Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

Well known, as in more recently measured.

Saul Levy


On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:12:11 GMT, (Paul Schlyter)
wrote:

I would say 200+ years. The first astronomer to detect motion in
binary stars was the good ol' William Herschel....


In article ,
Saul Levy wrote:
Those are binary (double) stars and the movement in their orbits have
been well known for at least 150 years.

Saul Levy

Dumbledore_ wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:42:47 GMT, "Dumbledore_"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:02:03 GMT, "Dumbledore_"


Henri thinks stars are 0.3 LY from us to fit his theory.

Listen you stupid old dope, stop misrepresenting me or you will end up in
court.

It's your data I quoted, psycho. See me in court all you want to.

I will if you don't shutup!

It's your ****head theory of uni****ation we've had to listen to.
Do it, ARSEHOLE.

rate the magnitude changes associated with published
brightness curves, the distance parameter value that has to be fed in is
always
less than the hipparcos one. For short period binaries - or whatever they
are -
the required distances can be less than 1 LY.

You raving mad, Proxima Centauri is further than that by parallax.
Take me to court, you'll get yourself committed to an asylum.

****ing old drunk...


I see Paul is telling you everything I've tried to and you say 'thank you' to
him.
Take me to court, you'll get yourself committed to an asylum.






AT NO TIME HAVE I CLAIMED THAT THESE STARS ARE ONLY 0.3 LYS FROM THE
****ING
EARTH.

Yes you did, you published it. I've got the proof, crackpot.
Take me to court, get yourself committed. Is this your code, Wilson?



Dim c, G, LU, D, pi, v, K1, K2, redblue As Double
Dim n, m As Integer

[kooky spaghetti code dumped]

Form2.Print "X must not be zero":
GoTo skip
emty:
Form2.Show
Form2.Cls
Form2.Print "Reset values"
skip:
End Sub


I'm sure it means nothing to you.



SO SHOVE IT UP YOUR GLENLIVET BOTTLE.

Drunken old wabo, you are senile.

****ing old pommie dri/unj kjdjgk

I hope you are ****ing freexing...


Better than freaking like you.

Ko0kFITE!!

makes more nachos

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

In article ,
Henri Wilson HW@....... wrote:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:12:11 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

Paul, I thank you for your very good comments but since I don't post to
sci.astro very often, I should warn you that am a proponent of the ballistic
theory of light.
I say that light in space moves at c wrt its source star

Well, it does ... so you're quite correct in that.

and that most astronomers are under a delusion in believing that is it moves
at c wrt Earth.

That's not a delusion - there's plenty of experimental evidence that light
always moves at c wrt to any observer on the Earth. And it was this
experimental evidence which caused the birth of the theory of relativity.

Light moves at c with respect to anything: the light source (as you
correctly claim), the Earth's center, any observer on any place on
Earth (which you erroneously call a "delusion"), any other planet or
star, yes even any other light ray.

That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.

but generally, those in resolvable orbits will be moving very slowly around
their orbits.

It seems you have a quite small telescope. Of course whether a binary is
resolvable depends a lot on your telescope: larger scopes will be able
to resolve many more binary stars.

I don't have a telescope at present...just read what others have to say..

Then I fully understand your difficulty in detecting orbital motions in
binary stars: there is not even one single binary star in our skies where
orbital motion has been detected with the naked eye. Epsilon Lyrae, which
probably is the tightest binary star resolvable to the naked eye, has an
orbital period of many millions of years.

I have myself seen orbital motion in two binaries, with causal visual
observation:

70 Ophiuchi: near its perihelion in the 1980's I observed and drew
this binary once a year. After only some 4-5 years it had changed its
PA by some 90 degrees. Now it's away from perihelion and therefore
moving more slowly, but keep an eye on this pair anyway and you'll see
orbital motion. Although now it may take a decade or two. IF you
attach a micrometer to your eyepiece, so you can detect smaller
changes in PA or separation, you'll detect the motion sooner of
course.

Were you able to resolve the orbit parameters....eccentricity, yaw?

....it takes more than causal visual observations to do that..... :-)

I saw the stars quite noticeably change position with respect to one
another, that's all. To derive orbital parameters would require
micrometric measurements (which I didn't do), preferably over one
full orbit or more. Others have already done that.

Gamma Virginis: In my youth in the 1960's, this binary was easily
resolvable with a separation of some 6 arc seconds. Today it's near
perihelion, with a separation of a fraction of an arc seconds and
most telescopes will be unable to resolve it. Within several years
the pair will widen again, making Gamma Virginis resolvable also
with smaller telescopes.

Thanks for that.

I should advise you that for some time, I have been studying variable star
light curves with the aim of proving Einstein wrong...which of course he was.

:-) ..... I have a book I'd like to recommend you to read. It was
written by Martin Gardner, and it's called "Fads and fallacies in the
name of science". It has a charpter named "Down with Einstein!" where
you'll find examples of other people who, like you, thought they
proved Einstein wrong. Gardner also give examples of people before
Einstein who instead attacked Newton. You know, it's the #1 paradigm
which also is the most popular target for these attacks.

http://tinyurl.com/2xg2yj

Of course, proving Einstein wrong is a wet dream for any scientist,
since anyone who actually succeeds in doing that will make it into the
history of science. But you'd better be able to base your claims on
solid facts! No-one has yet succeeded in doing that. And if your
claims aren't based on facts, they'll fall apart and you'll just
become another one in the long line of those who deluded themselves
to believe they had proved Einstein wrong....

Light from distant stars travels at c wrt those stars

Correct!

and at c+v wrt planet Earth.

Wrong! If light had arrived at Earth with a speed different from c wrt to
the Earth, this would have been detected experimentally over 100 years ago,
in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which attempted to measure just
that: variations in the speed of light:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

The correct way to add v to c, the velocity of light, is:

total_speed = (c+v) / ( 1+(cv/c^2))

and here total_speed will become equal to c, no matter what value v has ....

Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

to see how that formula is derived.


Binary stars in orbit, emit light at sinusoidially varying speed wrt
Earth. Their 'fast' light catches the slower light, causing 'bunching',
which appears to us as a variation in brightness.

You don't need binary stars for that -- the Earth's own orbital motion
causes a yearly variation in the radial velocity of any star with +-
30*cos(ecl_lat) km/s, where ecl_lat is the ecliptic latitude of the
star. So if your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. The only
exception would be stars sufficiently close to the ecliptic poles in
our sky.

Now, check the catalogs of variable stars to see how many variables
you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
find? Not ver many, if anyone at all....

Perhaps you think there's a world-wide conspiracy which suppresses and
hides away all information about all those stars in our sky which vary
in brightness with a period of exactly one Earth year? It would of
course be impossible to maintain such a conspiracy, but let's pretend
for a moment that it does exist. There would be an easy way out of
that for you: get a telescope and some good quality photometer, and
start measuring the brightness of the stars yourself!

So what are you waiting for? Get going! :-)

..... and even if you fail to detect any variability of most stars with
a period of exactly one Earth year, you'll at least learn some
practical astronomy. And perhaps you'll also gain a genuine interest
in observing the skies?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm


and here total_speed will become equal to c, no matter what value v has ....

The correct way to add v to c, the velocity of light, is:

total_speed = (c+v) / ( 1+(cv/c^2))

Which statement do you not agree with?

1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.

-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348

2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727

3) Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955

4) "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955

5) "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955

Can you prove that mathematically?


Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

to see how that formula is derived.

That drivel is written by Ed Schaefer, a well-known illiterate who ran away
from sci.physics.relativity in 1999.
The way the "formula" (baby food) is really derived can be found he
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
With explanation he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Binary stars in orbit, emit light at sinusoidially varying speed wrt
Earth. Their 'fast' light catches the slower light, causing 'bunching',
which appears to us as a variation in brightness.

You don't need binary stars for that -- the Earth's own orbital motion
causes a yearly variation in the radial velocity of any star with +-
30*cos(ecl_lat) km/s, where ecl_lat is the ecliptic latitude of the
star. So if your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year.

Yes, A variation of 0.00000000000001 magnitudes, go ahead and measure it.


The only
exception would be stars sufficiently close to the ecliptic poles in
our sky.

Actually Polaris is variable.



Now, check the catalogs of variable stars to see how many variables
you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
find? Not ver many, if anyone at all....

All of them, to within 0.00000000000001 magnitudes. Go ahead
and measure them, what are you waiting for?


Perhaps you think there's a world-wide conspiracy which suppresses and
hides away all information about all those stars in our sky which vary
in brightness with a period of exactly one Earth year?

If the Church's objections to Galileo was a conspiracy in your view
then it probably was, but in my view it is merely stupidity.

It would of
course be impossible to maintain such a conspiracy, but let's pretend
for a moment that it does exist. There would be an easy way out of
that for you: get a telescope and some good quality photometer, and
start measuring the brightness of the stars yourself!

And your explanation for Doppler shift is aether?



So what are you waiting for? Get going! :-)


.... and even if you fail to detect any variability of most stars with
a period of exactly one Earth year, you'll at least learn some
practical astronomy. And perhaps you'll also gain a genuine interest
in observing the skies?

Looking without understanding what you are seeing is rather foolish,
isn't it?
Look, here is a picture made by a renowned astronomer, Percy Lowell.
http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html
Are there canals on Mars, Paul?

"Androcles" wrote in message o.uk...

[snip]

4) "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"
--Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955

5) "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered
by composition with a velocity less than that of light."
--Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955

Can you prove that mathematically?

Would you be able to do something with it beyond this?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...heProblem.html

Dirk Vdm

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:12:11 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

In article ,
Henri Wilson HW@....... wrote:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:12:11 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

Paul, I thank you for your very good comments but since I don't post to
sci.astro very often, I should warn you that am a proponent of the ballistic
theory of light.
I say that light in space moves at c wrt its source star

Well, it does ... so you're quite correct in that.

and that most astronomers are under a delusion in believing that is it moves
at c wrt Earth.

That's not a delusion - there's plenty of experimental evidence that light
always moves at c wrt to any observer on the Earth. And it was this
experimental evidence which caused the birth of the theory of relativity.

Light moves at c with respect to anything: the light source (as you
correctly claim), the Earth's center, any observer on any place on
Earth (which you erroneously call a "delusion"), any other planet or
star, yes even any other light ray.

That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.

Yes. We know all about the unproven postulate....that's what has been derailing
astronomy for 100 years.

but generally, those in resolvable orbits will be moving very slowly around
their orbits.

It seems you have a quite small telescope. Of course whether a binary is
resolvable depends a lot on your telescope: larger scopes will be able
to resolve many more binary stars.

I don't have a telescope at present...just read what others have to say..

Then I fully understand your difficulty in detecting orbital motions in
binary stars: there is not even one single binary star in our skies where
orbital motion has been detected with the naked eye. Epsilon Lyrae, which
probably is the tightest binary star resolvable to the naked eye, has an
orbital period of many millions of years.

But there must by plenty with resolvable orbits and periods of less than 100
years. I just surprised that more haven't been recorded.

I have myself seen orbital motion in two binaries, with causal visual
observation:

70 Ophiuchi: near its perihelion in the 1980's I observed and drew
this binary once a year. After only some 4-5 years it had changed its
PA by some 90 degrees. Now it's away from perihelion and therefore
moving more slowly, but keep an eye on this pair anyway and you'll see
orbital motion. Although now it may take a decade or two. IF you
attach a micrometer to your eyepiece, so you can detect smaller
changes in PA or separation, you'll detect the motion sooner of
course.

Were you able to resolve the orbit parameters....eccentricity, yaw?

...it takes more than causal visual observations to do that..... :-)

I saw the stars quite noticeably change position with respect to one
another, that's all. To derive orbital parameters would require
micrometric measurements (which I didn't do), preferably over one
full orbit or more. Others have already done that.

OK

Gamma Virginis: In my youth in the 1960's, this binary was easily
resolvable with a separation of some 6 arc seconds. Today it's near
perihelion, with a separation of a fraction of an arc seconds and
most telescopes will be unable to resolve it. Within several years
the pair will widen again, making Gamma Virginis resolvable also
with smaller telescopes.

Thanks for that.

I should advise you that for some time, I have been studying variable star
light curves with the aim of proving Einstein wrong...which of course he was.

:-) ..... I have a book I'd like to recommend you to read. It was
written by Martin Gardner, and it's called "Fads and fallacies in the
name of science". It has a charpter named "Down with Einstein!" where
you'll find examples of other people who, like you, thought they
proved Einstein wrong. Gardner also give examples of people before
Einstein who instead attacked Newton. You know, it's the #1 paradigm
which also is the most popular target for these attacks.

http://tinyurl.com/2xg2yj

Of course, proving Einstein wrong is a wet dream for any scientist,
since anyone who actually succeeds in doing that will make it into the
history of science. But you'd better be able to base your claims on
solid facts! No-one has yet succeeded in doing that. And if your
claims aren't based on facts, they'll fall apart and you'll just
become another one in the long line of those who deluded themselves
to believe they had proved Einstein wrong....

Light from distant stars travels at c wrt those stars

Correct!

and at c+v wrt planet Earth.

Wrong! If light had arrived at Earth with a speed different from c wrt to
the Earth, this would have been detected experimentally over 100 years ago,
in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which attempted to measure just
that: variations in the speed of light:

Crap. The MMX null result is a direct result of light being ballistic. It moves
at c wrt everything in the source frame...ie, the whole interferometer.

The MMX was doomed before it even left the ground...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

The correct way to add v to c, the velocity of light, is:

total_speed = (c+v) / ( 1+(cv/c^2))

I can derive that.

Let w always = c by postulate.
therefore
w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
= (c+v)/((c+v)/c)
= (c+v)/1+v/c)
= (c+v/(1+vc/c^2)

It's a neat little piece of circular maths....it proves nothing.

and here total_speed will become equal to c, no matter what value v has ....

Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

to see how that formula is derived.

I just derived it using circular logic...Can I have my Nobel now?

Binary stars in orbit, emit light at sinusoidially varying speed wrt
Earth. Their 'fast' light catches the slower light, causing 'bunching',
which appears to us as a variation in brightness.

You don't need binary stars for that -- the Earth's own orbital motion
causes a yearly variation in the radial velocity of any star with +-
30*cos(ecl_lat) km/s, where ecl_lat is the ecliptic latitude of the
star. So if your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. The only
exception would be stars sufficiently close to the ecliptic poles in
our sky.

Light from a star doesn't give a stuff about little planet Earth. For most of
its journey it is only interested in its relationship with its source, since it
has no other reference.
Starlight doesn't 'know' the Earth exists. The light from an orbiting star
moves at different speeds wrt its other emitted light. This causes 'bunching'
and periodic brightness variation when viewed from a distance.

Its speed may change by small amounts during its trip acros space due to
intergalactic turbulence and density variations (as well as 'other' unknown
causes). Extinction also tends to unify the speed of all starlight traveling in
any one direction.

It is possible that our whole solar system and in particular the Earth is
surrounded by a local EM frame of reference that acts more or less like a weak
local 'aether'. Light from all stars might consequently spend a minute part of
its journey traveling at around c wrt Earth. For the rest of the time, its
'fast light' tends to catch the slower....although extinction effects appear to
limit this process to relatively short distances from the source star.

Now, check the catalogs of variable stars to see how many variables
you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
find? Not ver many, if anyone at all....

Your logic is typically flawed... like that of all relativists.


Perhaps you think there's a world-wide conspiracy which suppresses and
hides away all information about all those stars in our sky which vary
in brightness with a period of exactly one Earth year? It would of
course be impossible to maintain such a conspiracy, but let's pretend
for a moment that it does exist. There would be an easy way out of
that for you: get a telescope and some good quality photometer, and
start measuring the brightness of the stars yourself!

You're talking crap. see above.

So what are you waiting for? Get going! :-)

I have.

.... and even if you fail to detect any variability of most stars with
a period of exactly one Earth year, you'll at least learn some
practical astronomy. And perhaps you'll also gain a genuine interest
in observing the skies?

No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years with fools
like you around.

Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg

Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive delusion?

Most variable star curves can be easily matched in this way although
the required distances are always well short of the Hipparcos figures,....which
reflects the influence of extinction...or 'light unification' as I call it.

In article , HW@....(Henri Wilson)
wrote:

No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years with fools
like you around.

Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg

Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive delusion


But yet you are far too afraid to post your math! Courage of your convictions
and all that...

--
-Coffee Boy- = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:55:30 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:

In article , HW@....(Henri Wilson)
wrote:

No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years with fools
like you around.

Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg

Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive delusion


But yet you are far too afraid to post your math! Courage of your convictions
and all that...

I've told you the principle.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:55:30 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:

In article , HW@....(Henri Wilson)
wrote:

No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years with fools
like you around.

Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg

Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive delusion


But yet you are far too afraid to post your math! Courage of your convictions
and all that...

I've told you the principle.

Was that the principle that forging your diplomas is okay?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...gedDegree.html

Dirk Vdm

In article , HW@....(Henri Wilson)
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:55:30 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:

In article , HW@....(Henri
Wilson)
wrote:

No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years with
fools
like you around.

Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg

Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive delusion


But yet you are far too afraid to post your math! Courage of your
convictions
and all that...

I've told you the principle.

Yet you won't post a mathematical derivation that would allow every step of
your process to be examined.... You don't simply because you know it rests on
unphysical assumptions you don't want exposed.

As I have said before, do you think Einstein's seminal papers had just a few
pictures on them?


--
-Coffee Boy- = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.