Phuckwit Duck's SR (PDSR)

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:10:10 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:23:43 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond

wrote:

On Feb 14, 5:37 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in
messagenews:59qgn5ddq5pucjpn9h6ial4ro4bmk5lmjg@4ax .com...





On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:26:03 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:

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

why, do you think there would be more redshift than blue? Please
explain.

http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Open your ****in' eyes!

there is both red and blue shift.

Well done! In any orbit part of the period the star is coming toward
us
and part of the period it is receding, so there is both red and blue
shift.
Hang on, I'll have a word with the Queen, she may want to pin a
****in'
medal on you for that brilliant observation.

Can you prove there is more red than blue?

Why would I want to do that? Please explain.

You were asked if your theory could explain the cosmic redshift by
which
stars
and galaxies exhibit far more red shift than blue.
So that's why you should want to do that.

Ask your pet chimp if you cannot understand.

Ok, since you've snipped and the only names above are Androcles and
"Awilson", you must have nominated yourself as my pet chimp.
If half the photons arrive together then the rest must be spread
throughout the rest of the period, pet chimp, as Doolin's star
(and indeed does Awilson the pet chimp's star) clearly shows.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Awilson'sStar.GIF
So even though there are equal numbers of red and blue shifted
photons, anytime you look you'll only see the red ones. The exception
is the nova, which doesn't last long and is all the blue photons
arriving
together. Got it now, pet chimp?


I'm the one that asked the question, and I am willing to listen to
you. Your argument about the varying intensity makes sense. I was
just wondering about the spectral lines observed from these variable
stars. Seems to me that if you have a mix of photons with different
velocities they would have different red shifts, which would blur the
lines.

I have a suspicion that lines from variable stars do tend to be blurred.
I
know
that there is always some difficulty in separating out the two
components
if a
binary pair is involved.

However, unless you understand ADoppler and its dominance over
conventional
VDoppler shifts, nothing Andro tells you will be of much use.

You ****in' bull****ting *******! If you understood your own stupid theory
you'd be able to write an equation for it, you dumb ozzie.

I have given you the equation. It's not my fault if you cannot understand
it.

What did the relativists have to say about it?

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:24:32 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:10:10 -0000, "Androcles"

I have a suspicion that lines from variable stars do tend to be blurred.
I
know
that there is always some difficulty in separating out the two
components
if a
binary pair is involved.

However, unless you understand ADoppler and its dominance over
conventional
VDoppler shifts, nothing Andro tells you will be of much use.

You ****in' bull****ting *******! If you understood your own stupid theory
you'd be able to write an equation for it, you dumb ozzie.

I have given you the equation. It's not my fault if you cannot understand
it.

What did the relativists have to say about it?

They shudder when they see an equation that is not in a relativity textbook.


Henry Wilson...

........provider of free physics lessons

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:24:32 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:10:10 -0000, "Androcles"

I have a suspicion that lines from variable stars do tend to be
blurred.
I
know
that there is always some difficulty in separating out the two
components
if a
binary pair is involved.

However, unless you understand ADoppler and its dominance over
conventional
VDoppler shifts, nothing Andro tells you will be of much use.

You ****in' bull****ting *******! If you understood your own stupid
theory
you'd be able to write an equation for it, you dumb ozzie.

I have given you the equation. It's not my fault if you cannot
understand
it.

What did the relativists have to say about it?

They shudder when they see an equation that is not in a relativity
textbook.

Tusseladd laughs, as do I.

Once again you have made a giant fool of yourself, Ralph.
Hilarious, no?

Do you think I could imitate him?

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:54:58 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:24:32 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:10:10 -0000, "Androcles"

I have a suspicion that lines from variable stars do tend to be
blurred.
I
know
that there is always some difficulty in separating out the two
components
if a
binary pair is involved.

However, unless you understand ADoppler and its dominance over
conventional
VDoppler shifts, nothing Andro tells you will be of much use.

You ****in' bull****ting *******! If you understood your own stupid
theory
you'd be able to write an equation for it, you dumb ozzie.

I have given you the equation. It's not my fault if you cannot
understand
it.

What did the relativists have to say about it?

They shudder when they see an equation that is not in a relativity
textbook.

Tusseladd laughs, as do I.

Once again you have made a giant fool of yourself, Ralph.
Hilarious, no?

Have some respect for the dead please.


Do you think I could imitate him?

would you want to?

Henry Wilson...

........provider of free physics lessons

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:54:58 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:24:32 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:10:10 -0000, "Androcles"

I have a suspicion that lines from variable stars do tend to be
blurred.
I
know
that there is always some difficulty in separating out the two
components
if a
binary pair is involved.

However, unless you understand ADoppler and its dominance over
conventional
VDoppler shifts, nothing Andro tells you will be of much use.

You ****in' bull****ting *******! If you understood your own stupid
theory
you'd be able to write an equation for it, you dumb ozzie.

I have given you the equation. It's not my fault if you cannot
understand
it.

What did the relativists have to say about it?

They shudder when they see an equation that is not in a relativity
textbook.

Tusseladd laughs, as do I.

Once again you have made a giant fool of yourself, Ralph.
Hilarious, no?

Have some respect for the dead please.


Oh, I do. RIP, ADoppler.


Do you think I could imitate him?

would you want to?

Only for fun. Hilarious, yes?

--
Androcles
........provider of expensive physics lessons Awilson (my pet chimp) can't
afford.

On Feb 13, 5:03*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in messagenews:09qcn51udofv02d8a9hddpmdj3voc3n0lu@4ax .com...





On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:04:53 -0800 (PST), train

wrote:

On Feb 13, 1:57 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:22:27 -0800 (PST), train

wrote:

On Feb 12, 6:09 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"train" wrote in message

The Lunar Rangefinding Retroreflector experiment - is it the same -
could this be a scientific test of the above - however note the width
of the beam - 7 - 20 kilometres

Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused for large
distances. Nevertheless, there is enough dispersion of the beam that
it is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20
kilometers in diameter when it returns to Earth. Because of this very
weak signal, observations are made for several hours at a time. By
averaging the signal for this period, the distance to the Moon can be
measured to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters (the average distance
from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometers)

This experiment, like every astronomical experiment assiumes that light
speed
is constant.
It is not.
True, the moon's orbit is pretty circular (e = 0.054) but that is enough
to
make quite a difference to the speed of the return pulse.

The whole of astronomy will have to be rewritten when the truth finally
emerges.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...periments/lrr/

Henry Wilson...

.......provider of free physics lessons

If the speed of light was not assumed constant how would it affect the
result?
Isn't there a way to test this from the LRR itself?

Variable star brightness curves...they are actually due to fast light
catching
up to slow light.

Photons emitted by orbiting stars bunch together in transit and give the
impression that a star has periodic brightness fluctuations.
....it doesn't.

... it doesn't have any intrinsic brightness fluctuation, but it has an
observed
brightness fluctuation when seen from a distance.

Absolute magnitude is intrinsic but in general cannot be known, only
estimated.
Absolute magnitude divided by apparent magnitude is an approximate measure
of distance -- see inverse square law.
For cepheid variables, delta magnitude is an approximate measure of
distance --
see Henrietta Swan-Leavitt.
The way it works is the gap between the slow photons and the later emitted
fast
photons closes with increasing distance (dT dt) and that produces an
increase
in luminosity, but the gap between fast photons and later emitted slow
photons
increases (dT dt) and that produces a decrease in luminosity.http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Thus the difference in apparent brightness is a measure of distance as
Swan-Leavitt
found empirically, but could not explain.

-- Androcles
.......provider of expensive physics lessons Awilson can't afford.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Photons never change speed,nor bounce. Light dims with distance. 90w
bulb has the intensity of only a 30w bulb when distance from source is
just 3 feet. Square of the distance. TreBert

"bert" wrote in message
...

Photons never change speed,nor bounce.


An astrophysicist you are not.

You're sort of a retard, actually.


No offense Bert.