Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 01:17:58 -0700, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway" wrote:



"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
.. .

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 21:38:45 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote:

On 05.07.2013 01:38, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Incidentally, BaTh predicts both Henrietta Leavitt cepheid relationship

Would you elaborate on that, please?

Brighter stars are bigger,
====================================
Bwahahahahaha!
Never heard of red giants and white dwarves, chicken farmer?
There is no guarantee that bigger is brighter, a tiny milliwatt LED is
brighter than a 850 watt microwave oven.


Really? wouldnt that depend how you are looking at it? I mean in
optical sure wouldnt it be more accurate to say that a 60 watt halogen
is brighter than a 100 watt incandesent

however that same analogy goes for stars should it not? a red giant is
giving off much more light in the infared isnt it?

"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
...

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:18:27 -0700, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:



Another drooling anti-Einstein ****wit with delusions of adequacy.

...another Einstein worshipper desperately searching for just one piece
of
evidence that supports his rubbish.

Henry Wilson DSc.


What was your doctorate in - floorsweeping or refuse collection?

Or a BOGOF internet scam special deal?

Talk science or go away..


Henry Wilson DSc.
============================================
Brown is thicker than a tombstone sandwich and twice as dense.
I had Crapinale tell me t = x/c was stupidly wrong and that I only
used algebra to make myself seem smart. It's only when you realize
these sorry *******s are so stupid they can't actually read algebra
and rely on cretins like Dork to explain relativity in words for them
that the power of the kill-file becomes apparent.

The persistent stupidity of the average dingleberry is living proof that
Einstein's theory is pure crap from start to finish.

================================================== ======
The persistent stupidity of the average chicken farmer is living proof
that Wilson's BaTh uni****ation is pure crap from start to finish.

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...


| A characteristic of Cepheids is that the period increases with
| increasing luminosity. (Leavitt's period-luminosity relationship)
| You claim that Cepheids in reality are binaries, and then the question is:
| Why does the period of binaries increase with increasing luminosity?

==================================================
If you really wanted to know you'd have to learn to listen.
You won't do that, but for the benefit of lurkers...

Throughout the period of one complete orbit let there be N photons
emitted, each at an equal interval of time. With no variation in
luminosity N photons arrive, each at an equal interval of time.
However, due to the motion of the emitter which varies as the emitter
moves in an elliptical orbit, the photons travel with velocity c+v and
arrive with a shorter interval of time between them when the emitter
was approaching, and a longer interval of time when the emitter was
receding. On the simple principle that two lights are brighter than one,
N/2 photons arrive for a quarter of the period during the approach
and N/2 photons arrive for three quarters of the period; the luminosity
rises and falls. In another similar system with twice the period but the
same distance, 2N photons are emitted and N photons arrive for a
quarter of the period during the approach and N photons arrive for
three quarters of the period. The luminosity rises and falls more than
it does for the system with the shorter period. Thus we have agreement
with and explanation of Leavitt-Swan's period-luminosity relationship.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
The planet sharing a barycentre with delta-Cepheus was named
by its discoverer and called 'Cassandra' in keeping with the naming
of celestial bodies from Greek mythology. Cassandra was cursed by
Apollo never to be believed. Apollo's curse works on tusselader.
Androcles discovered Cassandra.
I will not agree with Wilson's 'binary' interpretation or Einstein's silly
**** which prevented Leavitt-Swan from ever having an explanation
at all.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
...

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:39:10 -0700, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:


Henry Wilson DSc.
============================================
Brown is thicker than a tombstone sandwich and twice as dense.
I had Crapinale tell me t = x/c was stupidly wrong and that I only
used algebra to make myself seem smart. It's only when you realize
these sorry *******s are so stupid they can't actually read algebra
and rely on cretins like Dork to explain relativity in words for them
that the power of the kill-file becomes apparent.

The persistent stupidity of the average dingleberry is living proof that
Einstein's theory is pure crap from start to finish.

================================================= =======
The persistent stupidity of the average chicken farmer is living proof
that Wilson's BaTh uni****ation is pure crap from start to finish.

How would a closet atherist bull**** farmer know?

Henry Wilson DSc.
===============================================
Ask one, there are plenty around.
The persistent stupidity of the average chicken farmer is living proof
that Wilson's BaTh h-aether is pure crap from start to finish.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On 09.07.2013 12:43, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 21:38:45 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 05.07.2013 01:38, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Incidentally, BaTh predicts both Henrietta Leavitt cepheid relationship

Would you elaborate on that, please?

Brighter stars are bigger, therefore their pulsations should have longer
periods. Their brightness appear to vary due to fluctuating radial surface
velocities, which result in c+v effects similar to those of orbitign stars.

So you have finally realized that Cepheids are pulsating stars
and thus intrinsic variables, and not white dwarfs orbiting
a 100+ solar masses invisible 'Wilsonian cool heavy'. :-)

You will have to rewrite the astronomy books yet again then.
Won't you? :-)

Remember this?

(Henri Wilson is another synonym for Ralph Malcom Rabbidge)

On 2 Jun 2005 Henri Wilson wrote:
| I have been able to dramatically extend the BaT to explain
| cepheids, Miras etc, and put another nail in the SRian coffin.
|
| The truth is, cepheids are mainly small white stars orbiting neutron
stars and
| other 'Wilsonian cool heavies' (WCH). The occasional red giant that
you mention
| is really a small white but, because the mass of the WHC stars is very
high,
| light is greatly redshifted as it escapes the gravity field of the pair.
|
| This also explains the period/brightness relationship.
| The further away from the WCH the orbiting cepheid is, the less
redshift and
| the more light energy escapes. Note the plane of the orbit wrt the
observer is
| a factor here.
|
| see: spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/lmc/lmc.html.
|
| Very interesting and supportive of the BaT.
|
| Miras are like cephids except no WCH is involved.
|
| I think we can start rewriting the astronomy books right now.

And this:

On 9 Jun 2005 Henri Wilson wrote:
| No puffing and blowing ball of gas, particularly one that is 41 sun
diameters
| in size could possibly maintain the same puffing frequency day after
day, year
| after year to WITHIN SECONDS.
|
| You know that there would be bits of gas flying everywhere ..because
it all
| happens every 5 days!!!
|
| The only plausible explanation is that it is in synch with orbit
frequency.
| ..and that applies to ALL variable stars with highly regular periods.
|
| Now if you proposed some kind of regular distortion that was a direct
| consequence of the two stars coming close at their perihelions, then your
| 'puffing and blowing' could be simply put down to huge tidal movements
of gas.
| That might be acceptible ....it would add to any direct BaT effects
and might
| explain some of the finer details of the brightness curves.


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
...

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:42:20 -0700, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:


===============================================
Ask one, there are plenty around.
The persistent stupidity of the average chicken farmer is living proof
that Wilson's BaTh h-aether is pure crap from start to finish.

....and how is your bull**** farm performing these days? I get the impression
that production is up...


A modulated light beam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-q9CNqLMY
Another modulated light beam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTQi-VvGZTA

Henry Wilson wrote in message
...
"A beam of light has no such modulation."

"You will never prove me wrong" - Wilson, the easiest to prove wrong.

I don’t need to farm bull**** what with you, Tusseladd, Humpty and Dork
dropping a plentiful supply in my electronic mail box. Now I've got Cameron
touting a knighthood for 'Sir' Andy Murray, baron of Wimbledon. At least
'Earl' is better than 'baron' even if I gave me the title. When I drop
bull****
at least it is deliberately obvious bull****.
The persistent stupidity of the average chicken farmer is living proof
that Wilson's BaTh light beams are pure crap from start to finish.

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 08:50:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

On 7/3/2013 3:43 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 06:12:30 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:



Henry Wilson DSc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
No central point in space.
You said, "It is claimed...." By whom?

By whoever invented the law that says momentum is conserved.

Isaac Newton said this about the big bang? Did he even know anything
about the big bang?

Stop asking silly questions please.
Any and every explosion occurs at a point in space at a particular instant in
time. A measurement of the vector momenta of all the debris will add to zero
in the frame of the point.
________________Newton.

Henry Wilson DSc.

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:04:05 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

On 7/4/2013 4:59 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Hahahhha! So one minute there is nothing...next minute, voila!!!! We have a
whole universe....Go to the top of the class....the magician's class.....

Isn't that the basic idea of the big bang?
Would you say that the idea is too incredible to even consider? Why?

Are you another bible basher by any chance?
Only creationists support the big bang theory...

Henry Wilson DSc.

On 7/9/2013 4:30 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 08:50:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

On 7/3/2013 3:43 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 06:12:30 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:



Henry Wilson DSc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
No central point in space.
You said, "It is claimed...." By whom?

By whoever invented the law that says momentum is conserved.

Isaac Newton said this about the big bang? Did he even know anything
about the big bang?

Stop asking silly questions please.

I only asked who claimed that the big bang originated at a single
central point. You gave me an answer, but I find that answer hard to
believe, since Isaac Newton was dead long before big bang theory was
ever dreamed up.

Any and every explosion occurs at a point in space at a particular instant in
time.

I don't think the big bang is to be thought of as an explosion like
that. It's not like a firecracker or a stick of dynamite or a supernova.
So using a Newtonian statement about those kinds of explosions isn't
particularly relevant. Who told you the big bang was like a humongous
supernova?

A measurement of the vector momenta of all the debris will add to zero
in the frame of the point.
________________Newton.

Henry Wilson DSc.



--
- Odd Bodkin, maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 7/9/2013 4:31 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:04:05 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

On 7/4/2013 4:59 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Hahahhha! So one minute there is nothing...next minute, voila!!!! We have a
whole universe....Go to the top of the class....the magician's class.....

Isn't that the basic idea of the big bang?
Would you say that the idea is too incredible to even consider? Why?

Are you another bible basher by any chance?
Only creationists support the big bang theory...

No, I'm not a bible basher. And I don't think that's a correct statement
that creationists are behind the big bang, is it? After all,
creationists believe that the universe was formed by an intelligent
deity 6600 years ago in essentially its present form -- earth, animals,
people and all. That doesn't sound like the big bang theory at all. Does
it to you?


--
- Odd Bodkin, maker of fine toys, tools, tables