Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Mon, 14 May 2007 23:08:40 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
: ....
You've gotten it all wrong Bob.
Photon compression occurs during source acceleration. The end movement
is soon dampened out.


1) space between pulses and pulses must compress by same amount due to
one kind of doppler effect. To get the phase right, Henri has to posit
some kind of compression taking place in different amounts on the
space between pulses(space between photons) and the pulses (photons).
2) The BaTh predicts a inverted Shapiro delay.

Finally, Henri's BaTh still has the problem I have mentioned
elsewhere; the 'velocity unification aka extinction' effect that BaTh
needs to be at all viable is so 'unlikely' as to be thermodynamically
impossible AND there are no known mechanisms to accomplish what needs
to be accomplished.

It is NOT thermodynamically impossible. You never sem to come up with
an argument as to why it should be.

I thought I was quite clear.

Thermo dynamics requires that ordered things tend to disorder.

Unification of velocity requires bringing an unexplainable order on a
vast scale to things which start out systematically disordered. Photons
of different wavelength from different emission lines with different
rotational doppler shifts, starting out at different times, at different
speeds (both slower than c and faster than c) must 'unify'.

The odds of such a thing happening on a small scale would be like
flipping a normal 'fair' coin and having it alway land heads up.

The odds of it happening on a cosmic scale are astronomically small.

It is much more likely that your hot cup of coffee should suddenly,
spontainiously, vaporize and leave behind cubes of frozen water.

It can't happen.

It's just a direct application of Maxwell's equation.

Light moving at c, as measured from ANY inertial FoR is a direct
application of Maxwell's equations.

The 'unification' of the speeds of light for batches moving at c-v and c+v
is NOT 'a direct application of Maxwell's equations'.
Maxwell's equations make no provision for light to move at c-v or c+v.
Maxwell's equations require that all EM waves move exactly at c.

No c-v, no c+v under maxwells equations.

Try again. And let me know when your coffee suddenly freezes because
otherwise, there is no way to speed up those c-v photons.

I wont bother trying to explain again. The process is quite simple.



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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On 14 May 2007 16:09:46 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 14, 4:59 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 14 May 2007 03:47:02 -0700, Jerry wrote:
On May 14, 4:50 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Your count of successful fits stands at ZERO.

Jerry

What's this?
.....Defending your dying religion more important than your studies, Jerry?

I'm done with studies until the fall.
I have one B (my first...yuck!), the rest are A's.

No doubt the B was in logic....

This summer, I'm committed to doing hospital slave labor.

That might prevent you from annoying ME so much....

Anyhow, I note that you have not tried to deny any of my charges.
You know perfectly well that if you try to deny them, I will
provide links to every one of your fraudulent statements.

There are NONE.

Plus, I've saved your falsified images, so deleting garbage from
your web site like your phony ER Dra fit won't help you.

You silly girl. That was merely a rough diagram showing the basic shape of the
brightness curve. It was never supposed to be accurate. I DID make a genuine
mistake about the orbit period though....not that it matters....

I can
just repost them from my own web site, the same as I've done
with your faked RT Aurigae radial velocity fits.

I faked that as a joke...and admitted it straight away....
I don't have to fake RT Aur now though because George inadvertently put me on
the right track with all cepheid curves.

Jerry



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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On 14 May 2007 19:03:29 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 14, 4:59 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Why all the mystery then?

Jeff is testing your theory's predictive ability.

If I were to take a wild guess, Jeff probably has high precision
multiband luminosity and radial velocity data for this star.

Based on your fit to the luminosity curve, you should be able
to PREDICT the measured Doppler shift aka radial velocity curve
for this star.

I would have to know the period to do that.

With a suitable choice of orbital parameters, you should also
be able to MODEL this star's cycle-to-cycle variability.

That's most likely observational error.....

If Jeff were to reveal to you the identity of this star, you
might be tempted to FAKE your program's output to match the
published radial velocity curve, the same way that you FAKED
your fit to the RT Aurigae radial velocity curve.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm

I suppose you faked your 'A's too....

C'mon Henri!
Show Jeff that your program can fit the data!
Show him good!
I dares yah!

I think Jeff just made this curve up.


Jerry



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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

Henry Wilson replied to Jerry:

Based on your fit to the luminosity curve, you should
be able to PREDICT the measured Doppler shift aka radial
velocity curve for this star.

I would have to know the period to do that.

How about if I tell you that the numbers on the graph are
years and decimal fractions of a year? (Average Julian
years = 365.25 days = 31,557,600 seconds.) The starting
point is arbitrary.

With a suitable choice of orbital parameters, you should also
be able to MODEL this star's cycle-to-cycle variability.

That's most likely observational error.....

The variations in the data points are mostly real, not
errors. The smooth curve is more questionable. As I said,
I used a commercial program to draw the curve from the data
points. However, while I expect that you can model any
individual cycle, I would be surprised if you can model
the variability between cycles. I could have picked out
one cycle for you to model, but I wanted you to have the
larger context, especially considering that I intended to
withold other important contextual data including the
cycle period.

I think Jeff just made this curve up.

I didn't make it up, but as I'm not being candid about
it I can't fault you for being suspicious of it, or for
not matching it with your program. You said that you can,
though, so I expect that you will. I haven't yet selected
more curves for you, but I do have more data. I'd like to
give you two or three more.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

On May 15, 5:38 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 14 May 2007 19:03:29 -0700, Jerry wrote:

With a suitable choice of orbital parameters, you should also
be able to MODEL this star's cycle-to-cycle variability.

That's most likely observational error.....

Uh, no, Henri.

Think! I've given you some big hints as to the probable identity
of the observatory where the data was gathered. One can even
make a likely guess as to the direction in which its telescope
was pointed.

The scale at the bottom runs from 4.7242 to 4.7367 years, over
4.5 days of uninterrupted magnitude readings. So the observatory
either must be situated north of the Arctic circle, south of the
Antarctic circle, or somewhere else where it could experience
several days of continuous nighttime conditions...

The particular observatory that I have in mind is somewhat too
valuable to be dedicated to observations of a single variable.
It must have been performing a survey.

The period of this variable is about 0.6 days. What does that
tell you about its intrinsic luminosity? What does that tell
you about the distance to the survey target?

Can you guess what the survey target might be? Do you appreciate
why observational error is not a likely explanation for the
measured cycle-to-cycle variability?

Jerry

On May 15, 5:25 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 14 May 2007 16:22:28 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Signals from Cassini, orbiting Saturn, are tracked and
timed to extreme precision. The speed is always c, never
c+v. Signals from multiple spacecraft orbiting Mars are
tracked and timed over the full synodic period of Earth
and Mars. The speed is always c, never c+v. Signals
from hundreds of spacecraft orbiting Earth are tracked
and timed constantly. The speed is always c, never c+v.

Crap....
Absolute CRAP!

No crap, Henri. Experiments such as you have proposed in the past
to measure one-way speed of light are effectively being performed
on a continuous basis in tracking interplanetary spacecraft. They
aren't even experiments anymore, but instead are simply routine
engineering considerations. DSN determinations of spacecraft
radial velocity are accurate to 0.05 millimeters per second, and
range determinations are routinely accurate to three meters.
(Scientific American, August 2006, p 100)

Any discrepancy in signal timings resulting from c+v effects
should have been noticed long ago.

c+v effects simply don't exist.

Jerry

On May 15, 5:25 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 14 May 2007 16:22:28 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Signals from Cassini, orbiting Saturn, are tracked and
timed to extreme precision. The speed is always c, never
c+v. Signals from multiple spacecraft orbiting Mars are
tracked and timed over the full synodic period of Earth
and Mars. The speed is always c, never c+v. Signals
from hundreds of spacecraft orbiting Earth are tracked
and timed constantly. The speed is always c, never c+v.

Crap....
Absolute CRAP!

No crap, Henri. Experiments such as you have proposed in the past
to measure one-way speed of light are effectively being performed
on a continuous basis in tracking interplanetary spacecraft. They
aren't even experiments anymore, but instead are simply routine
engineering considerations. DSN determinations of spacecraft
radial velocity are accurate to 0.05 millimeters per second, and
range determinations are routinely accurate to three meters.
(Scientific American, August 2006, p 100)

Any discrepancy in signal timings resulting from c+v effects
should have been noticed long ago.

c+v effects simply don't exist.

Jerry

On 15 May 2007 05:56:13 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Jerry replied to Henry:

On May 14, 4:59 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Why all the mystery then?

Jeff is testing your theory's predictive ability.

If I were to take a wild guess, Jeff probably has high precision
multiband luminosity and radial velocity data for this star.

Unfortunately, no. I said that no Doppler data is available.
I was going to search for a star with such data, but decided
to go ahead with what I had already in hand, which gives a
different kind of test. I have several other candidates for
Henry to apply his technique on, though, and I may find one
or more which do have Doppler data. This first test has
weaknesses, but it also has some strengths. Whether or
not Henry is able to match the first curve, I'll have two or
three more which, all considered together, should be far
more diagnostic of his program's predictive ability than
any one test alone.

This is the basic type of curve...
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/root.jpg

It's a combination of a fundamental and a first harmonic. Probably a
cepheid...although the slope is the wrong way, indicating different elastic
properties from the norm.

It's very unstable...maybe 2nd and 3rd harmonics are causing this or other
objects are orbiting the source star....or maybe the measurments are very
rough.

I haven't attempted to match the parameters because you haven't provided any
details. If it IS a huff puff cepheid , then 'yaw angle' and 'eccentricity'
only tell us something about its elastic properties.



-- Jeff, in Minneapolis



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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On 15 May 2007 02:25:27 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 14, 4:59 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Why all the mystery then?

The source of Jeff's data should be obvious from the lack of gaps
in the data set.

what about the gaps between your ears?

Jerry



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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On 15 May 2007 23:58:39 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 15, 5:25 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 14 May 2007 16:22:28 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Signals from Cassini, orbiting Saturn, are tracked and
timed to extreme precision. The speed is always c, never
c+v. Signals from multiple spacecraft orbiting Mars are
tracked and timed over the full synodic period of Earth
and Mars. The speed is always c, never c+v. Signals
from hundreds of spacecraft orbiting Earth are tracked
and timed constantly. The speed is always c, never c+v.

Crap....
Absolute CRAP!

No crap, Henri. Experiments such as you have proposed in the past
to measure one-way speed of light are effectively being performed
on a continuous basis in tracking interplanetary spacecraft. They
aren't even experiments anymore, but instead are simply routine
engineering considerations. DSN determinations of spacecraft
radial velocity are accurate to 0.05 millimeters per second, and
range determinations are routinely accurate to three meters.
(Scientific American, August 2006, p 100)

Any discrepancy in signal timings resulting from c+v effects
should have been noticed long ago.

c+v effects simply don't exist.

Is that why those Mars probes crashed?
Is that why the HST didn't work until somebody woke up....
Is that why pioneer has an anomalous redshift?

Jerry



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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.