On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:55:49 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:

On Apr 13, 9:14*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:

On Apr 6, 4:31*pm, Steve Dorman wrote:
OG wrote:

But why does he continue to put the incorrect light curve
on his website? Surely he must know that it removes all his
credibility.

It has been pointed out many times to Androcles and to
Henri Wilson, that the light curve of Algol depends on
the spectral band in which it is measured:
http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/...h/journey.html

Conventional eclipsing binary theory has no problem
modeling these curves.

The above paper makes a mockery of that statement. It is nothing but
speculation from start to finish.
What astronomers see when they view Algol type binaries is a willusion. The
star may or may not involve an eclipsing pair. Most Algol type probably do not.

The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
brightness curves with wavelength.

Emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
of the light curve at all.

If you opened your eyes you would soon learn what BaTh can explain. There are
many possibilities that haven't even been explored....and are not likely to be
while Einsteiniana attracts so many brainwahsed fools.

I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
c but at c+v.

No, you didn't "shut me up." I just got sick of your
perpetual lies and megalomania.

You are just too plain stupid to realize how worthless your
theories are. You'll die soon enough, and the world will soon
forget you as just another crackpot who never amounted to
anything.

Jerry

You are so hopelessly indoctrinated you can't even accept plain truth no matter
how glaringly obvious. All you are capable of doing is quoting from standard
relativity texts.

As I have shown, BaTh explains sagnac perfectly well by considering what
happens in the inertial frame, just as SR does.

SR says light moves at c in that frame and at c+/-v wrt the source. The ray
travel times are different.

BaTh says the rays move at c wrt the source and the frequencies are doppler
shifted, which they must be.

Both approaches produce the same answer.

YOUR analysis of sagnac using the ROTATING frame is trivial nonsense.
You are merely regarding the rotating apparatus viewed in the rotating frame as
being identical to the nonrotating apparatus in the inertial frame.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Apr 14, 2:16*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

[snip whining]

YOUR analysis of sagnac using the ROTATING frame is trivial nonsense.
You are merely regarding the rotating apparatus viewed in the rotating frame as
being identical to the nonrotating apparatus in the inertial frame.

It is, Ralph.

What's the difference between a merry-go-round that is not rotating
and a rotating merry-go-round that has a frame co-rotating with it?


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

Eric Gisse wrote:

What's the difference between a merry-go-round that is not rotating and
a rotating merry-go-round that has a frame co-rotating with it?

The angle of a plumb line held by a rider. Trick question?

--
tussock

I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:

On Apr 6, 4:31 pm, Steve Dorman wrote:
OG wrote:
But why does he continue to put the incorrect light curve
on his website? Surely he must know that it removes all his
credibility.
It has been pointed out many times to Androcles and to
Henri Wilson, that the light curve of Algol depends on
the spectral band in which it is measured:
http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/...h/journey.html

Conventional eclipsing binary theory has no problem
modeling these curves.

The above paper makes a mockery of that statement. It is nothing but
speculation from start to finish.
What astronomers see when they view Algol type binaries is a willusion. The
star may or may not involve an eclipsing pair. Most Algol type probably do not.

http://tinyurl.com/5ocloa
...showing that the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR.

In November 2005 Henry Wilson wrote:
"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"

So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
Had you forgotten that, Henri?

The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
brightness curves with wavelength.

So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/O-Gspect.gif
is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/G-Mspect.gif
A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)

Nothing is so stupid that... you know the rest. :-)


Emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
of the light curve at all.

If you opened your eyes you would soon learn what BaTh can explain. There are
many possibilities that haven't even been explored....and are not likely to be
while Einsteiniana attracts so many brainwahsed fools.

In November 2005 Henri Wilson reluctantly opened his eyes and
realized that the emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
of the light curve at all. So he admitted:
"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"

So what, indeed! :-)

Will Henri admit that he has admitted that the emission theory cannot
explain the spectral band dependence of the light curve at all? :-)
I predict he won't.
Henri never admits having admitted what he has admitted. :-)

I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
c but at c+v.

Ah. Sagnac! :-)
We all know what Sagnac does to the emission theory, don't we?

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...optic_gyro.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html

BTW, Henri.
About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
Only a very few of them are variables.
The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.
This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:22:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:


Conventional eclipsing binary theory has no problem
modeling these curves.

The above paper makes a mockery of that statement. It is nothing but
speculation from start to finish.
What astronomers see when they view Algol type binaries is a willusion. The
star may or may not involve an eclipsing pair. Most Algol type probably do not.

http://tinyurl.com/5ocloa
..showing that the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR.

In November 2005 Henry Wilson wrote:
"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"

So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
Had you forgotten that, Henri?

No. I have always stressed that stars with Algol type curves might or might not
be really eclipsing.

The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
brightness curves with wavelength.

So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/O-Gspect.gif
is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/G-Mspect.gif
A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)

Even YOU should know why some roses are red and others yellow in the same
sunlight.

Nothing is so stupid that... you know the rest. :-)

Is physics still taught in Norway?


Emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
of the light curve at all.

If you opened your eyes you would soon learn what BaTh can explain. There are
many possibilities that haven't even been explored....and are not likely to be
while Einsteiniana attracts so many brainwahsed fools.

In November 2005 Henri Wilson reluctantly opened his eyes and
realized that the emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
of the light curve at all. So he admitted:
"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"

So what, indeed! :-)

Will Henri admit that he has admitted that the emission theory cannot
explain the spectral band dependence of the light curve at all? :-)
I predict he won't.
Henri never admits having admitted what he has admitted. :-)

Henri has already explained such phenomena.
Different bands tend to originate from slightly different levels...which makes
the 'v' in c+v different.
Also, the local extinction rate is presumably wavelength dependent.

I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
c but at c+v.

Ah. Sagnac! :-)
We all know what Sagnac does to the emission theory, don't we?

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...optic_gyro.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html

All wrong. Quite hilarious really.

BTW, Henri.
About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
Only a very few of them are variables.
The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.

Wrong. Quite hilarious really.

This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.

You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:22:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:


Conventional eclipsing binary theory has no problem
modeling these curves.
The above paper makes a mockery of that statement. It is nothing but
speculation from start to finish.
What astronomers see when they view Algol type binaries is a willusion. The
star may or may not involve an eclipsing pair. Most Algol type probably do not.
http://tinyurl.com/5ocloa
..showing that the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR.

In November 2005 Henry Wilson wrote:
"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"

So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
Had you forgotten that, Henri?

No. I have always stressed that stars with Algol type curves might or might not
be really eclipsing.

But since the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR, this statement of yours:

If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?

...is an admission that Algol IS an eclipsing binary.

The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
brightness curves with wavelength.
So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/O-Gspect.gif
is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/G-Mspect.gif
A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)

Even YOU should know why some roses are red and others yellow in the same
sunlight.

So you think the fact that roses come in multiple colours
can defend this quite hillarious statement:

The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
[of an A8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.


But you are possibly too stupid to understand the gigantic
stupidity of this statement.
Nothing is too stupid .. etc.

Nothing is so stupid that... you know the rest. :-)

Is physics still taught in Norway?

Emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
of the light curve at all.
If you opened your eyes you would soon learn what BaTh can explain. There are
many possibilities that haven't even been explored....and are not likely to be
while Einsteiniana attracts so many brainwahsed fools.
In November 2005 Henri Wilson reluctantly opened his eyes and
realized that the emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
of the light curve at all. So he admitted:
"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"

So what, indeed! :-)

Will Henri admit that he has admitted that the emission theory cannot
explain the spectral band dependence of the light curve at all? :-)
I predict he won't.
Henri never admits having admitted what he has admitted. :-)

Henri has already explained such phenomena.
Different bands tend to originate from slightly different levels...which makes
the 'v' in c+v different.
Also, the local extinction rate is presumably wavelength dependent.

Should I remind you why you gave up these arguments back in 2005,
when you ended up admitting that:

If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?

?

No, I won't bother.
What you admit one day, you have forgotten the next.

I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
c but at c+v.
Ah. Sagnac! :-)
We all know what Sagnac does to the emission theory, don't we?

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...optic_gyro.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html

All wrong. Quite hilarious really.

I challenge you to point out a single error in those articles.
We both know you won't do it because you can't.
Sagnac falsifies the emission theory.
No question about it.

BTW, Henri.
About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
Only a very few of them are variables.
The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.

Wrong. Quite hilarious really.

Please point out which of these statement are wrong:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.

We both know you won't do it because you can't.

This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.

You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?

From these statements which you are unable to refute:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.
it follows:
It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:28:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:22:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
Had you forgotten that, Henri?

No. I have always stressed that stars with Algol type curves might or might not
be really eclipsing.

But since the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR, this statement of yours:

If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?

..is an admission that Algol IS an eclipsing binary.

It is of little importance whether it is or is not. The undeniable fact
according to BaTh, is that many stars in moderately eccentric orbit with their
perihelia nearest Earth will exhibit brightness curves similar to genuinely
eclipsing binaries.
Spectral analysis may resolve the issue or it may be quite misleading.
Having been completely misled for 100 years already, Einsteinian relativists
are unlikely to notice the difference.

The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
brightness curves with wavelength.
So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/O-Gspect.gif
is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/G-Mspect.gif
A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)

Even YOU should know why some roses are red and others yellow in the same
sunlight.

So you think the fact that roses come in multiple colours
can defend this quite hillarious statement:

The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
[of an A8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.


But you are possibly too stupid to understand the gigantic
stupidity of this statement.
Nothing is too stupid .. etc.

Which is the star and which is the planet?
Have you not considered the possible existence of binaries that consist of a
small hot and bright star orbiting a very large cool object that appears maybe
as bright as the star.
In fact this configuration might explain some of the larger magnitude
fluctuations that are observed.


So what, indeed! :-)

Will Henri admit that he has admitted that the emission theory cannot
explain the spectral band dependence of the light curve at all? :-)
I predict he won't.
Henri never admits having admitted what he has admitted. :-)

Henri has already explained such phenomena.
Different bands tend to originate from slightly different levels...which makes
the 'v' in c+v different.
Also, the local extinction rate is presumably wavelength dependent.

Should I remind you why you gave up these arguments back in 2005,
when you ended up admitting that:

If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?

So what?
Just because I others have finally exposed the relativity myth doesn't mean we
can produce all the answers overninght.

No, I won't bother.
What you admit one day, you have forgotten the next.

What I say one day you misquote the next.

I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
c but at c+v.
Ah. Sagnac! :-)
We all know what Sagnac does to the emission theory, don't we?

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...optic_gyro.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html

All wrong. Quite hilarious really.

I challenge you to point out a single error in those articles.
We both know you won't do it because you can't.
Sagnac falsifies the emission theory.
No question about it.

Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh. Absolutely no doubt about it.

BTW, Henri.
About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
Only a very few of them are variables.
The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.

Wrong. Quite hilarious really.

Please point out which of these statement are wrong:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.

We both know you won't do it because you can't.

I have already explained that most would not be expected to vary because the
conditions are not right.
Here again are a few reasons:
1) If the members of binary pair are fairly similar, the sum of the individual
brightness variations adds to nearly zero. (I have tried to explain that
sinx+sin(x+180) = zero....but apparently trig functions are not taught in
Norway.)
2) All the light emitted by close binaries leaves the vicinity at c wrt the
barycentre of the pair, hence no expected variation. The individual
contributions are still doppler shifted correctly.
3) The distance from earth is not conducive to brightness variation.
4) A statistical proportion of orbits are approximately face on to Earth.

This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.

You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?

From these statements which you are unable to refute:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.
it follows:
It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.

It really is a tragedy that people like yourself are so indoctrinated at an
early age that they are quite incapable of seeing beyond their own belief
system..


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:28:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:22:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
Had you forgotten that, Henri?
No. I have always stressed that stars with Algol type curves might or might not
be really eclipsing.
But since the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR, this statement of yours:

If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
..is an admission that Algol IS an eclipsing binary.

It is of little importance whether it is or is not. The undeniable fact
according to BaTh, is that many stars in moderately eccentric orbit with their
perihelia nearest Earth will exhibit brightness curves similar to genuinely
eclipsing binaries.
Spectral analysis may resolve the issue or it may be quite misleading.
Having been completely misled for 100 years already, Einsteinian relativists
are unlikely to notice the difference.

The fact is that the BaTh fails to predict what we observe.
You have admitted that the obseved light curve of Algol in visible
and IR can only be explained by the conventional theory, and that it is
an eclipsing binary. But even if it is eclipsing, the BaTh still predicts
a variation due to the motion of the components. This variation
is _not_ opserved.

The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
brightness curves with wavelength.
So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)

That should be A B8 spectrum.

http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/O-Gspect.gif
is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/G-Mspect.gif
A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)
Even YOU should know why some roses are red and others yellow in the same
sunlight.
So you think the fact that roses come in multiple colours
can defend this quite hillarious statement:

The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
[of an A8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
But you are possibly too stupid to understand the gigantic
stupidity of this statement.
Nothing is too stupid .. etc.

Which is the star and which is the planet?

There is no planet.
The spectrum tells us that it is an B8 and a K2 star orbiting
each other.

Have you not considered the possible existence of binaries that consist of a
small hot and bright star orbiting a very large cool object that appears maybe
as bright as the star.

That would be a hot (young) white dwarf orbiting a red giant.
Sure there are binaries like that.
So what?
We are talking about Algol, which is a hot B8 star orbiting a cool K2 giant.
The cool object is larger than hot hot object, but not brighter.

In fact this configuration might explain some of the larger magnitude
fluctuations that are observed.

Was this meant to defend this statement of yours,
which you said about Algol?

The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
[ of an B8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.


You _are_ too stupid to grasp the idiocy of this statement,
are you not? :-)

So what, indeed! :-)

Will Henri admit that he has admitted that the emission theory cannot
explain the spectral band dependence of the light curve at all? :-)
I predict he won't.
Henri never admits having admitted what he has admitted. :-)
Henri has already explained such phenomena.
Different bands tend to originate from slightly different levels...which makes
the 'v' in c+v different.
Also, the local extinction rate is presumably wavelength dependent.
Should I remind you why you gave up these arguments back in 2005,
when you ended up admitting that:

If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?

So what?
Just because I others have finally exposed the relativity myth doesn't mean we
can produce all the answers overninght.

And you have "exposed" that the conventional theory
is wrong because it so very well explains what is observed? :-)

And from this you conclude that the "BaTh" must be correct
because it is unable to explain what is observed? :-)

You are indeed doing very well now, are you not? :-)

No, I won't bother.
What you admit one day, you have forgotten the next.

What I say one day you misquote the next.

I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
c but at c+v.
Ah. Sagnac! :-)
We all know what Sagnac does to the emission theory, don't we?

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...optic_gyro.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html
All wrong. Quite hilarious really.
I challenge you to point out a single error in those articles.
We both know you won't do it because you can't.
Sagnac falsifies the emission theory.
No question about it.

Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh. Absolutely no doubt about it.

:-)

BTW, Henri.
About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
Only a very few of them are variables.
The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.
Wrong. Quite hilarious really.
Please point out which of these statement are wrong:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.

We both know you won't do it because you can't.

I have already explained that most would not be expected to vary because the
conditions are not right.
Here again are a few reasons:
1) If the members of binary pair are fairly similar, the sum of the individual
brightness variations adds to nearly zero. (I have tried to explain that
sinx+sin(x+180) = zero....but apparently trig functions are not taught in
Norway.)

This is nonsense, and you know it.
The predicted brightness variation from each component will almost
never be sinusoidal, so they will not cancel each other.

2) All the light emitted by close binaries leaves the vicinity at c wrt the
barycentre of the pair, hence no expected variation. The individual
contributions are still doppler shifted correctly.

Most binaries are not close.

3) The distance from earth is not conducive to brightness variation.
4) A statistical proportion of orbits are approximately face on to Earth.

Sure.
But those are the binaries we don't know about.
The vast majority of known binaries are spectroscopic,
and they are never face on to the Earth, of reasons so obvious
that even you must understand it.

http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~corcoran/sb8.html

You still haven't refuted any of these statements:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.

so the conclusion stands:
It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.


This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?
From these statements which you are unable to refute:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.
it follows:
It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.

It really is a tragedy that people like yourself are so indoctrinated at an
early age that they are quite incapable of seeing beyond their own belief
system..

So you think I should convert to your belief system,
and share your blind faith in a theory which is thorowly
falsified? :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
| On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:28:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:
|
| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
| On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:22:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:
|
| So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
| Had you forgotten that, Henri?
| No. I have always stressed that stars with Algol type curves might or
might not
| be really eclipsing.
| But since the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR, this statement of
yours:
|
| If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a
secondary
| eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
| ..is an admission that Algol IS an eclipsing binary.
|
| It is of little importance whether it is or is not. The undeniable fact
| according to BaTh, is that many stars in moderately eccentric orbit with
their
| perihelia nearest Earth will exhibit brightness curves similar to
genuinely
| eclipsing binaries.
| Spectral analysis may resolve the issue or it may be quite misleading.
| Having been completely misled for 100 years already, Einsteinian
relativists
| are unlikely to notice the difference.
|
| The fact is that the BaTh fails to predict what we observe.


The fact is that there should be a significant velocity curve if
the eclipsing theory were credible.
The fact is emission fact is a fact.
The fact is Tusseladd is a proven liar and a jealous, prejudiced bigot, and
as we know, dishonest through and through.)

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../DeriveMC2.htm
(Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles "quoted" on his page
above. Androcles is, as we know, dishonest through and through.) - ASSistant
Professor Paul B. Andersen of Agder University College, Kristiansand,
Norway.

The fact is Mira doesn't have a tail, even if Andersen does.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.htm

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:07:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:28:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


It is of little importance whether it is or is not. The undeniable fact
according to BaTh, is that many stars in moderately eccentric orbit with their
perihelia nearest Earth will exhibit brightness curves similar to genuinely
eclipsing binaries.
Spectral analysis may resolve the issue or it may be quite misleading.
Having been completely misled for 100 years already, Einsteinian relativists
are unlikely to notice the difference.

The fact is that the BaTh fails to predict what we observe.

How would YOU know.
You don't even understand the basics.

You have admitted that the obseved light curve of Algol in visible
and IR can only be explained by the conventional theory, and that it is
an eclipsing binary. But even if it is eclipsing, the BaTh still predicts
a variation due to the motion of the components. This variation
is _not_ opserved.

I have admitted no such thing.
Whatever we observe is must be in accordance with BaTh. Light clearly moves at
c wrt its source and c+v wrt the observer.

The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
brightness curves with wavelength.
So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)

That should be A B8 spectrum.

how weak is it?

http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/O-Gspect.gif
is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/G-Mspect.gif
A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)
Even YOU should know why some roses are red and others yellow in the same
sunlight.
So you think the fact that roses come in multiple colours
can defend this quite hillarious statement:

The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
[of an A8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
But you are possibly too stupid to understand the gigantic
stupidity of this statement.
Nothing is too stupid .. etc.

Which is the star and which is the planet?

There is no planet.
The spectrum tells us that it is an B8 and a K2 star orbiting
each other.

What is the orbit eccentricity?

Have you not considered the possible existence of binaries that consist of a
small hot and bright star orbiting a very large cool object that appears maybe
as bright as the star.

That would be a hot (young) white dwarf orbiting a red giant.
Sure there are binaries like that.
So what?
We are talking about Algol, which is a hot B8 star orbiting a cool K2 giant.
The cool object is larger than hot hot object, but not brighter.

I'm not particularly interested in Algol. Its brightness curve may or may not
indicate an eclipse. It may or may no be a consequence of c+v variation.

In fact this configuration might explain some of the larger magnitude
fluctuations that are observed.

Was this meant to defend this statement of yours,
which you said about Algol?

The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
[ of an B8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.


You _are_ too stupid to grasp the idiocy of this statement,
are you not? :-)

A small hot star refecting off a very large orbiting WCH could easily result in
two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out of phase.



If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?

So what?
Just because I others have finally exposed the relativity myth doesn't mean we
can produce all the answers overninght.

And you have "exposed" that the conventional theory
is wrong because it so very well explains what is observed? :-)

It doesn't. It tries to explain willusions and ends up in a helluva mess.

And from this you conclude that the "BaTh" must be correct
because it is unable to explain what is observed? :-)

You are indeed doing very well now, are you not? :-)

BaTh explains what is observed.




We both know you won't do it because you can't.

I have already explained that most would not be expected to vary because the
conditions are not right.
Here again are a few reasons:
1) If the members of binary pair are fairly similar, the sum of the individual
brightness variations adds to nearly zero. (I have tried to explain that
sinx+sin(x+180) = zero....but apparently trig functions are not taught in
Norway.)

This is nonsense, and you know it.
The predicted brightness variation from each component will almost
never be sinusoidal, so they will not cancel each other.

Paul, run my program and see for yourself. I have done the work. You know
nothing about the subject and continue to make a fool of yourself.

Most binaries have fairly circular orbits. If the members are similar in size,
their brightness curves almost cancel each other.
In fact, if one is considerably larger than the other, it will move more slowly
and have a smaller magnitude variation. But its larger size makes it
brighter...so much of the cancellation remains.

2) All the light emitted by close binaries leaves the vicinity at c wrt the
barycentre of the pair, hence no expected variation. The individual
contributions are still doppler shifted correctly.

Most binaries are not close.

That's OK. see above.

3) The distance from earth is not conducive to brightness variation.
4) A statistical proportion of orbits are approximately face on to Earth.

Sure.
But those are the binaries we don't know about.
The vast majority of known binaries are spectroscopic,
and they are never face on to the Earth, of reasons so obvious
that even you must understand it.

http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~corcoran/sb8.html

You still haven't refuted any of these statements:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.

It does not. Usually the iindividual curves will canel each other. Read above.

so the conclusion stands:
It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.

The only blatantly obvious conclusion is that you do not wish to improve your
knowledge or mind.

This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?
From these statements which you are unable to refute:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.
it follows:
It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.

It really is a tragedy that people like yourself are so indoctrinated at an
early age that they are quite incapable of seeing beyond their own belief
system..

So you think I should convert to your belief system,
and share your blind faith in a theory which is thorowly
falsified? :-)

BaTh is not a belief system. It is established fact. Every known light
experiment supports it.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....