On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:28:57 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 4, 6:25 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:29:37 -0700, Jerry
wrote:


Unfortunately, Henri would explain that away by claiming
that the laser generates an "EM Control Frame" that
forces light to travel at c with respect to the laser.

Oh?
Are you suggesting taht light does NOT travel at
c wrt the laser?

No, I am suggesting that incompressible sawblade
photons are incompatible with the existence of
femtosecond laser pulses. There is no way to shape
them to fit within the pulse envelope. Your photon
model is nonsense.

So what is YOUR model of a femtosecond photon?

Henri has an ad hoc kludge for everything, it seems.
Provided he doesn't have to provide math or actually
demonstrate his theory's predictive ability (beyond
fitting a few luminosity curves), everything about his
theory seems perfect to him.

My computer does the maths....and generates more
curves in a minute than DeSitter and Einstein could
produce in a million years..

GIGO

I know you don't like it.

Yoiu must be good at making up hospital beds by
now. Why don't you stick to the things you know
something about and leave the brainwork to us experts?

I recognize many forms of mental illness by now.
Remember, I did a rotation in a psychiatric ward.

Remeber I have a psychology degree...so I can easily recognize your delusion of
being a great physicist.

Contradicting himself, Henri continues to apply BaTh
theory to the "explanation" of variable star curves.
It seems that being the author of the WDT bodge gives
him the right to apply the bodge on an "as needed"
basis.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
The latest one is interesting. It models an tidally
distored, egg shaped star to produce the presumed
cepheid 'overtone' effect. Makes one rethink whether or
not cepheids really DO go huff puff, eh?

You STILL haven't provided evidence that you can
simultaneously fit luminosity and radial velocity
curves.

I have. You didn't join my conversations with George.

From what I can see, your BaTh program STILL fails
even the simplest fits, despite your addition of
kludge after kludge.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

I might add that some of these take about two hours to match because I have to
juggle about six parameter values in the process. The end result usually
produces values accurate to within about 1%.

I now think they just orbit some dark matter,
probably in tidal lock.

So now you suggest that your dark companions are
totally invisible except for gravitational effects?

Relativists claim there is about four times as much dark matter as visible.
I agree. ...and I have found what it is.
Most variable stars are orbiting some kind of dark object.

The plain fact is, there are far more cold objects throughout the universe than
hot ones.
Why shouldn't there be?

Shades of John Wheeler!

The Wilsonian version of IT FROM BIT???

My theory is now almost complete ...and is quite consistent.

In your dreams...

It will be published soon.

Jerry



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.