"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Henri Wilson HW@....... wrote:
Subject: Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?


That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.

Yes. We know all about the unproven postulate....that's what has been
derailing astronomy for 100 years.

That "unproven" postulate created a theory which has been very
thoroughly tested for almost a century now. Up to the 1920's or so it
might have been reasonable to doubt it, but not anymore! So you are
some 80+ years behind your time....

There isn't one believable experiment that supports SR..

The ones we read about are all part of the religious promotion.

If so, why don't you just redo some of these experiments, to get
results which contradict relativity?

Why don't you examine them critically instead of preaching?


Basically, you're here claiming
these experimental results are all faked in a process of religious
propaganda - redoing the experiments would quickly reveal such a
situation.

Correct, so why don't you examine them critically instead of preaching?


Any erroneous religious promption can be refuted by
observations and experimentation.

Yes, that is correct. So why don't you examine them critically
instead of preaching?





But there must by plenty with resolvable orbits and periods of less
than 100 years.

Sure! There are lots of them! But you do need a telescope to resolve
them, and you said you didn't have any telescope....

I just surprised that more haven't been recorded.

How many of these orbits have been recorded which you know about? And
how many would you expect to have been recorded?

I wouldn't like to put a figure on it.

Why not?

Because it is unknown.

Don't you know how many of these orbit you know about?

Yes, but numbers of orbits are not critical to the principle.

Why so
evasive?

It's not evasive to say "unknown".


I would expect that many binary pairs would been recorded as having
'changed places' over twenty years or so.

Indeed they have .... however the word "many" is a quite fuzzy term and
could mean anything from more than, say, 3, to millions.....

Yes, say three to millions. So what, the point is the speed of
light in vacuo is source dependent, preacher.


....but don't worry about it. I doubt if anyone has seriously looked
over long time spans.

Binary stars have been measured for centuries

Whoopee, the only one seen is Sirius, period 50 years.

..... is that time long
enopugh for you?

No. Is one binary enough for you?


A number of them have been observed through several
full revolutions in their orbits.

However the word "number" is a quite fuzzy term and could mean anything from, say, 1, to 1...



Sirius (the brightest star in our
skies) is a double star which have been observed through more than
three full orbital revolutions.

Yeah, that's it. That's the one.



I should advise you that for some time, I have been studying
variable star light curves with the aim of proving Einstein
wrong...

Why don't you aim at trying to finding out how Nature works, instead
of trying to prove some particular theory wrong?

Not only have I been trying...I have succeeded.

You are indeed overconfident --- however if you also want to convince
others and not just devote yourself to intellectual masturbation, you
need to present evidence rather than just big words through your big
mouth.

Pot. Kettle. Black.



I have bothered to simulate many brightness curves using just the BaTh
principles

Did you also simulate then using relativity?

I simulated relativity, overconfident preacher devoting yourself to mental masturbation.

[rest of drivel snipped]