Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

Aristotle wrote:
The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by
SR.
How COULD it be wrong?

See? :-)

Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was
the one time he tested his program with measured data
of a known binary.

All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave.


And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician?
You sure duck questions like one.

Henri Wilson has tested his program only once with real
measured data of a binary, namely HD80715.
His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable.
It isn't.
Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory.

He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-)


Paul

"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message
. uk...

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
| "George Dishman" wrote in news:dbr8pg$miv$1
| @news.freedom2surf.net:


Watch our for bz. He'll calculate 76.6c for the speed of
an electron in an accelerator and blame YOU for it.

Well so far he has said nothing I disagree with and
provided some very useful links in an area where my
knowledge is decades out of date.

As for "76.6c", I suspect that would be the Newtonian
prediction. It certainly isn't relevant to our
discussion, maybe you saw it in some other thread?

George

"George Dishman" wrote in news:dbrieo$q9g$1
@news.freedom2surf.net:

We are certainly on the verge of moving to
verge of handling single photons routinely.

Yep

Thanks again for the links.

quite welcome. I looked but I didn't see anything there that would tell me
the pulse width [photon length?].

The spectra seem to indicate that the single photons have very narrow
bandwidth [as I would expect].



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician?
You sure duck questions like one.

I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten
what the question was.

Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical
'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.


Consistent and a pair of cajones.
No only do you still duck the questions you accuse others of doing it
as well.

"Aristotle" wrote in message
...


And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician?
You sure duck questions like one.

I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even
forgotten
what the question was.

Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the
mythical
'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.


Consistent and a pair of cajones.
No only do you still duck the questions you accuse others of doing it
as well.

Nor is it even true, I am still pointing out the
obvious error in his post and will continue to
do so. On the other hand, Henri said:

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
....
George, I am not interested in discucssing
the sagna c any more.

George

Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the
mythical
'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.


Consistent and a pair of cajones.
No only do you still duck the questions you accuse others of doing it
as well.

Nor is it even true, I am still pointing out the
obvious error in his post and will continue to
do so. On the other hand, Henri said:

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
...
George, I am not interested in discucssing
the sagna c any more.

George
I have long given up any hope of hearing Henri speak the truth.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Aristotle wrote:
The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by
SR.
How COULD it be wrong?

See? :-)

Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was
the one time he tested his program with measured data
of a known binary.

All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave.


And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician?
You sure duck questions like one.

Henri Wilson has tested his program only once with real
measured data of a binary, namely HD80715.
His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable.
It isn't.
Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory.

Paul, I think your time would be better spent training those pet fairies to
catch GPS clock ticks.


He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-)

YOU don't like to be reminded that I have explained many time why it SHOULD NOT
be a variable.
You can do it yourself if you like, using my program.



Paul


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

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

Henri Wilson has tested his program only once with real
measured data of a binary, namely HD80715.
His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable.
It isn't.
Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory.

Paul, I think your time would be better spent training those pet fairies to
catch GPS clock ticks.


He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-)

YOU don't like to be reminded that I have explained many time why it SHOULD NOT
be a variable.
You can do it yourself if you like, using my program.

Use somethng that is based on nonsense to prove what?


Paul


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

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
Well you should since you are.


The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

And you haven't donr that.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:13:36 GMT, Aristotle
wrote:

Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the
mythical
'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.


Consistent and a pair of cajones.
No only do you still duck the questions you accuse others of doing it
as well.

Nor is it even true, I am still pointing out the
obvious error in his post and will continue to
do so. On the other hand, Henri said:

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
. ..
...
George, I am not interested in discucssing
the sagna c any more.

George
I have long given up any hope of hearing Henri speak the truth.

Go away!




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

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:10:59 GMT, Aristotle
wrote:


The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by
SR.
How COULD it be wrong?

See? :-)

Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was
the one time he tested his program with measured data
of a known binary.

All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave.

And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician?
You sure duck questions like one.


I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten
what the question was.

Quite.
And here is your answer to the forgotten question.

Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004:
| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory
| predicts HD80715 should look like.
|
| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1.
| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star
|
| phase brightness
|
| 0.0 1.22
| 0.1 1.21
| 0.17 1.97
| 0.18 2.45
| 0.19 5.90
| 0.1913 60.00
| 0.191310 infinite
| 0.2 0.66
| 0.3 0.64
| 0.4 0.63
| 0.5 0.62
| 0.6 0.63
| 0.7 0.64
| 0.8 0.67
| 0.808719 infinite
| 0.8089 21.6
| 0.809 11.80
| 0.81 3.90
| 0.9 1.34
| 1.0 1.22
|
| Note that the integral over one period is 1,
| that is the average brightness is 1.
|
| The above is for one of the stars, you can get
| the light curve for both stars by translating
| the above half a period and adding.

Henri Wilson responded:
| I can get these figures from my program.
|
| Surprisingly, they agree exactly with yours..... proves my program is
| correct.... not that I ever doubted it.
|
| So I could have saved you all that time and trouble.
| Just click your mouse a
| few times and...there is your curve.

But HD80715 is no variable.

So just by clicking his mouse a few times,
Henri Wilson falsified the ballistic theory.


Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical
'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.

Indeed.
There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof.
"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as
predicted by GR, prove that the mythical
'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense
from start to finish."
That's why we all have ran for cover.

Paul