars seen through aether fog.

|
| >| >infinity.
| >| >You should check for senility and sanity.
| >|
| >| 'c' is a universal constant. It is also the speed of light wrt its
source.
| >
| >Yeah, sure. Wilson foggy aether keeps it that way, and cepheids
| >are huff puff stars with radial velocity. We don't need pitch, no
| >worbits needed either. Huff puff stars don't have worbits.
|
| Hiuf-puff stars will behave very like stars in orbit. They don't refute
the
| BaTh even if they aARE huff-puffing. They actually support OUR theory.

There are no huff puff stars, flare stars, eclipsing binaries, recurrently
exploding stars, canals on Mars or foggy heather, and stick in water are
not bent; but you are, you murderer of physics. Fortunately you can't
murder mathematics, no matter how hard you try.




|
| >| >| Yes I know....
| >|
| >| >of the computer is enormous. 2,500 cepheids is nothing to a computer.
| >| >I've just installed a gigabyte of RAM and a 300 Gigabyte hard drive on
| >| >my daughter's machine. My granddaughter fill the old one with pictures
| >| >of herself, she's of that age now (in the middle of puberty, needs a
| >| >tiny bra that will last about two months). It's great being a
| >grandfather.
| >| >I'll be building a second computer for my grandson soon.
| >|
| >| I'm already a great grandfather.
| >
| >And senile. Huff-puff stars have radial velocities. Radial velocity along
| >the star's radius. Worbits have tangential velocities. Tangent to the
| >worbit.
|
| And that''s what we measure.

Yes. We measure the tangential velocity, which is pitched to the line of
sight.
Put back pitch that you once called roll.

|
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WorbitHuffPuff.bmp
| >Physics is definitely dead.
|
| Radial velocity, as defined by Andersen, is the component of orbital
velocity
| in the direction of Earth.

f*** the tusselad, he's a moron. Of course it is in the direction of the
Earth, that's the only line of sight we have.

Huff puff stars expand radially and are as big as worbits. They have to
be to get the same shift. It's like our sun expanding out like a balloon
to reach Mercury and back again in 5 days, totally stupid, and created
by the aether with its controlling speed. It's Bullshit with a capital B.
|
| I accept that definition, even though he is usually wrong.

Great definition... the velocity of light we measure is along the line of
sight.
Where the f*** else could it be?



|
| >|
| >| Why do I want a fucking telescope when everything I need is on the
'net.
| >
| >Experience. First hand knowledge. Appreciation of the work involved. Fun.
| >You can't see Algol, but you've got WR20 that I can't see, Carina is a
| >southern hemisphere constellation. But, senility has set in.
|
| You should know...

I do know. I even know the difference between radial velocity and tangential
velocity, a huff puff star and an orbit.
ALL stars behave the same. Boring, but true. Some are bigger than others,
some are older than others, but that's the only difference. What we see is
illusion (or willusion as you call it).

|
| > The Astrophysical Journal 610 L109 (2004)
| > Despite much theoretical and observational progress, there is no
known
| >firm upper limit to the masses of stars. Our understanding of the
interplay
| >between the immense radiation pressure produced by massive stars in
| >formation and the opacity of infalling material is subject to theoretical
| >uncertain ... Comment: ApJL, accepted
| >
| > MON.NOT.ROY.ASTRON.SOC. 316 143 (2000)
| > We present new radio and optical observations of the colliding-wind
| >system WR146 aimed at understanding the nature of the companion to the
| >Wolf-Rayet star and the collision of their winds. The radio observations
| >reveal emission from three components: the WR stellar wind, the
non-thermal
| >wind-wind ... Comment: 9 pages, 5 figures,
| >ftp://fto.drao.nrc.ca/pub/smd/wr146/accepted.ps.gz To be published in
| >Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
| >
| >
| >In other words they are fucking lost, groping in the dark, like you.
|
| Bullshit.
|
| I would burn ALL astronomy books that assume starlight travels at c to
little
| planet Earth.
|
| The whole of astrophysics is wrong, WRONG WWRROONNGG!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Yes, it is, and it always has been. The problem has always been some
shithead
with his own theory, who cannot adhere to the principle of v+c, and that
goes back to Ptolemy for whom the speed of light was infinite. More recently
it was John Goodricke, 18 years old with a wooden telescope, pronouncing
Algol was a binary. He was just a kid, for f***'s sake. Of course he was a
shithead, he had nobody to teach him. The problem is, we die too soon.
Newton
would have straightened his arse out. I can't because Goodricke is dead too,
and I can't straighten yours because you don't listen.

Now all the fucking stars are binaries, but we can only see
the bright one. The dark one eclipses it, but it is just as fucking big, and
cepheids are huff-puff stars and sticks in water are really bent.
Physics is as dead now as its always been, only Newton shone briefly.



|
| >| >| >
| >| >| >I'll leave it there. Physics is dead. Wilson murdered it.
| >| >|
| >| >| .....says the jealous radio engineer....
| >| >
| >| >It's true. Your curve is good enough for
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif
| >|
| >| where is the ''''''observed''''' doppler curve?
| >
| >I'm asking you that. I can't see WR20 from here.
|
| It is WR20a

'a' for bright, 'b' for dark companion , but only one star.
Show me WR20b if you can, it doesn't exist. The 'a' is bullshit.
Show me the velocity curve of WR20, WCH's do not emit light, they are kewl.

|
| >| >use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed
pitch.
| >|
| >| I don't need Kepler's equations because I derive my ellipes straight
from
| >| Newton.
| >
| >You get points on your worbits.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG
| >That's because you are half-arsed.
| >Your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you won't
| >use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch.
|
| Have a look at my orbits. They are produced on the screen every time
| eccentricity is changed. If you believe they are not ellipses then go see
an
| optometrist.

I can see this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG
I don't need a magnifying glass, you provided it.
Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty are bent, just like
real sticks in real water and Wombat Wilson's neuron.



|
| >| >I expect 10 bad years from you, just like the last 6. Physics is dead,
| >| >Wilson, Roberts, Baez and Einstein murdered it.
| >|
| >| You will end up in a defamation court one of thhese days...
| >
| >Not when I can prove what I say. Your lawyer won't go near it unless
| >you pay him a fat fee up front, and then you'd lose anyway. Fuckin'
radial
| >velocity... ROFLMAO! Dig a deeper hole, Wilson. You might make it
| >to England yet.
|
| f*** England. Too bloody cold for me... .and overrun with 'colonials'.


Then quit digging deeper, you are halfway there already.

| >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 18, 2006 12:28 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:33:18 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:qdjmb2hjkeapc830q4l601tl1rcfv9315h@4ax.com...

http://astro.nineplanets.org/twn/types.html

Early in this [20th] century, there was a great debate as to the nature of
the nebulae like this one which at that time could not be resolved into
individual stars. Thanks in large part to the work of Edwin Hubble whose
famous paper "The Realm of the Nebulae" finally put the issue to rest, we
now know that these are really vast conglomerates billions of stars which
are very much more distant from the Earth than other nebulae. Our own Milky
Way galaxy is just one of the billions of galaxies now known to exist. A
typical galaxy is 100,000 light-years in diameter.

Ever wondered why HST wasn't called the Lowell Space Trelescope?
It won't be called the Wilson Space Trelescope either.

It would have to be called Wilson2 because there is already as Mt Wilson
telescope. That was not named after me incidentally, in case you thought it
waqs..


Quote:
| >| No it's the 4D equivalent of a Klein bottle.....known as a 'Wilson
| >manifold'.
|
| >I see. How very informative.
|
| Mobius strip -. Klien bottle -> Wilson manifold.

I see. How very informative. The shithead that never learnt negative
numbers, leaves out pitch and roll and thinks stars are spots is now
an expert in topology.
Pray tell us, expert, which metric are you using? Is it the Euclidian,
the manhattan, the trelescopian... ah, of course... the wabonian.
Please remind us once again what the wabonian metric is?

It spins around and comes back to you.


Quote:
|
| The radial velocity is determined through observed doppler shifts.

| Even I believe they are basically true.

It is cos(pitch) multiplied by tangential velocity that is observed, stupid
wabo.

That's right.
..and that is the speed that must be added to c in our programs. Like I said,
pitch is automatically included.


Quote:
| >Yes, cepheids puff up and down like blowfish, don't they, shithead?
| >They are nice huff-puff stars with a radial velocity.
|
| Well I'm not convinced what they are. I cannot get decent radial velocity
| curves.

If you haven't got a trelescope, you won't have a sprectometer.
I don't own a spectrometer either, but I know someone that does.
But then, you can't even program a spectrum, can you?
"The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative positions
and intensities of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by
a Doppler shift." --Tusselad
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/algols.gif


| The only one I have, published by an obvious relativist crackpot, is
| about 60 degrees out from what I would expect.

Oh, so you think the canals of Mars are at the wrong angles.
I've got news for you.
They don't exist, and neither do radial velocities, SHITHEAD.

f*** the canals on mars.


Quote:
|
| >You don't know the pitch, Wilson.
|
| I don't have to know the pitch. That is the beauty of my method.

Yeah... the beauty of bullshit... lovely, isn't it?
I am getting so fucking tired of you, cunt. I want some real criticism,
not the word of a jackass.

I realise the truth is hard for you to accept.


Quote:
| No. Andersen said so. I will not be convinced until I get decent velocity
| curves.

You haven't programmed a spectrum. Mine isn't real, it's a teaching
spectrum. Set it to x1 as it should be. The fucking pixels are too big,
that's my only reason for magnifying it, you cunt.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algolspectrum.GIF

How come my 'shitty' program gets the same curves as yours?

Mine shows the predicted 'observed' radial velocity/time curves as against the
true ones at the source. I don't need the spectrum, that's the easy part.

Quote:
| Certainly, cepheid brightness curves can be matched with BaTh predictioed
ones
| but so can huff-puff stars.

You can't match V1493 Aql. with huff puff.

true.
Unfortunately not enough of this curve is given.

Quote:
One axiom is worth all the fucking theories you can muster.
Dumbbell stars (WR20, Algol) huff-puff stars (d-Cep), recurrent novae,
flare stars, all have their own theory. The principle of relativity is an
axiom.
That's why my program is called "Copernicus" and yours is called
"Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty".

....but mine is a thousand times better than yours...

There is one big problem with all of this, that I haven't solved yet. There is
a whole group of stars that are claimed to vary by about 7-9 magnitudes. Yet
their brighness curves are basically sinusoidal with no sharp peaks. eg, S Cas,
R Boo.

According to our method of determining brightness curves, there is no way this
can happen with just c+v and an ellliptical orbit. Either the observations are
grossly wrong or another factor is coming into play.

Instead of raving, why don't you have a look at that.

Quote:
|
| >How do I change it, then?
|
| I dont have to. It is automatically included in the radial velocity data.

I know *you* don't. I asked how do *I*, as the (sole) user of your
wrongram, change it?

You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory.
You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch.

You faked the bloody thing by adding pitch twice.

Quote:
| >Yes, it is far too hard. I can't find it's combo box in your wrongram
| >to change it. Where did you hide it?
|
| It is in my old program, www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe


That had to be scrapped, it wasn't readable and came up with run-time
errors.

I think they are now fixed...but the simple version is better anyway.

Quote:
BUT...
The curve did not change when you set ROLL to 90 because Wombat
Wilson didn't know the correct names for pitch and roll.
When a plane rolls, wabo, it doesn't pitch into the ground, it also yaws.
Rework your old program, take out the fucking dark colours, rename
the Combo box called "ROLL" to "PITCH" and run it again.
Or just use mine.

I told you, my use of pitch is not the conventional one.
I apply yaw angle to an edge-on orbit then tilt that around an axis which lies
in the orbit plane and is perpedicular to the LOS.

I can produce ALL possible orbit configurations in this way. ..and yes, yaw
angle DOES change with pitch in my method. ...but that doesn't matter.


Quote:
| >| fuckkkkkkkkk!
| >Yep, you are fucked.
|
| >| Pitch is included, idiot.
|
| >I want to change it so that I get the right distance. Where is the combo
| >box?
|
| Look, velocity, pitch and distance are linearly related.

Program in the pitch, you had it before but called it roll. Then I'll look.

How do you know the pitch of Algol?

Quote:
| Changing any will have the same effect.
| Like I said, all we have to go on are brightness curves and RADIAL
velocity vs
| time.

You've got your worms mixed up and pismounciated "radial".
"Radial" is for huff puff, "tangential" (that you call "peripheral") is for
worbits, you illiterate old goat, and you don't know roll from pitch.
http://tinyurl.com/qs8bs

I got nuttin' mixed up. I know what I'm doing.

You include pitch twice.

Quote:

| Hiuf-puff stars will behave very like stars in orbit. They don't refute
the
| BaTh even if they aARE huff-puffing. They actually support OUR theory.

There are no huff puff stars, flare stars, eclipsing binaries, recurrently
exploding stars, canals on Mars or foggy heather, and stick in water are
not bent; but you are, you murderer of physics. Fortunately you can't
murder mathematics, no matter how hard you try.

There could be stars that genuinely vary in brightnerss......but I doubt if
there are many of them. For one thing, the period wouldn't be dead constant as
it is with most observed ones. That type of constancy could only be obtained
with direct connection to an orbit period.


Quote:
|
| >And senile. Huff-puff stars have radial velocities. Radial velocity along
| >the star's radius. Worbits have tangential velocities. Tangent to the
| >worbit.
|
| And that''s what we measure.

Yes. We measure the tangential velocity, which is pitched to the line of
sight.
Put back pitch that you once called roll.

You are totally confused.

Quote:

f*** the tusselad, he's a moron. Of course it is in the direction of the
Earth, that's the only line of sight we have.

Huff puff stars expand radially and are as big as worbits. They have to
be to get the same shift. It's like our sun expanding out like a balloon
to reach Mercury and back again in 5 days, totally stupid, and created
by the aether with its controlling speed. It's Bullshit with a capital B.

I agree it sounds very unlikely.
Quote:
|
| I accept that definition, even though he is usually wrong.

Great definition... the velocity of light we measure is along the line of
sight.
Where the f*** else could it be?

...and it automatically includes cos(pitch).

Quote:
| >Experience. First hand knowledge. Appreciation of the work involved. Fun.
| >You can't see Algol, but you've got WR20 that I can't see, Carina is a
| >southern hemisphere constellation. But, senility has set in.
|
| You should know...

I do know. I even know the difference between radial velocity and tangential
velocity, a huff puff star and an orbit.
ALL stars behave the same. Boring, but true. Some are bigger than others,
some are older than others, but that's the only difference. What we see is
illusion (or willusion as you call it).

I agree.


Quote:
|
| The whole of astrophysics is wrong, WRONG WWRROONNGG!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Yes, it is, and it always has been. The problem has always been some
shithead
with his own theory, who cannot adhere to the principle of v+c, and that
goes back to Ptolemy for whom the speed of light was infinite. More recently
it was John Goodricke, 18 years old with a wooden telescope, pronouncing
Algol was a binary. He was just a kid, for f***'s sake. Of course he was a
shithead, he had nobody to teach him. The problem is, we die too soon.
Newton
would have straightened his arse out. I can't because Goodricke is dead too,
and I can't straighten yours because you don't listen.

Now all the fucking stars are binaries, but we can only see
the bright one. The dark one eclipses it, but it is just as fucking big, and
cepheids are huff-puff stars and sticks in water are really bent.
Physics is as dead now as its always been, only Newton shone briefly.

...now Wilson is taking over.


Quote:
| >I'm asking you that. I can't see WR20 from here.
|
| It is WR20a

'a' for bright, 'b' for dark companion , but only one star.
Show me WR20b if you can, it doesn't exist. The 'a' is bullshit.
Show me the velocity curve of WR20, WCH's do not emit light, they are kewl.

It is claimed that two identical spectra are observed, 180 out of phase.
I would like to see more detail. If it is true, the second one could only be
refletion from the WCH because the brightness curve is that of a single star
orbiting a barycentre.

Quote:
|
| >You get points on your worbits.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG
| >That's because you are half-arsed.
| >Your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you won't
| >use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch.
|
| Have a look at my orbits. They are produced on the screen every time
| eccentricity is changed. If you believe they are not ellipses then go see
an
| optometrist.

I can see this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG

I fixed that. It was only a scaling error anyway.

Quote:
I don't need a magnifying glass, you provided it.
Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty are bent, just like
real sticks in real water and Wombat Wilson's neuron.

My orbits are elliptical to better than 0.01%

It makes little difference to brightness curve predictions anyway even if they
are out by a few percent. I've tried it, I should know...so don't claim that is
bullshit.



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 18, 2006 9:17 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:t78ob2dce07d9hebio2cr35e5fgu70e2td@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:33:18 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:qdjmb2hjkeapc830q4l601tl1rcfv9315h@4ax.com...
|
| >http://astro.nineplanets.org/twn/types.html
| >
| >Early in this [20th] century, there was a great debate as to the nature
of
| >the nebulae like this one which at that time could not be resolved into
| >individual stars. Thanks in large part to the work of Edwin Hubble whose
| >famous paper "The Realm of the Nebulae" finally put the issue to rest, we
| >now know that these are really vast conglomerates billions of stars which
| >are very much more distant from the Earth than other nebulae. Our own
Milky
| >Way galaxy is just one of the billions of galaxies now known to exist. A
| >typical galaxy is 100,000 light-years in diameter.
| >
| >Ever wondered why HST wasn't called the Lowell Space Trelescope?
| >It won't be called the Wilson Space Trelescope either.
|
| It would have to be called Wilson2 because there is already as Mt Wilson
| telescope. That was not named after me incidentally, in case you thought
it
| waqs..

That's the name of the fuckin' mountain, not a trelescope. The point is,
Lowell was a generally recognised scientist in his day and a general
shithead
afterwards.

|
| >| >| No it's the 4D equivalent of a Klein bottle.....known as a 'Wilson
| >| >manifold'.
| >| >
| >| >I see. How very informative.
| >|
| >| Mobius strip -. Klien bottle -> Wilson manifold.
| >
| >I see. How very informative. The shithead that never learnt negative
| >numbers, leaves out pitch and roll and thinks stars are spots is now
| >an expert in topology.
| >Pray tell us, expert, which metric are you using? Is it the Euclidian,
| >the manhattan, the trelescopian... ah, of course... the wabonian.
| >Please remind us once again what the wabonian metric is?
|
| It spins around and comes back to you.

LOL...



|
|
| >|
| >| The radial velocity is determined through observed doppler shifts.
| >
| >| Even I believe they are basically true.
| >
| >It is cos(pitch) multiplied by tangential velocity that is observed,
stupid
| >wabo.
|
| That's right.
| .and that is the speed that must be added to c in our programs. Like I
said,
| pitch is automatically included.

It's automatically included in Nature, Wilson takes it out so he can have
his crackpot unifuckation theory and all worbits are wedge-on. Nutty as
Lowell.


|
|
| >| >Yes, cepheids puff up and down like blowfish, don't they, shithead?
| >| >They are nice huff-puff stars with a radial velocity.
| >|
| >| Well I'm not convinced what they are. I cannot get decent radial
velocity
| >| curves.
| >
| >If you haven't got a trelescope, you won't have a sprectometer.
| >I don't own a spectrometer either, but I know someone that does.
| >But then, you can't even program a spectrum, can you?
| > "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative positions
| >and intensities of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by
| >a Doppler shift." --Tusselad
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/algols.gif
| >
| >
| >| The only one I have, published by an obvious relativist crackpot, is
| >| about 60 degrees out from what I would expect.
| >
| >Oh, so you think the canals of Mars are at the wrong angles.
| >I've got news for you.
| >They don't exist, and neither do radial velocities, SHITHEAD.
|
| f*** the canals on mars.

Nutty as Lowell. Take out pitch and replace it with unifuckation.
You can't give up aether because Einstein has everyone indoctrinated
with c (except me). Fuckin' 'c' this and 'c' that, like it was something
special.


|
|
| >| >
| >| >You don't know the pitch, Wilson.
| >|
| >| I don't have to know the pitch. That is the beauty of my method.
| >
| >Yeah... the beauty of bullshit... lovely, isn't it?
| >I am getting so fucking tired of you, cunt. I want some real criticism,
| >not the word of a jackass.
|
| I realise the truth is hard for you to accept.



The truth is orbits are tilted, not seen edge-on so that Wilson can
have his canals on Mars and unifuckation.
60 degrees, Wilson.
cos 60 = 0.5. That's c + 0.5v
Same curve at double the distance.
That's the truth you find hard to accept. Fuckin' stupid old wabo.
The orbit of WR20 is face-on, just a fraction of a degree is enough
to make a light curve because of the enormous distance, you moron.


|
|
| >| No. Andersen said so. I will not be convinced until I get decent
velocity
| >| curves.
| >
| >You haven't programmed a spectrum. Mine isn't real, it's a teaching
| >spectrum. Set it to x1 as it should be. The fucking pixels are too big,
| >that's my only reason for magnifying it, you cunt.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algolspectrum.GIF
|
| How come my 'shitty' program gets the same curves as yours?

No it doesn't, yours has 0.3 LY clearly marked. Mine works at
any distance. You have the wrong magnitude.

|
| Mine shows the predicted 'observed' radial velocity/time curves as against
the
| true ones at the source. I don't need the spectrum, that's the easy part.

You can't model a spectrum, Wilson.


|
| >| Certainly, cepheid brightness curves can be matched with BaTh
predictioed
| >ones
| >| but so can huff-puff stars.
| >
| >You can't match V1493 Aql. with huff puff.
|
| true.
| Unfortunately not enough of this curve is given.



Gotta live with the data available.
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/mizar.html
Two doubles my arse. Certainly two stars both with planets,
the rest is BS.




|
| >One axiom is worth all the fucking theories you can muster.
| >Dumbbell stars (WR20, Algol) huff-puff stars (d-Cep), recurrent novae,
| >flare stars, all have their own theory. The principle of relativity is an
| >axiom.
| >That's why my program is called "Copernicus" and yours is called
| >"Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty".
|
| ...but mine is a thousand times better than yours...

And all worbits are wedge-on with points on them.


|
| There is one big problem with all of this, that I haven't solved yet.
There is
| a whole group of stars that are claimed to vary by about 7-9 magnitudes.
Yet
| their brighness curves are basically sinusoidal with no sharp peaks. eg, S
Cas,
| R Boo.

LOL! Yeah, I see what you mean. Those numbers are fucked, though.
6 magnitudes is a nova, I'd be looking at novae every night.
I'm sure I'd would have noticed it by now. Remember magnitude is logarthmic,
a first mag star is bright, a 6th mag star is dim. The sun is about -27
mag.
You cannot see a 16th mag without a trelescope.


There is a period of V 1493 Aql reported at
http://www.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/Summary/v1493aql.html

This is guessing:
http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/rmaa/RMxAC..20/PDF/RMxAC..20_adobrotka2.pdf

(They use pdf when they want to look more important)


This is a picture:
http://astro.corlan.net/obs/3304/V1493-AQL/2.html



| According to our method of determining brightness curves, there is no way
this
| can happen with just c+v and an ellliptical orbit. Either the observations
are
| grossly wrong or another factor is coming into play.
|
| Instead of raving, why don't you have a look at that.

It's just a musunderstanding of magnitude Nobody is bothered except you,
and you don't observe.


|
| >| >
| >| >How do I change it, then?
| >|
| >| I dont have to. It is automatically included in the radial velocity
data.
| >
| >I know *you* don't. I asked how do *I*, as the (sole) user of your
| >wrongram, change it?
| >
| >You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory.
| >You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch.
|
| You faked the bloody thing by adding pitch twice.

I add pitch once, and I matched your curve. You confuse yaw with pitch.
You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch. All pitch does is correct
the same curve for distance. I have all distances, you only have one so
you have to fake your lucky heather and produce Wilson's crackpot theory.

|
| >| >Yes, it is far too hard. I can't find it's combo box in your wrongram
| >| >to change it. Where did you hide it?
| >|
| >| It is in my old program, www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
| >
| >
| >That had to be scrapped, it wasn't readable and came up with run-time
| >errors.
|
| I think they are now fixed...but the simple version is better anyway.

Agreed simpler is better, but not without pitch. That's too simple.
Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.


|
| >BUT...
| >The curve did not change when you set ROLL to 90 because Wombat
| >Wilson didn't know the correct names for pitch and roll.
| >When a plane rolls, wabo, it doesn't pitch into the ground, it also yaws.
| >Rework your old program, take out the fucking dark colours, rename
| >the Combo box called "ROLL" to "PITCH" and run it again.
| >Or just use mine.
|
| I told you, my use of pitch is not the conventional one.

Well, it should be, otherwise your distance os 0.3 LY.


| I apply yaw angle to an edge-on orbit then tilt that around an axis which
lies
| in the orbit plane and is perpedicular to the LOS.
|
| I can produce ALL possible orbit configurations in this way. ..and yes,
yaw
| angle DOES change with pitch in my method. ...but that doesn't matter.

Until you can account for distance, it matters.
It's too bad we don't know exactly, but that's science, Nature doesn't
give up her secrets easily.
The trouble is I have to spend a month telling you how wrong you
are and calling you names, because you are one of those cunts that
think you are never wrong. You are WRONG, Wilson. Real orbits
are further away than 0.3 LY and are pitched to the line of sight.
Same curve, twice as far, 60 degrees pitch, cos 60 =0.5
Same curve, 4 times as far, 75 degrees pitch, cos 75 = 0.25
It's fuckin' simple.

Look... you can make all curves at 0.3 LY. Then use the magnitude
to approximate the true distance. That is what Leavitt-Swan
did, in essence. She said "That's a cepheid curve - I'll use the
magnitude to find the distance."
I'm saying that "eclipsing binaries" are really cepheids and the same
technique can be used on those as well. That is something BIG, Wilson,
something you've always wanted. There's a Nobel Prize in it if that's
what you want. It doesn't bother me, I'm not seeking accolades, I seek
truth about Nature.

|
| >| >| fuckkkkkkkkk!
| >| >Yep, you are fucked.
| >| >
| >| >| Pitch is included, idiot.
| >| >
| >| >I want to change it so that I get the right distance. Where is the
combo
| >| >box?
| >|
| >| Look, velocity, pitch and distance are linearly related.
| >
| >Program in the pitch, you had it before but called it roll. Then I'll
look.
|
| How do you know the pitch of Algol?

I've no fuckin' idea what it is... if I did I'd know the exact distance.
It's about 85 degrees, almost a face-on orbit. That's the best I can do.
What it isn't is an eclipsing binary, that would violate all of physics.
The tusselad cannot see the contradiction, he computes:
"But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and density, and the
B8 is well outside of the Roche limit of the K2, while the K2 is just at the
Roche limit of the B8. That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and
mass is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there is an
accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn. (This accretion
disk is not stable, though. It is a transient disk; the mass transferred
from the K2 bounces off the surface of the B8 and eventually falls back to
the surface.) "

That's fuckin' ridiculous, a star cannot be a disc and also eclipse another.
All this BS when the solution is c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch) where v is
the tangential (peripheral) speed... it's fuckin' amazing the lengths people
will go to to make idiots of themselves.
What the f*** did an 18-year-old know about Roche limits? Roche
wasn't born when Goodricke died.
Algol remains an enigma because it is a star with planet "Androcles"
in orbit around it, the orbit is face-on to us.


| >| Changing any will have the same effect.
| >| Like I said, all we have to go on are brightness curves and RADIAL
| >velocity vs
| >| time.
| >
| >You've got your worms mixed up and pismounciated "radial".
| >"Radial" is for huff puff, "tangential" (that you call "peripheral") is
for
| > worbits, you illiterate old goat, and you don't know roll from pitch.
| > http://tinyurl.com/qs8bs
|
| I got nuttin' mixed up. I know what I'm doing.
|
| You include pitch twice.

Bollocks. You are a Lowell, seeing canals on Mars that are not there, except
you see foggy aether. It's amazing the lengths you'll go to justify your
crackpot
theory. Typical physicist, build one thing on top of another when you
started out with a f***-up, just like Einstein.


|
| >
| >| Hiuf-puff stars will behave very like stars in orbit. They don't refute
| >the
| >| BaTh even if they aARE huff-puffing. They actually support OUR theory.
| >
| >There are no huff puff stars, flare stars, eclipsing binaries,
recurrently
| >exploding stars, canals on Mars or foggy heather, and stick in water are
| >not bent; but you are, you murderer of physics. Fortunately you can't
| >murder mathematics, no matter how hard you try.
|
| There could be stars that genuinely vary in brightnerss......but I doubt
if
| there are many of them. For one thing, the period wouldn't be dead
constant as
| it is with most observed ones. That type of constancy could only be
obtained
| with direct connection to an orbit period.

Typical physicist, build one thing on top of another when you
started out with a f***-up, just like Einstein. You'll never be a scientist.
The brightness of a star will vary with it's AGE, there are no special
stars.
There are a LOT of planets, though. Our solar system is typical and far
from unique.



|
| >| >
| >| >And senile. Huff-puff stars have radial velocities. Radial velocity
along
| >| >the star's radius. Worbits have tangential velocities. Tangent to the
| >| >worbit.
| >|
| >| And that''s what we measure.
| >
| >Yes. We measure the tangential velocity, which is pitched to the line of
| >sight.
| >Put back pitch that you once called roll.
|
| You are totally confused.

I don't confuse pitch with yaw or roll, Wilson. I was a flight simulation
engineer and robotics engineer, I've lived with them throughout a career.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RotationMatrix.html
That's second nature to me and a nice array of dots to you.



|
| >
| >f*** the tusselad, he's a moron. Of course it is in the direction of the
| >Earth, that's the only line of sight we have.
| >
| >Huff puff stars expand radially and are as big as worbits. They have to
| >be to get the same shift. It's like our sun expanding out like a balloon
| >to reach Mercury and back again in 5 days, totally stupid, and created
| >by the aether with its controlling speed. It's Bullshit with a capital B.
|
| I agree it sounds very unlikely.

It's fuckin' impossible. A star with ANY movement in the line of
sight has to vary in magnitude.
Here it is for increasing speed:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/period.gif
The last few frames reduce to what is essentially a straight line, that
noise
is a by-product of digital processing, as is the first couple of frames.

| >|
| >| I accept that definition, even though he is usually wrong.
| >
| >Great definition... the velocity of light we measure is along the line of
| >sight.
| >Where the f*** else could it be?
|
| ..and it automatically includes cos(pitch).
|
| >| >Experience. First hand knowledge. Appreciation of the work involved.
Fun.
| >| >You can't see Algol, but you've got WR20 that I can't see, Carina is a
| >| >southern hemisphere constellation. But, senility has set in.
| >|
| >| You should know...
| >
| >I do know. I even know the difference between radial velocity and
tangential
| >velocity, a huff puff star and an orbit.
| >ALL stars behave the same. Boring, but true. Some are bigger than others,
| >some are older than others, but that's the only difference. What we see
is
| >illusion (or willusion as you call it).
|
| I agree.

Then put in the fucking pitch!
Sheesh, you are almost there after 6 years, why spoil the ship for a pot of
tar?
Stop up the leaks and it'll float.

Gawd said to Noah:
Make thee an ark of gopher-wood: rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt
pitch it within and without with pitch.

Got that, Wilson? Ya gotta have pitch!

|
| >|
| >| The whole of astrophysics is wrong, WRONG WWRROONNGG!!!!!!!!!!!!
| >|
| >Yes, it is, and it always has been. The problem has always been some
| >shithead
| >with his own theory, who cannot adhere to the principle of v+c, and that
| >goes back to Ptolemy for whom the speed of light was infinite. More
recently
| >it was John Goodricke, 18 years old with a wooden telescope, pronouncing
| >Algol was a binary. He was just a kid, for f***'s sake. Of course he was
a
| >shithead, he had nobody to teach him. The problem is, we die too soon.
| >Newton
| >would have straightened his arse out. I can't because Goodricke is dead
too,
| >and I can't straighten yours because you don't listen.
| >
| > Now all the fucking stars are binaries, but we can only see
| >the bright one. The dark one eclipses it, but it is just as fucking big,
and
| >cepheids are huff-puff stars and sticks in water are really bent.
| >Physics is as dead now as its always been, only Newton shone briefly.
|
| ..now Wilson is taking over.

Your wrongram sinks like a lead balloon. It needs pitch, otherwise it
won't float on the Martian canals.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.

|
|
| >| >I'm asking you that. I can't see WR20 from here.
| >|
| >| It is WR20a
| >
| >'a' for bright, 'b' for dark companion , but only one star.
| >Show me WR20b if you can, it doesn't exist. The 'a' is bullshit.
| >Show me the velocity curve of WR20, WCH's do not emit light, they are
kewl.
|
| It is claimed that two identical spectra are observed, 180 out of phase.

Not possible. All they can see is the same star going away and coming
forward,
it's a Martian canal again.


| I would like to see more detail. If it is true, the second one could only
be
| refletion from the WCH because the brightness curve is that of a single
star
| orbiting a barycentre.

There isn't a second one.


|
| >| >
| >| >You get points on your worbits.
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG
| >| >That's because you are half-arsed.
| >| >Your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you won't
| >| >use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed
pitch.
| >|
| >| Have a look at my orbits. They are produced on the screen every time
| >| eccentricity is changed. If you believe they are not ellipses then go
see
| >an
| >| optometrist.
| >
| >I can see this:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG
|
| I fixed that. It was only a scaling error anyway.
|
| >I don't need a magnifying glass, you provided it.
| >Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty are bent, just like
| >real sticks in real water and Wombat Wilson's neuron.
|
| My orbits are elliptical to better than 0.01%

Is that all? Sloppy. With 32 bit precision they should be better than that.
No wonder you have points on them.



|
| It makes little difference to brightness curve predictions anyway even if
they
| are out by a few percent. I've tried it, I should know...so don't claim
that is
| bullshit.

It makes a huge difference to the spectrum. 0.01% of 675,000,000,000,000 Hz.
wow.. enormous error, you'll never succeed in finding the velocity.

Androcles.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 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 05, 2015 2:23 pm | 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: 0.6012s ][ Queries: 16 (0.4765s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]