On Jul 9, 12:42 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:48:47 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 8, 5:51 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

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.

It's nothing but an alternative and quite unnatural way to
express the second postulate and its consequences. It novelty
and unique collection of meaningless expressions is plainly
hypnotic to impressionable trendies like you and eric geese.

You mock what you do not understand. How typical.

I asked for YOUR explanation.

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

How about Wilsonian rotating charges?

Yes. What about them?

They are easily explained in terms of classical wave theory.

What? you just cut a wave into minute pieces and still call
it a wave?

As I've said before, the properties of femtosecond pulses are
quite understandable in terms of a certain branch of mathematics
whose utility you have mocked. I will leave you in ignorance
of what I am speaking, except with a hint: Search your posting
history if you want to discover to what I refer.

How do femtosecond pulses conform with the P.E. effect?

No problem with QM either.

It is only YOUR theory that does not conform with the
existence of femtosecond pulses.

How can incompressible Wilsonian sawblades be crammed into
a femtosecond envelope?

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

What is wrong with that, please?

You claim that your ability to match Cepheid curves proves
that Cepheid luminosity variations have their origin in
c+v effects.

Likewise, you claim that your ability to match eclipsing
binary curves proves that purported eclipsing binaries
in reality are non-eclipsing binaries, whose luminosity
variations have their origin in c+v effects.

Logically, your ability to match flute music proves that
flute sounds have their origin in V+v effects, where V
is the velocity of sound in air.

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.

That isn't a cepheid. The curve slopes the wrong way.

Of course not. Your program matched a flute.

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.

No need. Most velocity curves are just like the corresponding
brightness curves but with less variation.
Of course these do not reflect the TRUE velocities of the source.

Henri, published velocity curves are merely a trivial
restatement of observed Doppler shift. You certainly do
not doubt that Doppler shifts are observed, do you?

So therefore I will revise my statement. I assert that you
have luminosity and predicted Doppler shift curves, but the
results are in contradiction to your claims. You refuse to
publish them because publishing them will reveal your
pattern of lies.

If you wish to prove me wrong, just publish your results,
complete with magnitude and Doppler shift scales.

You can start with RT Aurigae
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

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

What is false about it?

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.

maybe Crank has had a sex change...

Maybe you are an arrogant moron.

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.

You and your colleagues are the ones playing for time by
making ME waste so much of it trying to get some sense
across to YOU.

No, I think most of us here who chat with you are just
entertaining ourselves. For example, if I weren't responding
to you, I'd be working Sudoku problems, except Sudoku
represents more of an intellectual challenge.

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.

I can't at this stage,..... too many unknowns....

What unknowns?

But that doesn't matter. The primary goal is to match
curve shapes.

Which apparently you cannot do.

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

What you are referring to as REAL VELOCITY DATA is
just a Willusion.

Then do the trivial reverse computation from computed
km/s to observed Doppler shift.

When was the last time that you looked at REAL luminosity
versus observed Doppler shift data, rather than that
classroom illustration that you cite all the time?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

Please provide a simultaneous match to luminosity
and observed Doppler shift in the above paper.

The true source velocity curves can only be obtained by
matching brightness curves accurately. Even then all I
can produce is the product (velocity x
extinction distance x cos(pitch))

Surely you can determine what the observed Doppler shift
would be?

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