Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:31:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:44:27 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:32:44 +0100, "George Dishman"
George, as far as I'm concerned, everything you say is riddled with
mistakes.
For a start, I certainly DON'T accept that the radius varies by 12%
Tough, that is the value directly measured by ESO.
it is wrong.
Rubbish, the speed of light in air is the same
as in conventional theory so the results are
the same.
Light traves a long way before it reaches Earth's air.
But that has no effect on the interferometer,
all of it is on Earth ;-)

George, presumably the interference is caused by the angle subtended by the
star.
If it is rotating, the lght from both sides will be phase shifted as they
arrive due to c+/-v.

This is of course completely irrelevant. :-)

Imagine a 600m aperture reflector telescope.
This will have a resolution good enough to image the disk
of stars like l Carinae, and you can directly measure
the angular diameter of the star.

If you claim that the BaTh predicts otherwise
(like: "an image is impossible because the light from
both sides will be phase shifted as they arrive
due to c+/-v")
then you are claiming that the BaTh predicts that
telescopes don't work.

So I will assume that the BaTh predicts that our giant
telescope would be able to image the star.

Now we cut out two 8m diameter circular disks at opposite
sides of the rim of our giant telescope mirror.
We keep these disks, and remove the rests of the giant mirror.
So we have two 8m mirrors separated by 584 m.
They are still focusing at the same spot.

How will the image now look?
It will still be basically the same image, and we can
still directly measure the angular diameter of the star.
The image will have fringes in it, though.
But there is no problem to measure the length of a zebra.

The BaTh predicts that interferometers like the above work,
because the speed of the light is utterly irrelevant.
Any theory that predicts that telescopes work, predicts
that interferometers work.

So we have indeed quite directly measured the diameters
of Cepheids and Miras, and literally seen that they are pulsating.
Any talk about dizzy photons, willusions or other stupidities
can't change this fact.

Paul

In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen

wrote
on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:40:03 +0200
:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:10:04 GMT
:
"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:03:45 GMT
: :
:
: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: ...
: : Androcles wrote:
: : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: : ...
: : : Androcles wrote:
: : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
: message
: : : ...
: : : : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : : : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: : : :
: : : : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
: : : : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : : : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : : : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : : : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band
2.2u).
: : :
: : : Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
: : :
: : : I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: : : consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be obvious.
: : :
: : : Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?
: :
: : ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen" of :
: : Agder University College (HiA)
: : Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10 00
Fax
: : (+47) 38 14 10 01
: : has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
: : sci.physics.relativity
: : in message
: : ...
: :
: : "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative
positions
: : and intensities
: : of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a Doppler
shift."
: :
: : The all time classic:
: :
: : "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: : which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: : which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: : OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: : t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : or:
: : tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
: :
: :
: The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: yawn
:
: Here's how I look at it.

[snip wrong argument]

... reach the star, d-vt = 0.

The Andersen Transforms are d+vt 0.
The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
yawn

Since I was assuming a different transform:

xi = (x - vt) * g
tau = (t - vx/c^2) * g

this doesn't quite work. However, I'd have to dig through
the posts to see what Paul was claiming and your objections
thereto, and I'd highly prefer a different nomenclature anyway,
something along the following lines.

What I claim should be quite clear from Androcles'
correct quotation, even if it is quoted out of context.

The LT as written i Einstein's 1905 paper is:
tau = (t - xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
t = (tau + xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi + v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Here the origin of the "Greek frame" is moving along
the positive x-axis of the "Latin frame" with speed v.

But alternatively we could let the origin of the "Latin frame"
move along the positive xi-axis of the "Greek frame".

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"

This is but an obvious triviality, and Androcles'
'objectons thereto' are so nonsensical that they
are not worth wasting your time at.

Or mine.

Not quite as obvious as you might think; there's at least one poster
(rb winn) who doesn't quite get the notion that T^(-1)(v) = T(-v), where
T is a coordinate transform mapping R^2 to R^2 that's supposed to
model something in the physical realm.

Still, thank you; this does establish the context.


Paul


--
#191,
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i 1000000; i++) sleep(0);

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:28:52 GMT
:

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:10:04 GMT
: :
: "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
: ...
: : In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
: :
: : wrote
: : on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:03:45 GMT
: : :
: :
: : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
: : ...
: : : Androcles wrote:
: : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
: : : ...
: : : : Androcles wrote:
: : : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote
in
: : message
: : : : ...
: : : : : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : : : : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: : : : :
: : : : : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
: : : : : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : : : : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : : : : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : : : : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band
: 2.2u).
: : : :
: : : : Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
: : : :
: : : : I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: : : : consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be
obvious.
: : : :
: : : : Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?
: : :
: : : ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen"
of :
: : : Agder University College (HiA)
: : : Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10
00
: Fax
: : : (+47) 38 14 10 01
: : : has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
: : : sci.physics.relativity
: : : in message
: : : ...
: : :
: : : "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative
: positions
: : : and intensities
: : : of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a Doppler
: shift."
: : :
: : : The all time classic:
: : :
: : : "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: : : which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: : : which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: : : OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: : : t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : or:
: : : tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
: : :
: : :
: : The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: : yawn
: :
: : Here's how I look at it.
:
: [snip wrong argument]
:
: ... reach the star, d-vt = 0.
:
: The Andersen Transforms are d+vt 0.
: The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: yawn
:
: Since I was assuming a different transform:
:
: xi = (x - vt) * g
: tau = (t - vx/c^2) * g
:
: this doesn't quite work. However, I'd have to dig through
: the posts to see what Paul was claiming and your objections
: thereto, and I'd highly prefer a different nomenclature anyway,
: something along the following lines.
:
: What I claim should be quite clear from Androcles'
: correct quotation, even if it is quoted out of context.
:
: The LT as written i Einstein's 1905 paper is:
: tau = (t - xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: xi = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: or:
: t = (tau + xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: x = (xi + v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
:
: Here the origin of the "Greek frame" is moving along
: the positive x-axis of the "Latin frame" with speed v.
:
: But alternatively we could let the origin of the "Latin frame"
: move along the positive xi-axis of the "Greek frame".
:
: "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: or:
: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"
:
: This is but an obvious triviality, and Androcles'
: 'objectons thereto' are so nonsensical that they
: are not worth wasting your time at.
:
: Or mine.
:
: Paul

S-frame:
Let c = 1, v = 0.5, x = 0.866.
t = x/v = 1.732 years

E-frame:
tau = 1.655 years t


You are not correctly using the forms. Remember that
xi has to be zero, as the spaceman never leaves his
spacecraft. Since xi = (x+vt)*g, t = -x/v.

Therefore, x = -tv, tau = (t+xv/c^2)*g = (t-tv^2/c^2)*g
= t*(1-v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = t/g.

[The Ghost In The Machine has removed the rest of the
the contents of the prior post(s) in the interests of
brevity.]

--
#191,
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i 1000000; i++) sleep(0);

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Androcles wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:10:04 GMT
: :
: "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
: ...
: : In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
: :
: : wrote
: : on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:03:45 GMT
: : :
: :
: : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
: : ...
: : : Androcles wrote:
: : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
: : : ...
: : : : Androcles wrote:
: : : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote
in
: : message
: : : : ...
: : : : : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : : : : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: : : : :
: : : : : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
: : : : : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : : : : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : : : : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : : : : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band
: 2.2u).
: : : :
: : : : Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
: : : :
: : : : I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: : : : consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be
obvious.
: : : :
: : : : Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?
: : :
: : : ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen"
of :
: : : Agder University College (HiA)
: : : Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10
00
: Fax
: : : (+47) 38 14 10 01
: : : has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
: : : sci.physics.relativity
: : : in message
: : : ...
: : :
: : : "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative
: positions
: : : and intensities
: : : of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a Doppler
: shift."
: : :
: : : The all time classic:
: : :
: : : "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: : : which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: : : which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: : : OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: : : t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : or:
: : : tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
: : :
: : :
: : The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: : yawn
: :
: : Here's how I look at it.
:
: [snip wrong argument]
:
: ... reach the star, d-vt = 0.
:
: The Andersen Transforms are d+vt 0.
: The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: yawn
:
: Since I was assuming a different transform:
:
: xi = (x - vt) * g
: tau = (t - vx/c^2) * g
:
: this doesn't quite work. However, I'd have to dig through
: the posts to see what Paul was claiming and your objections
: thereto, and I'd highly prefer a different nomenclature anyway,
: something along the following lines.
:
: What I claim should be quite clear from Androcles'
: correct quotation, even if it is quoted out of context.
:
: The LT as written i Einstein's 1905 paper is:
: tau = (t - xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: xi = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: or:
: t = (tau + xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: x = (xi + v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
:
: Here the origin of the "Greek frame" is moving along
: the positive x-axis of the "Latin frame" with speed v.
:
: But alternatively we could let the origin of the "Latin frame"
: move along the positive xi-axis of the "Greek frame".
:
: "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: or:
: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"
:
: This is but an obvious triviality, and Androcles'
: 'objectons thereto' are so nonsensical that they
: are not worth wasting your time at.
:
: Or mine.
:
: Paul

S-frame:
Let c = 1, v = 0.5, x = 0.866.
t = x/v = 1.732 years

E-frame:
tau = 1.655 years t




S-frame:
Let c = 1, v = 0.866, t = 1 year.
x = vt = 0.866 as before

E-frame:
tau = (1.75 /1^2)/ 0.5 = 3.5 years t

The faster you go the longer it takes to get there.
Check with a spreadsheet:
x v t tau t/tau
0.866 0.100 8.660 1.092 7.930
0.866 0.200 4.330 1.197 3.616
0.866 0.300 2.887 1.321 2.186
0.866 0.400 2.165 1.469 1.474
0.866 0.500 1.732 1.655 1.047
0.866 0.600 1.443 1.900 0.760
0.866 0.700 1.237 2.249 0.550
0.866 0.800 1.083 2.821 0.384
0.866 0.866 1.000 3.500 0.286
0.866 0.900 0.962 4.082 0.236
0.866 0.990 0.875 13.167 0.066
0.866 0.999 0.867 41.717 0.021


This is but an obvious stupidity, and Tusseladd's
'idiocies thereto' are so nonsensical that they
are not worth wasting your time at -- but what else is
there to do except laugh at stupidity and incompetence?


Seen it before. Once hilarious, now boring. Yawn.

But thanks for the vivid demonstration of my words:
" Androcles' 'objectons thereto' are so nonsensical
that they are not worth wasting your time at."

So I wont.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: ...
: : The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
: : In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
: :
: : wrote
: : on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:10:04 GMT
: : :
: : "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
: message
: : ...
: : : In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
: : :
: : : wrote
: : : on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:03:45 GMT
: : : :
: : :
: : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
: message
: : : ...
: : : : Androcles wrote:
: : : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote
in
: message
: : : : ...
: : : : : Androcles wrote:
: : : : : "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote
: in
: : : message
: : : : : ...
: : : : : : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : : : : : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are
different.
: : : : : : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : : : : : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : : : : : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : : : : : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR
(K-band
: : 2.2u).
: : : : :
: : : : : Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
: : : : :
: : : : : I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: : : : : consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be
: obvious.
: : : : :
: : : : : Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?
: : : :
: : : : ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen"

: of :
: : : : Agder University College (HiA)
: : : : Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14
10
: 00
: : Fax
: : : : (+47) 38 14 10 01
: : : : has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
: : : : sci.physics.relativity
: : : : in message
: : : : ...
: : : :
: : : : "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative
: : positions
: : : : and intensities
: : : : of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a
Doppler
: : shift."
: : : :
: : : : The all time classic:
: : : :
: : : : "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: : : : which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: : : : which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: : : : OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: : : : t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : : x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : : or:
: : : : tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : : xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
: : : :
: : : :
: : : The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: : : yawn
: : :
: : : Here's how I look at it.
: :
: : [snip wrong argument]
: :
: : ... reach the star, d-vt = 0.
: :
: : The Andersen Transforms are d+vt 0.
: : The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: : yawn
: :
: : Since I was assuming a different transform:
: :
: : xi = (x - vt) * g
: : tau = (t - vx/c^2) * g
: :
: : this doesn't quite work. However, I'd have to dig through
: : the posts to see what Paul was claiming and your objections
: : thereto, and I'd highly prefer a different nomenclature anyway,
: : something along the following lines.
: :
: : What I claim should be quite clear from Androcles'
: : correct quotation, even if it is quoted out of context.
: :
: : The LT as written i Einstein's 1905 paper is:
: : tau = (t - xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : xi = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : or:
: : t = (tau + xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : x = (xi + v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: :
: : Here the origin of the "Greek frame" is moving along
: : the positive x-axis of the "Latin frame" with speed v.
: :
: : But alternatively we could let the origin of the "Latin frame"
: : move along the positive xi-axis of the "Greek frame".
: :
: : "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: : which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: : which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: : OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: : t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : or:
: : tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"
: :
: : This is but an obvious triviality, and Androcles'
: : 'objectons thereto' are so nonsensical that they
: : are not worth wasting your time at.
: :
: : Or mine.
: :
: : Paul
:
: S-frame:
: Let c = 1, v = 0.5, x = 0.866.
: t = x/v = 1.732 years
:
: E-frame:
: tau = 1.655 years t
:
:
:
:
: S-frame:
: Let c = 1, v = 0.866, t = 1 year.
: x = vt = 0.866 as before
:
: E-frame:
: tau = (1.75 /1^2)/ 0.5 = 3.5 years t
:
: The faster you go the longer it takes to get there.
: Check with a spreadsheet:
: x v t tau t/tau
: 0.866 0.100 8.660 1.092 7.930
: 0.866 0.200 4.330 1.197 3.616
: 0.866 0.300 2.887 1.321 2.186
: 0.866 0.400 2.165 1.469 1.474
: 0.866 0.500 1.732 1.655 1.047
: 0.866 0.600 1.443 1.900 0.760
: 0.866 0.700 1.237 2.249 0.550
: 0.866 0.800 1.083 2.821 0.384
: 0.866 0.866 1.000 3.500 0.286
: 0.866 0.900 0.962 4.082 0.236
: 0.866 0.990 0.875 13.167 0.066
: 0.866 0.999 0.867 41.717 0.021
:
:
: This is but an obvious stupidity, and Tusseladd's
: 'idiocies thereto' are so nonsensical that they
: are not worth wasting your time at -- but what else is
: there to do except laugh at stupidity and incompetence?
:
:
: Seen it before. Once hilarious, now boring. Yawn.
:
: But thanks for the vivid demonstration of my words:

You are welcome, Tusseladd, always a pleasure to show
what an illogical idiot you are.

: " Androcles' 'objectons thereto' are so nonsensical
: that they are not worth wasting your time at."
:
: So I wont.

Correction: "So I won't" should read "Because I can't".

--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: ups.com


"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying *******s will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:28:52 GMT
: :
:
: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: ...
: : The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
: : In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
: :
: : wrote
: : on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:10:04 GMT
: : :
: : "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
: message
: : ...
: : : In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
: : :
: : : wrote
: : : on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:03:45 GMT
: : : :
: : :
: : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
: message
: : : ...
: : : : Androcles wrote:
: : : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
: message
: : : : ...
: : : : : Androcles wrote:
: : : : : "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote
: in
: : : message
: : : : : ...
: : : : : : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : : : : : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are
different.
: : : : : : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : : : : : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : : : : : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : : : : : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR
(K-band
: : 2.2u).
: : : : :
: : : : : Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
: : : : :
: : : : : I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: : : : : consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be
: obvious.
: : : : :
: : : : : Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?
: : : :
: : : : ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen"

: of :
: : : : Agder University College (HiA)
: : : : Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14
10
: 00
: : Fax
: : : : (+47) 38 14 10 01
: : : : has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
: : : : sci.physics.relativity
: : : : in message
: : : : ...
: : : :
: : : : "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative
: : positions
: : : : and intensities
: : : : of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a
Doppler
: : shift."
: : : :
: : : : The all time classic:
: : : :
: : : : "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: : : : which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: : : : which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: : : : OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: : : : t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : : x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : : or:
: : : : tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : : xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
: : : :
: : : :
: : : The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: : : yawn
: : :
: : : Here's how I look at it.
: :
: : [snip wrong argument]
: :
: : ... reach the star, d-vt = 0.
: :
: : The Andersen Transforms are d+vt 0.
: : The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: : yawn
: :
: : Since I was assuming a different transform:
: :
: : xi = (x - vt) * g
: : tau = (t - vx/c^2) * g
: :
: : this doesn't quite work. However, I'd have to dig through
: : the posts to see what Paul was claiming and your objections
: : thereto, and I'd highly prefer a different nomenclature anyway,
: : something along the following lines.
: :
: : What I claim should be quite clear from Androcles'
: : correct quotation, even if it is quoted out of context.
: :
: : The LT as written i Einstein's 1905 paper is:
: : tau = (t - xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : xi = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : or:
: : t = (tau + xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : x = (xi + v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: :
: : Here the origin of the "Greek frame" is moving along
: : the positive x-axis of the "Latin frame" with speed v.
: :
: : But alternatively we could let the origin of the "Latin frame"
: : move along the positive xi-axis of the "Greek frame".
: :
: : "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: : which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: : which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: : OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: : t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : or:
: : tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"
: :
: : This is but an obvious triviality, and Androcles'
: : 'objectons thereto' are so nonsensical that they
: : are not worth wasting your time at.
: :
: : Or mine.
: :
: : Paul
:
: S-frame:
: Let c = 1, v = 0.5, x = 0.866.
: t = x/v = 1.732 years
:
: E-frame:
: tau = 1.655 years t
:
:
: You are not correctly using the forms. Remember that
: xi has to be zero,

You are not correctly using the forms. Remember that
x' has to be non-zero,
"Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small"

xi = x'/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),

and remember you are a ****head just like Andersen.

: as the spaceman never leaves his
: spacecraft.



That doesn't mean it has no length, imbecile.

: Since xi = (x+vt)*g, t = -x/v.

Since xi = x' * g because x' = x-vt, you are a dumb**** and t is never
negative.

[Androcles has removed the rest of the post for brevity].

--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: ups.com


"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying *******s will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.

The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:14:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
sorOn Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:17:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

The 'nonsensical' theory is Planck's black body radiation law.
Which is so well confirmed that not even you will question it.
Or do you? :-)

It is reasonably well confirmed.

It is extremely well confirmed.
So why did you call it nonsensical?

It is 100% confirmed when a 'black body' is defined as an emitter that obeys
Planck's curve.

Is that the source of your confusion?

What isn't confirmed is whether or not the
average cepheid has a black body spectrum. Nor has it been confirmed that its
spectrum would remain black body if it went 'huff puff' all day long.

As my calculation shows, the observed light curves in K and V from l Carinae
are consistent with a black body spectrum.

.....that might be true if the observations wer made close up...but the datat
you have is only Willusory.

But since you find the verbal description above unconvincing,
(you didn't understand it, did you?) let's do the calculation properly.

As the primary, measured data, I will use the temperature in fig. 4.3 in:
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitst....0014whole.pdf

That's a bloody PhD thesis....Do you really think a Phd student is going to
stand up and announce that the whole of astronomy is bull**** because it is
based on all starlight traveling to little planet Earth at precisely speed 'c'?
Of course not Tussellad...

In other words, you won't expect a Phd student to be a crank. :-)

....no, just someone who does what his supervisor tells him to do...and his
supervisor is bound to be an inbred member of the incestuous physics
establishment that worships the Einstein god.

You have to utterly ignorant of physics and astronomy to be open minded
enough to claim that "the whole of astronomy is bull****", right? :-)

I'm sorry Paul...but ignoring Willusions is on par with assuming everything we
currently see in the cosmos is happening right this instant.
For some obscure reason, the obvious is often very hard to identify.....

....but obviously, the 'obvious' hasn't reached Norway yet.

All the information used there is willusory...the paper is full of speculative
remarks made by a poor bugger who obviously trying to match one lot of nonsense
with more nonsense...

....so you are already on the wrong track....

Hardly a convincing argumentation for why the temperature curve
in fig. 4.3 must be wrong. :-)

And note one very important issue:
The temperature is derived from the absorption lines, and NOT
from the black body spectrum, which would have made my calculations
somewhat circular.

....that's not what I read.
Most of the lines are emission....lots of Fe, etc.,...
Anyway it probably makes little difference.

and the radius curve in fig 3 in:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-.../0402244v1.pdf

Interferometry relies on all starlight moving at constant c wrt Earth.
Since that is not true, the technique can best be regarded as highly suspect.
The published cuvre is lousy anyway...nothing like a best fit....

Don't be such a blatant idiot, Henri.
If the BaTh predicts that it is possible to use a telescope
to measure the angular distance between two stars, then it also predicts
that it is possible to use an interferometer to measure the angular
diameter of a star. This is simple geometry, Henri. The geometry
is the same in both cases, and it doesn't matter what the speed
of light is.

Not so Paul. If the star is spinning..as it no doubt is..light from each side
will move at diffferent speeds towards earth..causing a willusory phase
difference.
Anyway, how can interferometry work at all?
It requires coherent light and a split beam....or rather a split photon.....
Even you wouldn't claim that the same photon is emitted from both sides of the
star.

Either the BaTh predicts that light behaves according
to the optical laws we know apply, or it doesn't.
And you are not insisting that it doesn't, are you? :-)
If you do, the very fact that telescopes work falsifies the BaTh.

Interferometry apparently detects some kind of change....but it sure ain't the
star's radius....


The fit is so good that one could think I have cheated.
But I haven't. You can check the calculations yourself,
if you don't believe me.
The fit is good simply because Planck's black body radiation law
is correct, and a Cepheid is what it is known to be - a pulsating star.

It is highly possible that some stars DO pulsate.

I take this remark as an admission that you accept
that l Carinae is a pulsating star, and the reason for
why the K and V light curves are as they are simply is
Planck's law.

The two curves can be produced using BaTh. They differ only in eccentricity and
yaw angle..as well as phase.

So why did you call this explanation 'nonsensical'?

Because it is all based on willusroy data..

The fact that their
brigthness curves match those of stars in an elliptical orbit of e ~ 0.15-.25
and yaw angle -50-70 is purely coincidental.

Do you still find Planck's blackbody radiation law nonsensical, Henri?

Planck's law was empirically derived for what is assumed to be a perfect black
body.

Planck's law can be derived from the assumption (postulate) that
the energy of the oscillators in the radiating body is quantized.

Stars vary considerably and not many fit that curve well at all.

Nonsense.
All stellar spectra are black body spectra with absorption and
emission lines due to the fact that the black body radiation
from the stellar photosphere has to go through the higher layers
of the stellar atmosphere.

....Now even your colleagues will correct you on that one Paul..

The spectrum is given primarily by the surface temperature of
the star, and varies remarkably little between stars with equal
temperatures.

....but not variables....

We can sum it up thus:
The K and V light curves from l Carinae are exactly as
Planck's law predicts them to be if the star is
a pulsating star with temperature curve and diameter curve
as measured.

dream on....

But you can of course claim the right to believe otherwise
according to the UN freedom of religion act. :-)

Paul



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.

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:37:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:31:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


George, presumably the interference is caused by the angle subtended by the
star.
If it is rotating, the lght from both sides will be phase shifted as they
arrive due to c+/-v.

This is of course completely irrelevant. :-)

Imagine a 600m aperture reflector telescope.
This will have a resolution good enough to image the disk
of stars like l Carinae, and you can directly measure
the angular diameter of the star.

......not through the atmosphere...

If you claim that the BaTh predicts otherwise
(like: "an image is impossible because the light from
both sides will be phase shifted as they arrive
due to c+/-v")
then you are claiming that the BaTh predicts that
telescopes don't work.

So I will assume that the BaTh predicts that our giant
telescope would be able to image the star.

Now we cut out two 8m diameter circular disks at opposite
sides of the rim of our giant telescope mirror.
We keep these disks, and remove the rests of the giant mirror.
So we have two 8m mirrors separated by 584 m.
They are still focusing at the same spot.

How will the image now look?
It will still be basically the same image, and we can
still directly measure the angular diameter of the star.
The image will have fringes in it, though.
But there is no problem to measure the length of a zebra.

Well you raise an interesting point...how can both sides of a 600m telescope
pick up the same 'wavefront'?
If the wavefront includes of contributions from photons emitted from both sides
of a star, what made all the light coherent...is that part of the speed
unification process? I wouldn't be surprised....

The BaTh predicts that interferometers like the above work,
because the speed of the light is utterly irrelevant.
Any theory that predicts that telescopes work, predicts
that interferometers work.

Just tell me how photons emitted from oposite sides of a star can end up in
phase over a 600m wavefrant...

So we have indeed quite directly measured the diameters
of Cepheids and Miras, and literally seen that they are pulsating.
Any talk about dizzy photons, willusions or other stupidities
can't change this fact.

......dream on Paul....

Pauls/



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.

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:45:59 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:31:39 +0000 (UTC), bz


Any effect on photons causing them to compress when crowded together
would show up as shifts in wavelength and frequency of the emission from
high intensity sources, such as lasers.

...but photon density isn't actually what CAUSES them to compress. It
just happens to occur concurrently.Photons compress if their source is
accelerating or if they change speed during travel...but they're kind of
'damped' so the movement doesn't go on forever.

Photons 'change speed' during travel when they go from one medium to
another. Yet we see no sign of photon "compression" taking place, even
when the speed change is drastic, the groups of photons and the photons
themselves change 'length' by exactly the same percentage, as George has
repeatedly pointed out.

Please explain....

George was basicaly correct about that ...because I told him about it...It
explains why doppler shifts of wavelength still indicate the original willusory
ADoppler shifts.

.....but he was wrong when he said photons from an ACCELERATING SOURCE continue
to shrink in the same proportion as photon bunching takes place.

The widths of pulses from pulsars, the spacing
between the pulses and the frequencies of the pulses change by the exactly
the same amounts, likewise laser pulses traveling along optical fibers

that's becasue no ADoppler is present in at least the pulsars we have looked
at.

You can't propose a 'non elastic compression', where the photons stay
compressed because they are already 'highly compressed' at the time of
emission by the star.

the K factor is small. maybe 10^-4

No matter what it is, it must be observed and if it is truly a 'K'
'factor', it must be constant. Perhaps it is a 'D' factor and proportional
to the density of the waether.

I have pointed out that K is not likely to be constant...just as the bulk
modulus of rubber is pressure sensitive.

Also lasers can operate at very low emission rates (in fact, there are
single photon lasers) and any such effect would show up as drastic
shifts in the emission band as the laser's output power was varied.

Give up on your 'K'. It is disproved daily by millions of laser diodes
used for gigabyte fiber optical data transmission.

no Bob you have it all wrong...

A 'K' won't work because it doesn't work.

I'm not even going to try to explain. George and I have covered this....even if
he WAS too stubborn to accept it..

If you ever have heard a radio-telegraph transmitters that has chirp
(frequency shift during turn-on) and clicks (wide keying sidebands due
to too sharp turn-on/turn-off), you will know that such a transmitter
can cause interference with communications across a wide portion of the
radio spectrum. Any attempt to transmit data at a high data rate, with
such a transmitter, would fail.

That is exactly why your 'K' factor 'photon compression' idea is dead.

You have entirely the wrong impression...

Then tell me how your 'rubber cars' look now.

Why should t be? Bulk modulus is generally pressure dependent...I assume you
know what I'm talking about...


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.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:37:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:31:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

George, presumably the interference is caused by the angle subtended by the
star.
If it is rotating, the lght from both sides will be phase shifted as they
arrive due to c+/-v.
This is of course completely irrelevant. :-)

Imagine a 600m aperture reflector telescope.
This will have a resolution good enough to image the disk
of stars like l Carinae, and you can directly measure
the angular diameter of the star.

.....not through the atmosphere...

You are not very updated, Henri.
All modern large telescopes have adaptive optics compensating
for the phase shifts in the atmosphere.
Without adaptive optics, the resolution of Earth based telescopes
is limited to 0.5 - 1 arcsecs regardless of their size.
With adaptive optics, the resolution is very close to
the theoretical limit given by the size of the telescope.
The 10m Keck telescope has a resolution of 0.04 arcsecs in IR,
the 8.2m Subaru telescope has a resolution of 0.07 arcsecs in IR.
In both cases, this is very close to the theoretical limit.

The resolution of Earth based telescopes is now several times
better than the HST (because they are several times bigger.)

The VLTI (Very Large Telescope Interferomet) at
the European Southern Observatory has adaptive optics.


If you claim that the BaTh predicts otherwise
(like: "an image is impossible because the light from
both sides will be phase shifted as they arrive
due to c+/-v")
then you are claiming that the BaTh predicts that
telescopes don't work.

So I will assume that the BaTh predicts that our giant
telescope would be able to image the star.

Now we cut out two 8m diameter circular disks at opposite
sides of the rim of our giant telescope mirror.
We keep these disks, and remove the rests of the giant mirror.
So we have two 8m mirrors separated by 584 m.
They are still focusing at the same spot.

How will the image now look?
It will still be basically the same image, and we can
still directly measure the angular diameter of the star.
The image will have fringes in it, though.
But there is no problem to measure the length of a zebra.

Well you raise an interesting point...how can both sides of a 600m telescope
pick up the same 'wavefront'?
If the wavefront includes of contributions from photons emitted from both sides
of a star, what made all the light coherent...is that part of the speed
unification process? I wouldn't be surprised....

You are indeed very confused, Henri. :-)
What you are saying above is that you don't understand how
a telescope (or your camera) can project an image at the CCD.

"If the wavefront hitting my camera includes light emitted from
both ears of my model, what made all the light coherent.." :-)

1. The light from a star (or anything but a laser) isn't coherent,
it is noise, that is the amplitude and frequency vary arbitrarily.
But even such a wave have surfaces of equal phase, and the wave that
is emitted from a _point_ have a spherical surface of equal phase
(let's call it "wavefront"). The tiny fraction of the sphere that
hits our telescope will be a plane. And this plane wavefront will
be focused at a point on the CCD. Where the point will be is given
by the angle between the wavefront and the lens/mirror
2. Given that the 600m telescope is capable of resolving the star,
that is image it as a disc rather than a point, then a point
at one side of the star will be focused on one side of the image,
while a point on the other side of the star will be focused
on the other side of the image.
That is, the wavefront from a point on one side of the star
will have an angle compared to the wavefront from a point on
the other side of the star, so they will be focused at
different points on the CCD.
_That's how telescopes and cameras work._

But you must know this, Henri?
Or is it no limit to your ignorance?
You discuss fiercely about how interferometers 'really' work
(dizzy photons), but have no clue about how a lens/mirror can
project an image on a screen(CCD)?
Amazing!



The BaTh predicts that interferometers like the above work,
because the speed of the light is utterly irrelevant.
Any theory that predicts that telescopes work, predicts
that interferometers work.

Just tell me how photons emitted from oposite sides of a star can end up in
phase over a 600m wavefrant...

This stupidity again!
Why the hell would you like the light from both sides of the star
or from both ears of your model 'to end up in phase' over the aperture
of the telescope or your camera?

How confused can you get?

So we have indeed quite directly measured the diameters
of Cepheids and Miras, and literally seen that they are pulsating.
Any talk about dizzy photons, willusions or other stupidities
can't change this fact.

.....dream on Paul....

Henri, you will have to accept that telescopes and cameras work.
No idiotic babble about 'light emitted from different parts of
the object ending up in phase over the aperture of the telescope'
can change the fact that TELESCOPES WORK!

And a 600m telescope would be able to image l Carinae as a disc.

With this fact in mind, read the following again:

Now we cut out two 8m diameter circular disks at opposite
sides of the rim of our giant telescope mirror.
We keep these disks, and remove the rests of the giant mirror.
So we have two 8m mirrors separated by 584 m.
They are still focusing at the same spot.

How will the image now look?
It will still be basically the same image, and we can
still directly measure the angular diameter of the star.
The image will have fringes in it, though.

Note this, Henri.
The image from two 8m mirrors 600m apart is the same
as the image from a 600m mirror, but for a few fringes
in the image! You can directly measure the diameter
of the star by measuring the diameter of image!

To refute this is idiocy. Several of these instruments
are now in daily use. To claim that they don't work
is as idiotic as claiming that cameras don't work.

But if your religion demands it, you will deny anything.
Right?

Paul