Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
[snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...WilsonFake.JPG This
message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the
computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for
a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234
http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/im...l/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
[snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...WilsonFake.JPG This
message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the
computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for
a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234
http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/im...l/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate

In article ,
"Dumbledore" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
[snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...WilsonFake.JPG This
message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the
computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for
a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234
http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/im...l/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate


Ok I revise my opinion. Androcles will truly flip out in MARCH 2007.

--
-Coffee Boy- = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dumbledore" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
[snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...WilsonFake.JPG This
message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the
computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for
a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234
http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/im...l/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate


Ok I revise my opinion. Androcles will truly flip out in MARCH 2007.

With a bit of help (and another bit of luck) I think we can
push it even closer.

Dirk Vdm

In article ,
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:


"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dumbledore" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
[snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...WilsonFake.JPG
This
message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the
computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit
for
a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234
http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/im...l/P_Plates.jpg Worn with
pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate


Ok I revise my opinion. Androcles will truly flip out in MARCH 2007.

With a bit of help (and another bit of luck) I think we can
push it even closer.

Dirk Vdm


The phrase "Type 1a" springs to mind ;-)

--
-Coffee Boy- = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:

After examining the image of your diplomas, I'm puzzled
why you replaced what was in the space for the graduate's
name with what appears to be your own name. Alteration of
the Australian National University diploma is especially
evident. The color you used for the background of the
lettering is the same as the color around the image edges.

Modification to the Sydney Technical College diploma is
less obvious, but a close look shows that you made new
text, reduced it to fit, and pasted it into the space
for the graduate's name.

Why did you do that?

Becasue I found them at the local tip of course.

****ing moron......

Henry,

You claim to have college degrees, but show evidence that
in fact you do not. In response to questions, you lie and
fling childish invectives.

Why?

Because nobody here who's anybody gives a **** about
qualifications.

Apparently it is important to you, or you would not have
photographed the diplomas, edited the image to change the
names, and put it on the Internet.

Why did you change the names?

You could have simply not posted anything. Posting the
altered photo provided clear evidence that you have been
lying all along.

Why did you do that?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:12:11 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,
Henri Wilson HW@....... wrote:

and that most astronomers are under a delusion in believing that is
it moves at c wrt Earth.

That's not a delusion - there's plenty of experimental evidence that
light always moves at c wrt to any observer on the Earth. And it
was this experimental evidence which caused the birth of the theory
of relativity.

Light moves at c with respect to anything: the light source (as you
correctly claim), the Earth's center, any observer on any place on
Earth (which you erroneously call a "delusion"), any other planet or
star, yes even any other light ray.

That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.

Yes. We know all about the unproven postulate....that's what has been
derailing astronomy for 100 years.

That "unproven" postulate created a theory which has been very
thoroughly tested for almost a century now. Up to the 1920's or so it
might have been reasonable to doubt it, but not anymore! So you are
some 80+ years behind your time....


but generally, those in resolvable orbits will be moving very slowly
around their orbits.

It seems you have a quite small telescope. Of course whether a binary
is resolvable depends a lot on your telescope: larger scopes will be
able to resolve many more binary stars.

I don't have a telescope at present...just read what others have to say..

Then I fully understand your difficulty in detecting orbital motions in
binary stars: there is not even one single binary star in our skies where
orbital motion has been detected with the naked eye. Epsilon Lyrae, which
probably is the tightest binary star resolvable to the naked eye, has an
orbital period of many millions of years.

But there must by plenty with resolvable orbits and periods of less
than 100 years.

Sure! There are lots of them! But you do need a telescope to resolve
them, and you said you didn't have any telescope....

I just surprised that more haven't been recorded.

How many of these orbits have been recorded which you know about? And
how many would you expect to have been recorded?

I should advise you that for some time, I have been studying
variable star light curves with the aim of proving Einstein
wrong...

Why don't you aim at trying to finding out how Nature works, instead
of trying to prove some particular theory wrong?

Wrong! If light had arrived at Earth with a speed different from c
wrt to the Earth, this would have been detected experimentally over
100 years ago, in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which
attempted to measure just that: variations in the speed of light:


Crap. The MMX null result is a direct result of light being ballistic.
It moves at c wrt everything in the source frame...ie, the whole
interferometer.

Correct -- I didn't distinguish the ballistic theory from the aether
theory here. However, there are plenty of other ways to measure the
speed of light today, and you just need to apply one of these
thecniques to starlight of stars with different radial velocities --
if the ballistic theory is right one should fairly easily be able to
measure differences in light speed this way. And since actually
succeeding in disproving Einstein would be a wet dream for any
physicist, if the ballistic theory of light was right, this experiment
would already have been performed.

But you can always perform it yourself if you wish. After all, facts
and measurements carry much more weight than just arguments, right?

The easiest way to perform this measurement would probably be from
radio signals from various spacecrafts we've sent out in our solar
system: just measure the time of arrival of some particular part of
the radio wave with high precision at two different continents
simultaneously, and you'll get a high precision difference of the time
of arrival of that radio wave. That'll give you a high precision
value of the speed of propagation of the radio wave, right? Now,
if the ballistic theory of light would be correct, then the speed
of these radio wave would be constant relative to the spacecraft
which transmitted them, but varying relative to the observer here
on Earth, right? And the difference would be large enough to be
measureable...

One could proably even make ground-based experiments of this,
using radio transmitters positioned on e.g. airplanes.....

As you perhaps are aware of, radio waves and light are both
electromagnetic radiation. So if the ballistic theory if light
is valid, as you claim, it should apply to radio waves as well.

The MMX was doomed before it even left the ground...

No, it did well in contradicting the aether theory, so it served
a good purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

The correct way to add v to c, the velocity of light, is:

total_speed = (c+v) / ( 1+(cv/c^2))


I can derive that.

Let w always = c by postulate.
therefore
w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
= (c+v)/((c+v)/c)
= (c+v)/1+v/c)
= (c+v/(1+vc/c^2)

DING DING DING! Correct -- 5 points to you! :-)

It's a neat little piece of circular maths....it proves nothing.

Let's put it this way: that formula follows more or less directly
from the postulate that the speed of light is the same for any
observer.

and here total_speed will become equal to c, no matter what value v has ....

Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

to see how that formula is derived.

I just derived it using circular logic...Can I have my Nobel now?

Not yet - first you must succeed in actually measureing differences in
the speed of light from different light sources. E.g. from stars with
different readial velocities -- I wish you good luck with that!

Binary stars in orbit, emit light at sinusoidially varying speed wrt
Earth. Their 'fast' light catches the slower light, causing 'bunching',
which appears to us as a variation in brightness.

You don't need binary stars for that -- the Earth's own orbital motion
causes a yearly variation in the radial velocity of any star with +-
30*cos(ecl_lat) km/s, where ecl_lat is the ecliptic latitude of the
star. So if your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. The only
exception would be stars sufficiently close to the ecliptic poles in
our sky.

Light from a star doesn't give a stuff about little planet Earth.

No -- but our instruments give a lot of stuff about planet Earth. You
see, while the Earth moves, it carries us, and our Earth-based
instruments, along with it. This cause the radial velocity of the
ster, *relative* *to* *the* *instrument*, to vary as the Earth moves
in its yearly orbit around the Sun.

For most of its journey it is only interested in

....I don't think photons are living organisms which have any
'interest'
in anything .... they are non-biological particles.

its relationship with its source, since it has no other reference.
Starlight doesn't 'know' the Earth exists. The light from an orbiting
star moves at different speeds wrt its other emitted light. This causes
'bunching' and periodic brightness variation when viewed from a distance.

Its speed may change by small amounts during its trip acros space due
to intergalactic turbulence and density variations (as well as 'other'
unknown causes). Extinction also tends to unify the speed of all starlight
traveling in any one direction.

It is possible that our whole solar system and in particular the Earth
is surrounded by a local EM frame of reference that acts more or less
like a weak local 'aether'. Light from all stars might consequently
spend a minute part of its journey traveling at around c wrt Earth. For
the rest of the time, its 'fast light' tends to catch the slower....
although extinction effects appear to limit this process to relatively
short distances from the source star.

Sorry, but this 'aether' theory was disproved with the
Michelson-Morley experiment.

Or are you claiming that this 'aether' also would rotate with the
Earth's daily rotation? If so, just redo the MMX in an airplane -- or
are you saying the airplane also carries along its own 'aether'?
Perhaps even each instrument and each observer carries along its own
'aether'? Then we're getting awfully close to that first postulate of
relativity: the speed of light is the same for any observer.....

Your logic is typically flawed... like that of all relativists.
.......
You're talking crap. see above.

If you want to be taken seriously, your objections should carry a
little
more substance than merely saying "flawed" or "crap" .....

.... and even if you fail to detect any variability of most stars with
a period of exactly one Earth year, you'll at least learn some
practical astronomy. And perhaps you'll also gain a genuine interest
in observing the skies?

No wonder Einstein's nonsense has been able to remain for 100 years
with fools like you around.

Here are a couple of typical curve matches produced using c+v.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurC.jpg

FYI: the brightness variation of Cepheids are due to other causes than
just a radial velocity effect.

Also, increased brightness due to an approaching light source appears
not only in the ballistic theory of light but also in relativity.
After all, the light emitted by the light source during the time
interval X will be received duing the different time interval Y, where
Y is smaller than X if the light source is approaching - no matter
what speed the light propagates at. This causes both a doppler shift
towards blue wavelength, AND increased brightness besause the same
energy is squeezed into a shorter time interval, which naturally
increases the brightness.

Not bad eh? How much longer can you people remain under a massive
delusion?

When will you educate yourself enough to realize that:

1. Brightness variation due to changes in radial velocity appears in
the theory of relativity too - so you cannot use that phenomenon to
distinguish relativit from the ballistic theory of light.

2. The observed brightness variations of these cepheids are much
larger than what could be expected if the brightness variation was a
radial velocity effect only.

Most variable star curves can be easily matched in this way although
the required distances are always well short of the Hipparcos figures,....
which reflects the influence of extinction...or 'light unification' as I
call it.

....however the brightness variation in these cases are due to other
causes than merely a radial velocity change effect. Actually, the
brightness variation is much larger than what could be expceted from a
changing radial velocity effect - both in relativity and in the
(erroneous) ballistic theory of light.

On 8 Feb, 12:14, "Androcles" wrote:
wrote in oglegroups.com...
On 6 Feb, 09:41, "Androcles" wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in ...

That is patently false, the time for light to get from Jupiter to Earth is
different to the time it takes from Earth to Jupiter.

Why?

Yes, A variation of 0.00000000000001 magnitudes, go ahead and measure it.

Why would a speed variation of 0.01 % cause a brightness variation of
only some 0.000000000001% ???

Maybe it is more than that, how good at measuring magnitude to 0.01%
are you?

It was a good example on how you throw around numbers without knowing
what you're talking about....

Anyway, if you and your fellows believe that radial velocity changes
of the order of some tens of
kilometers per second produces easily noticeable brightness changes in
variable stars as well as
in binary stars, why wouldn't radial velocity changes of the same
order of magnitude due to
the orbital speed of Earth produce brightness changes which are just
as easily visible?

Now, check the catalogs of variablestarsto see how many variables
you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
find? Not very many, if anyone at all....

All of them, to within 0.00000000000001 magnitudes.

Please tell us how you measure magnitudes to that level of
accuracy.... g

That's your problem, not mine. You claimed there were none.

No I never claimed that. I said "not very many", which is different
from
none. You cannot exclude the occasional coincidence.


Go ahead and measure them, what are you waiting for?

Didn't you just say you already did measure it?

No, I didn't,

Yes you did! Look above -- I quote it here for clarity:

# Now, check the catalogs of variablestarsto see how many variables
# you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
# find? Not very many, if anyone at all....
#
# All of them, to within 0.00000000000001 magnitudes.

To the question "How many did you find?", you answered "All of them".
How can you
find so many variable stars without doing any measurements?

you did. You said "Soif your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. "

That's a statement of what one could expect if you and your fellows
would be right,
but it's not a claim that I found any such thing. I really hope you
have brains enough
to be able to note the difference....

But it would be nice

....so you didn't find any such stars ....

indeed if you gave us more details about your measurements.....
double grin

There are plenty of measurements, I don't deny empirical data,
I only challenge stupid theories. triple grin

Now you changed your mind AGAIN ......

C'mon, make up your mind now: are there, or are there not, plenty of
measurements
of stars varying in brightness with a period of exactly one Earth
year?

remainder of drivel deleted

wrote in message oups.com...
On 8 Feb, 12:14, "Androcles" wrote:
wrote in oglegroups.com...
On 6 Feb, 09:41, "Androcles" wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in ...

That is patently false, the time for light to get from Jupiter to Earth is
different to the time it takes from Earth to Jupiter.

Why?

Because the speed of light is finite and Jupiter moves relative to the Earth,
that's why. g8
Not very intelligent, are you? g9



Yes, A variation of 0.00000000000001 magnitudes, go ahead and measure it.

Why would a speed variation of 0.01 % cause a brightness variation of
only some 0.000000000001% ???

Maybe it is more than that, how good at measuring magnitude to 0.01%
are you?

It was a good example on how you throw around numbers without knowing
what you're talking about....

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I happen to understand the Principle
of Relativity.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm


Anyway, if you and your fellows believe that radial velocity changes
of the order of some tens of
kilometers per second produces easily noticeable brightness changes in
variable stars as well as
in binary stars, why wouldn't radial velocity changes of the same
order of magnitude due to
the orbital speed of Earth produce brightness changes which are just
as easily visible?

I've told you, they are too small to be easily visible. Anyway, red light
is not a bright and blue light.



Now, check the catalogs of variablestarsto see how many variables
you find with a period of exactly one Earth year. How many did you
find? Not very many, if anyone at all....

All of them, to within 0.00000000000001 magnitudes.

Please tell us how you measure magnitudes to that level of
accuracy.... g

That's your problem, not mine. You claimed there were none.

No I never claimed that. I said "not very many", which is different
from
none. You cannot exclude the occasional coincidence.

Ok, well, measure the intensity of a twinkle twinkle little star at
dawn and the same star six months later at sunset and see if
it is any dimmer or brighter. g10


Go ahead and measure them, what are you waiting for?

Didn't you just say you already did measure it?

No, I didn't,

Yes


No son, you brought up the matter of intensity change as a
result of the Earth's orbit, not I. All I said was it is too small
to measure. g11


To the question "How many did you find?", you answered "All of them".
How can you
find so many variable stars without doing any measurements?

Simple, The Earth in its orbit moves relatively to ALL of them.
Not very intelligent, are you? g12


you did. You said "Soif your claim is correct, then most stars in the sky would
appear to be variable with a period of one Earth year. "

That's a statement of what one could expect if you and your fellows
would be right,
but it's not a claim that I found any such thing. I really hope you
have brains enough
to be able to note the difference....

Oh, I do. I also expect to find the difference very small g13



But it would be nice

...so you didn't find any such stars ....

Of course I can find stars, can't you? g14


indeed if you gave us more details about your measurements.....
double grin

There are plenty of measurements, I don't deny empirical data,
I only challenge stupid theories. triple grin

Now you changed your mind AGAIN ......

From what to what? g15



C'mon, make up your mind now: are there, or are there not, plenty of
measurements
of stars varying in brightness with a period of exactly one Earth
year?
Yes, they all do.


remainder of drivel deleted

Oh really? I'll remember that. He who grins last grins longest.
Can't take the truth, grinning ****head ? Now **** off. multiple grin

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 04:02:03 -0800, "Jeff Root" wrote:

Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:

After examining the image of your diplomas, I'm puzzled
why you replaced what was in the space for the graduate's
name with what appears to be your own name. Alteration of
the Australian National University diploma is especially
evident. The color you used for the background of the
lettering is the same as the color around the image edges.

Modification to the Sydney Technical College diploma is
less obvious, but a close look shows that you made new
text, reduced it to fit, and pasted it into the space
for the graduate's name.

Why did you do that?
Becasue I found them at the local tip of course.

****ing moron......
Henry,

You claim to have college degrees, but show evidence that
in fact you do not. In response to questions, you lie and
fling childish invectives.

Why?

Because nobody here who's anybody gives a **** about qualifications.

You want us to believe that you faked your diplomas because
you think nobody cares about your qualifications? :-)

You obviously care about your lack of qualifications.
So according to yourself, you are nobody.
For once, you are right.

Paul