Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:05:02 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

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


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?

If a 'big bang' is not an explosion, what the hell is it?

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

You ask too many questions...the sign of a person who knows very little and
cannot work out anything for themselves....

Henry Wilson DSc.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:42:04 -0700, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:



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

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 .
===============================================
Intrinsic brighter stars are intrinsically bigger?

Did you not read my immediate correction?

Intrinsic luminosity is defined as the total energy radiated by a star. There
would therefore be a high correlation between that and size, although by no
means a 100% fit.
Ask Roberts to provide the error bars before your bull**** factory starts up.



-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Ranting Henry 'Got no answer' Wilson, Dumb Scumbag.

John Parker: Occupation: bull**** factory owner/operator...

Henry Wilson DSc.

"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.


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

On 10.07.2013 01:02, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

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

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

Quite.
Like it can 'explain' the luminosity-period relationship in Cepheids:

On 09.07.2013 12:43, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
| 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.

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.

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.


What does that tell you?

That you are desperate to divert the attention from all the nonsense
you have said about Cepheids.


--
Paul

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

On 7/9/2013 6:47 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
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.


I guess I was just surprised that you said that NOBODY has any kind of
description of the big bang, when there seems to be many. As for whether
they're nebulous topics or not, what I've read has always pointed to
specific predictions that are made by the big bang theory that are not
made by any other theory put forward so far, so that seems pretty
indicative of the concreteness to me.

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

On 7/9/2013 6:50 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
I'm still confused. We were talking about the big bang, not an
explosion. What explosion where you talking about?
If a 'big bang' is not an explosion, what the hell is it?

It's an expansion of spacetime itself, not an explosion IN space or
time. That short sentence doesn't do justice to better explanations like
the ones in the books I mentioned, but I don't want to try to capture
everything that's said there in this newsgroup. I don't know that I'd do
that accurately anyway.


Are you saying that anyone who doesn't believe in a static, eternal
universe is a creationist?
You ask too many questions...the sign of a person who knows very little and
cannot work out anything for themselves....

???
Somebody who works things out for themselves don't ask questions? Maybe
it's just me, but I tend to think that if someone doesn't ask any
questions, it's a cover-up to try to avoid looking stupid. Especially if
they say that they prefer to think things out for themselves.


Henry Wilson DSc.


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

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:47:42 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

On 7/9/2013 6:47 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
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.


I guess I was just surprised that you said that NOBODY has any kind of
description of the big bang, when there seems to be many. As for whether
they're nebulous topics or not, what I've read has always pointed to
specific predictions that are made by the big bang theory that are not
made by any other theory put forward so far, so that seems pretty
indicative of the concreteness to me.

There are no predictions of a BIG bang that aren't predicted by any supernova.
The latest finding, that the expansion is accelerating, refutes the big bang
concept outright.
Tired light theory explains the cosmic redshift...and so does BaTh. Light
simply loses energy as it travels...and that shows up as an increase in
intrinsic wavelength.

Henry Wilson DSc.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:52:12 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

On 7/9/2013 6:50 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
I'm still confused. We were talking about the big bang, not an
explosion. What explosion where you talking about?
If a 'big bang' is not an explosion, what the hell is it?

It's an expansion of spacetime itself, not an explosion IN space or
time.

There is no movement in spacetime...so your claim of an expansion is nonsense.

That short sentence doesn't do justice to better explanations like
the ones in the books I mentioned, but I don't want to try to capture
everything that's said there in this newsgroup. I don't know that I'd do
that accurately anyway.

You are just repeating meaningless relativist jargon.
Spacetime doesn't physically exist. It is nothing but a graphical method.

Are you saying that anyone who doesn't believe in a static, eternal
universe is a creationist?
You ask too many questions...the sign of a person who knows very little and
cannot work out anything for themselves....

???
Somebody who works things out for themselves don't ask questions? Maybe
it's just me, but I tend to think that if someone doesn't ask any
questions, it's a cover-up to try to avoid looking stupid. Especially if
they say that they prefer to think things out for themselves.

Just have a look at your question above..."Are you saying that anyone who
doesn't believe in a static, eternal universe is a creationist?"

To misconstrue what I said to such an extent suggests paints you as either a
habitual trouble maker or someone with a serious comprehension problem.

Henry Wilson DSc.

Henry Wilson DSc.

On 7/10/2013 11:41 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
There are no predictions of a BIG bang that aren't predicted by any supernova.
The latest finding, that the expansion is accelerating, refutes the big bang
concept outright.

You'll have to indulge me here in explaining the two statements above.
The Big Bang explains several things that are not explained by any
supernova model, as far as I know.
1 The recessional velocity of galaxies. From what I know, the velocity
of nearer objects is directly measured without redshift, using parallax
for example, and that ties nicely with redshift amounts, and so it's
questionable that for more distant objects, the redshift is due to
something else other than recession velocity. At what distance would it
shift over and why that distance?
2 The abundance of the elements.
3 The cosmic ray background radiation. The fact that it exists AT ALL,
regardless whether shifted, comes from big bang and supernovaes can't do
that.
4. The distribution of galaxies at various stages of evolution.

I'm also confused by your statement that the big bang is not compatible
with accelerated expansion. As far as I know, there are several
parameters which are left unspecified by big bang and depend on
empirical data, including both the mass density (that thing called
omega) and the cosmological constant. Depending on what value you have
for these, an accelerated expansion is compatible with the big bang, I'm
pretty sure.
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Educat...ng_Primer.html

Tired light theory explains the cosmic redshift...and so does BaTh. Light
simply loses energy as it travels...and that shows up as an increase in
intrinsic wavelength.

BaTh = ballistic theory of light? If I remember right, this explains the
redshift but still depends on the redshifted galaxies moving away.
Right? After all, it's the recessional speed that makes the wavelength
go down because of that c-v thing. So it's still true that BaTh's
explanation of galactic redshift would rely on the big bang. It's the
recessional speed, not the redshift, that's the evidence.


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

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:18:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 10.07.2013 01:02, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

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

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

Quite.
Like it can 'explain' the luminosity-period relationship in Cepheids:

Paul, why are you avoiding my question? Can you explain any of the million or
so Kepler Mission light curves or not?



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.


What does that tell you?

That you are desperate to divert the attention from all the nonsense
you have said about Cepheids.

I have told you what 'cepheids' are. Some a huff-puffs, some are just orbiting
stars with eccentricity around 0.2 and yaw angle 40-80 degrees. In both cases
their apparent brightness variation is due to the surface radial movements and
c+v effects.
The evidence from Kepler suggests that surface waves are a common feature iin
many stars.
Just ask yourself how many ways a fluid sphere can oscillate. Any such surface
oscillation causes varying light speed and apparent brigthness variations to
observers here on Earth. It's all written plainly on thousands of Kepler
curves.

Henry Wilson DSc.