How much more proof does one need?

Henry Wilson DSc a écrit :
....yes. Intellectual inbreeding....a very weak system..

By the way, what's nice with you, Ralph, is that there is
nothing intellectual, and no breed.

On Nov 29, 8:16*pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:13:34 -0800 (PST), BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 28, 1:11*am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:07:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 27, 11:36*am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:19:03 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Nov 25, 2:17*pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:

The 'basic stuff' is that Einstein has completely misled physics and that all
astronomical observations are willusional.

Henri's basic stance about science:
1. Einstein is wrong about reality.

...and so are his followers...

2. Experiment can't settle the issue because experiment only measures
illusion, not reality.

Correct.

3. What is right about reality is determined by assertion.

No, you don't understand how science works.

The correct approach is to try various theories about possible 'realities' in
an attempt to simulate the willusion.

Variable star curves are one good method.

Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

* * * *Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

"How much more proof does one need?"

I'm not sure if Jesus Christ returned along with a dozen eye witnesses
and a load of forensic evidence, that anyone would believe their own
eyes.

Max Planck once said: *"A new scientific truth does not triumph by
convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with it."

good one...

But I would replace 'familiar' with 'indoctrinated'.

~ BG

Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

* * * *Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

True enough, because from the very beginnings of public or private
education we are systematically indoctrinated by those in charge, and
so forth.

....yes. Intellectual inbreeding....a very weak system..



~ BG

Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

* * * *Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

"Intellectual inbreeding" is a good analogy. Also we have those with
the means, motives and opportunity to perpetrate crimes upon their
opposition, and to tell only their side of a given story by way of
their mandated infomercial publications (naturally as entirely public
funded).

~ BG

Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:09:31 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

[..]

But you will of course ignore every prediction but the light curve.

A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between about 50
and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that.


QED

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:09:31 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

[..]

But you will of course ignore every prediction but the light curve.

A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between
about 50
and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that.


QED


Good grief, Tusseladd.
You are seriously demented.

HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[...]

But you forgot to answer my question:
What must the mass of the invisible companion of the Cepheid be?

any value you like....

Really? Any value?

Seriously?

[...]

You haven't been keeping up with the data. It is stated in most journal
papers that most cepheids have a companion star.

Please name two such journals and cite relevant articles.


There are two types of 'cepheid'. Many have periods of 40 days or more and
could easily have an orbiting companion.

I have already agreed that the short period ones are most likely to be
huffpuffs, the brightness of which varies according to c+v. Their radial
velocities are similar to those of a star in elliptical orbit.

Gosh, I wonder what would happen if you considered evidence that isn't tied
to this incredibly narrow focus. Or even the evidence from this narrow focus
fully.

[...]


It would appear to be to an indoctrinated relativist.

Thankfully you weren't burdened with an education, so you are free to say
whatever you want.

[...]

A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between
about 50 and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that.

Like this, for example.

An eccentricity around 2 to 3? Really, Ralph? Are you SURE? I only ask
because the last time I checked, an eccentricity of larger than 1 was a
hyperbolic orbit which - as you may not know - isn't a closed orbit.




Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:49:10 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:09:31 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

[..]

But you will of course ignore every prediction but the light curve.

A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between about 50
and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that.


QED

I thought you had hibernated..

e = 0.2-0.3, naturally.

........now go back to your igloo...and don't forget the box of vodka..

Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

On Nov 24, 10:11*am, John Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:37:57 GMT, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:15:33 -0800 (PST), BradGuth wrote:

On Nov 23, 12:50*am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:09:44 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

That's a keeper, I'll add it to my collection.
"Henry Wilson DSc ." HW@.. wrote in message

"The Pound and Rebka audio experiment showed why gravity
was relevant." -- Wilson the Einstein Dingleberry.

You don't even know your own theory.
The Pound Rebka experiment showed that light accelerates due to gravity like
anything else.
The idiot Einstein said it doesn't. He put a gradient in space instead.

Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

* * * *Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

Gravity redshift/blueshift seems well enough peer replicated, as
matter of fact. *Its sort of photon frequency modulation (PFM) via
gravity.

It's just a speed change.

How about gravity affecting the wave front velocity?

Photons accelerate down a gravity well like any other matter.
GR and NM have the same equation, supported by the Pound Rebka experiment.