On Jul 8, 5:51 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 05:55:38 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 8, 6:22 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:52:21 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

If you use your brain, you will see that it is just another
way of stating Einstein's second postulate. It doesn't prove
anything.

However, EXPERIMENT reveals that Minkowski geometry provides a
correct description of reality in the low gravitation limit.

Yes yes, we've heard all this before.

In one of your ears and out the other.

You haven't the foggiest inkling of what Minkowski geometry
is all about, and yet claim it can't explain anything?

It is just a 4D way of expressing the second postulate.
It isn't true no matter how you want to define it.

It is an alternative description of SR in geometric terms, the
truth and usefulness of which is established by its ability to
match experimental results and to enable far simpler
calculations than Einstein's original approach.

Obviously you relativists DO believe the Earth holds some
special place in the universe?

Nope.

You don't even know your own minds.

You really should apply some basic logic to your arguments
instead of quoting circular nonsnese.

You really should learn the subject rather than retreating
into your religious mantra.

Hahahahohohhw\ahwhawhawhoho!

A relativist accusing othersd of 'religious mantra'!!!!!!

[amused sneer]

Teach yourself ELEMENTARY LINEAR ALGEBRA before displaying
your ignorance again.

Let's get back to the problem. Your sawblade photons have
a "front" and a "back", correct? Does that not imply a
minimum duration for a pulse? How do you get around the
predicted minimum duration to explain the existence of
femtosecond laser pulses? If you understood the branch
of mathematics to which I refer, you MIGHT have some
means of explaining it.

Silly girl...

In other words, you are unable to explain this paradox.

I asked for YOUR explanation.

Femtosecond pulses are not explainable in terms of incompressible
Wilsonian sawblades. Or compressible Wilsonian sawblades, for
that matter.

They are easily explained in terms of classical wave theory.

Jerry, tell me more about thse femtosecond pulses.
How many wavelength long is a femtosecond photon?
What is the colour of the light from this laser?

This site includes downloadable articles:
http://www.attoworld.de

No. I want YOU to tell me...

Too lazy to do your own research?

You can assume the velocity curves are similar to the
brightness curves in the majority of cases.

I assume nothing. SHOW YOUR CURVES.

My curves are like this
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

I want to see YOUR curves, not see what you claim looks like
them.

In other words, YOU HAVE NO RESULTS, and have nothing but
bull**** and hot air.

That's rather strong language...

But apparently quite true.

Well these curves are obviously more than coincidence.

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

Sure. You fit flute sounds with equal facility:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/root.jpg
http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/CE3K-0.wav

I've saved your fit, by the way. Anytime you want to claim
how rigorous a demonstration your Cepheid fits are of your
theory's validity, I can bring your flute fit up from my
own web site.

Or perhaps I should modify my statement. You HAVE results,
but the results are in contradiction to your claims. You
refuse to publish them because publishing them will reveal
your pattern of lies.

Your desperation is really showing now....

You could EASILY prove me wrong...or can you? Just publish
your results, complete with magnitude and km/s scales.

I should not have to teach you such an elementary fact but....
the 'variation' of anything is an expression of the ratio
between its maximum and minimum.

Nope. That's your own completely made-up definition.
Beside which, you are comparing linear versus log scale
measurements.

Pig's arse! My program produces both.

What does it mean, to take the ratio of two log scale
measures?

Example: The magnitude of the Sun is -27, whilc the magnitude
of Vega is zero. The ratio -27/0 is undefined. What does this
ratio mean?

Example: The magnitude of the Sun is -27, while the magnitude
of 3C 273 is 13. The ratio -27/13 = -2.1. What does this
ratio mean?

That's not how I do it.

I use the variation in 'photon density'as an indicator of
arrival flux density. I find the linear maximum/minimum
ratio and quote that as the linear brightness variation.
I quote the log of that ratio as the 'log magnitude
change'...log to base ~2.5...that is.

You stated, that the 'variation' of ANYTHING is an expression
of the ratio between its maximum and minimum.

You now admit that that was a false statement. At least
we have THAT cleared up.

I smell a rat here.......or has Minor Crank returned
from the dead...

You are free to believe anything you want to believe.

Hello Crank....why do you pretend you are female? Are you
a secret cross dresser as well?

You are a insecure sexist pig.

APPROXIMATELY resemble. You have NO MATCHES.
Your theory has FAILED.

...and all starlight is adjusted by the fairies to
travel at c wrt little planet Earth....

Back to your mindless mantra, again...

I know the truth must hurt Crank....

You know the truth. You have no matches.

You're just playing for time, just HOPING that you'll figure
out a way to tweak your program to produce the curves that
you need.

Your program predicts equal numbers of both kinds.
This is completely at odds with observation.

I just explained why.

Your program predicts curve shapes that are NEVER seen.

No it doesn't.
Remember, the critical distance is never approached
because of extinction.

Henri, here is an experiment for you. It should be easy because
your computer program "does all the work" and you can compute
more curves in a few minutes than Einstein or de Sitter could
in a lifetime of work.

Pick a constant distance, say 100 light years.
Pick a typical orbital radius and period.
Pick a typical eccentricity. Let's start with 0
Assume two stars of equal brightness.
Generate curves for every combination of yaw and pitch at 36
degree intervals.
You should have 100 graphs.

Pick another reasonable eccentricity. Try 0.15.
Repeat the process.

Pick another reasonable eccentricity. Try 0.30.
Repeat the process.

Display your 300 graphs systematically organized so that you
have 3 displays 10 across and 10 down.

Publish your results for us to examine.

The program aready does that for any particular eccentricity.
You can run my program and do it yourself. Use the 'Scan on'
feature.

Can you find stars to match all of your results?

Yes.

Display your outputs in 10x10 grids. And show your predicted
radial velocities as well. Don't forget magnitude and km/s
scales.

But remember critical distance is never reached because
of 'extinction'.

Repeat for other orbital radii and periods.

I would advise you to automate the process with a little
programming, a few nested loops.

It is already done.

Display your outputs in 10x10 grids. And show your predicted
radial velocities as well. Don't forget magnitude and km/s
scales.

Most but not all. Your program predicts a large number of
oddities that have never been observed.

No it doesn't.

Show us that it doesn't. Do the experiment that I described
above.

It is done. Allow ten seconds for processing time.
...but it would have taken
DeSitter hundreds of years....

Display your outputs in 10x10 grids. And show your predicted
radial velocities as well. Don't forget magnitude and km/s
scales.

Astronomers love concentrating on oddities. Your program
predicts the existence of oddities that have never been seen.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. If you dispute this, do the experiment that I
described above.

I have.
I will be speeding up the scan process soon.

Can you or can't you supply them?

Just assume they are about the same.

In other word, YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THEM. Not now, not ever.

Jerry, I can't do everything at once....
I already spend far too much time trying to educate you
poor misguided relativists...

Excuses, excuses...

Jerry, the velocity and brightness curves are about the same
shape in most cases.

Not true. When was the last time that you looked at REAL
luminosity versus radial velocity data, rather than that
classroom illustration that you cite all the time?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri_diploma.htm

Henri Wilson's Use of Deceptive Language or,
Would You Buy A Used Ballistic Theory From This Man?
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus..._deception.htm

RT Aurigae versus Emission Theory or,
Henri Wilson's Faked Program Output
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm

Henri Wilson Attempts to Rewrite the Historical Record
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri_history.htm