A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old July 9th 13, 10:46 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 22:47:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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



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'. :-)


What do you mean by 'finally'?
You obviously don't read anything I say.
Most short period Cepheids are pulsating. Nothing could orbit a star in less
than a couple of days. (Note, many, short periods are willusions caused by
time compression. They are really considerably longer.)

Many long period Cepheids are not pulsating. They are stars that are in orbit
due to a significant companion. Many long period Cepheids do NOT obey the
Leavitt Law.

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


I am in the process of doing that.

Paul, have you seen any of the Kepler Mission star curves? Do you have any
explanations for any of them?
No of course you don't. You wouldn't know where to start.

But I can explain them all, using variable light speed.

What does that tell you, Paul?



Henry Wilson DSc.
  #52  
Old July 9th 13, 10:49 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

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


You shojld have read the definition of 'íntrinsic brightness' before you
started you bull**** factory .


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.

Most Kepler Mission curves feature short period variability of very
irregular
nature, due apparently to a mixture of surface waves that come and go more
or
less randomly in many directions around the surface. The apparent brightness
variability is again mainly caused by c+v effects.

Henry Wilson DSc.
=============================================== =
What does that rant have to do with Leavitt-Swan's observation?


-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway


Henry Wilson DSc.
  #53  
Old July 9th 13, 11:33 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On 09.07.2013 23:46, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 22:47:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


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'. :-)


What do you mean by 'finally'?
You obviously don't read anything I say.
Most short period Cepheids are pulsating. Nothing could orbit a star in less
than a couple of days. (Note, many, short periods are willusions caused by
time compression. They are really considerably longer.)


So you don't remember this?

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.

"The truth is.." :-)

or 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.

"The only plausible explanation is .." :-)


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


I am in the process of doing that.


Quite.
Since "the truth" and "plausible explanations" are constantly
changing, you will be busy.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #54  
Old July 9th 13, 11:55 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:38:47 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

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


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.


I don't think te big bang should be thought of at all.....

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?


Nobody who supports the BB theory seems to have any kind of description of
what happened. They just make up stories to suit their creationist beliefs.


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

Henry Wilson DSc.


Henry Wilson DSc.
  #55  
Old July 9th 13, 11:59 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:40:45 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

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?


No I think most creationists with any kind of brain will now accept that some
god didn't put all those fossils in rocks just to confuse Earthly humans. They
realise that the bible got the dates wrong.....but the explosion idea still
fits in well with creationism.

Henry Wilson DSc.
  #56  
Old July 10th 13, 12:02 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:33:19 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 09.07.2013 23:46, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:



| explain some of the finer details of the brightness curves.

"The only plausible explanation is .." :-)


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


I am in the process of doing that.


Quite.
Since "the truth" and "plausible explanations" are constantly
changing, you will be busy.


Paul, can you explain any of the million or so Kepler Mission light curves or
not?
BaTh can expain all of them.

What does that tell you?

Henry Wilson DSc.
  #57  
Old July 10th 13, 12:03 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:49:30 +1000, Henry Wilson DSc. hw@.... wrote:

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


You shojld have read the definition of 'íntrinsic brightness' before you
started you bull**** factory .


Correction....that should be 'intrinsic luminosity'..

Henry Wilson DSc.
  #58  
Old July 10th 13, 12:03 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Odd Bodkin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On 7/9/2013 5:55 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:38:47 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

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


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.


I don't think te big bang should be thought of at all.....


Forgive me, but that doesn't seem to be a good excuse to think of it as
something it's not.


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?


Nobody who supports the BB theory seems to have any kind of description of
what happened. They just make up stories to suit their creationist beliefs.


What have you read? There seems to be quite a bit of good material
describing what happened. Weinberg wrote a very short book called The
First Three Minutes that has a very good description. Have you read
that? There's also a good book by Thorne for casual readers called Black
Holes and Time Warps that has a good description. Have you read that?
Are those what you're calling stories?




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

Henry Wilson DSc.


Henry Wilson DSc.



--
- Odd Bodkin, maker of fine toys, tools, tables
  #59  
Old July 10th 13, 12:05 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Odd Bodkin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On 7/9/2013 5:59 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:40:45 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

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?


No I think most creationists with any kind of brain will now accept that some
god didn't put all those fossils in rocks just to confuse Earthly humans. They
realise that the bible got the dates wrong.....but the explosion idea still
fits in well with creationism.


I'm still confused. We were talking about the big bang, not an
explosion. What explosion where you talking about?

Are you saying that anyone who doesn't believe in a static, eternal
universe is a creationist?


--
- Odd Bodkin, maker of fine toys, tools, tables
  #60  
Old July 10th 13, 12:47 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:03:39 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

On 7/9/2013 5:55 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:38:47 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

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


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.


I don't think te big bang should be thought of at all.....


Forgive me, but that doesn't seem to be a good excuse to think of it as
something it's not.


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?


Nobody who supports the BB theory seems to have any kind of description of
what happened. They just make up stories to suit their creationist beliefs.


What have you read? There seems to be quite a bit of good material
describing what happened. Weinberg wrote a very short book called The
First Three Minutes that has a very good description. Have you read
that? There's also a good book by Thorne for casual readers called Black
Holes and Time Warps that has a good description. Have you read that?
Are those what you're calling stories?


Anyone can say what they like about such nebulous topics and nobody can prove
them wrong...It all makes for good Scifi.

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

Henry Wilson DSc.


Henry Wilson DSc.


Henry Wilson DSc.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Big bangers oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 24 March 7th 12 11:47 PM
Free the Big Bangers ! Jeffâ–˛Relf[_31_] Astronomy Misc 1 November 26th 08 11:47 AM
Big Bangers Prove How Stupid They Are Mad Scientist Misc 61 August 16th 04 02:03 PM
Earth Too Noisy for S.E.T.I.? Nomen Nescio Space Shuttle 1 November 27th 03 04:41 AM
Noisy WU Gary G. Taylor SETI 2 October 26th 03 06:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.