"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...

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.

When you say "whatever we observe must be in accordance. . . " it seems that
you are demanding the right to define the rules that the universe must
follow.

Do you in any way accept that you could be wrong?

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
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.

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?"

The secondary eclipse IS visible in IR.

Whatever we observe is must be in accordance with BaTh. Light clearly moves at
c wrt its source and c+v wrt the observer.

But it isn't.

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.

You know Algol IS an eclipsing binary, whic accounts for the variation.
We do not see the consequence of the c+v variation, because there is none.
We do not observe what the BaTh predicts we should.

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.

So you ARE too stupid to understand the giant idiocy
in such a statement.



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.

So to predict what is observed is a 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.


Is too, is too. :-)

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.

This still isn't true.
And in the vast majority ov binaries, the components are not of similar size.

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

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.

The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of binaries
should be variables. And you know it even if you won't admit it.

That's one of the strange aspects of fanatics like you.
You claim what you must know is wrong.

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.

Don't be ridiculous.
The emission theory is falsified by a vast number of experiments
and observations.

You must be a religious fanatic not to see that.

--
Paul

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

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:41:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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


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?"

The secondary eclipse IS visible in IR.

Whatever we observe is must be in accordance with BaTh. Light clearly moves at
c wrt its source and c+v wrt the observer.

But it isn't.

Oh well! There must be an absolute aether.
Einstein was completely wrong.


The spectrum tells us that it is an B8 and a K2 star orbiting
each other.

What is the orbit eccentricity?

I thought you knew everything Paul.

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.

You know Algol IS an eclipsing binary, whic accounts for the variation.
We do not see the consequence of the c+v variation, because there is none.
We do not observe what the BaTh predicts we should.

You have no idea what the BaTh predicts so how would you know.

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.

So you ARE too stupid to understand the giant idiocy
in such a statement.

Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a curve that had a
large dip something like an eclipse, for obvious reasons.

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.

So to predict what is observed is a mess? :-)

Read any paper that attempts to explain brightness variation generally. You
will usually find just silly speculation.

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.


Is too, is too. :-)

Either Einstein's second postulate is nonsense or an absolute aether exists.
No doubt about that.


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.

This still isn't true.
And in the vast majority ov binaries, the components are not of similar size.

that doesn't matter. see below

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

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.

The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of binaries
should be variables. And you know it even if you won't admit it.

That's one of the strange aspects of fanatics like you.
You claim what you must know is wrong.

Paul, I have provided the explanations.
There is nothing more I can do to help you escape from your indoctrination.
I feel very sorry for you. Truth cannot enter your brain.


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.

Don't be ridiculous.
The emission theory is falsified by a vast number of experiments
and observations.

Like sagnac, I suppose..

You must be a religious fanatic not to see that.

You relativists still believe that a rotating object viewed in its rotating
frame behaves exactly as it does when not rotating and viewed in the
nonrotating frame.

This is so amusing. For one thing, it proves conclusively that no winds ever
blow on planet Earth.

hahahahahaaha!


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

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

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:41:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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

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.

So you ARE too stupid to understand the giant idiocy
in such a statement.

Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a curve that had a
large dip something like an eclipse, for obvious reasons.

Good grief!
I must be talking to a complete moron.

--
Paul

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

On Apr 20, 7:09*am, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:

Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a
curve that had a large dip something like an eclipse, for
obvious reasons.

Good grief!
I must be talking to a complete moron.


Of course, Henri consistently succeeds in fitting curves assuming
this scenario... by drawing in points by hand...
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus.../deception.htm

Jerry

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:09:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:41:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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

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.

So you ARE too stupid to understand the giant idiocy
in such a statement.

Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a curve that had a
large dip something like an eclipse, for obvious reasons.

Good grief!
I must be talking to a complete moron.

this is obviously way too hard for you.

A large cool planet, orbiting a star would periodically change brightness for
the simple reason that its illuminated side would be partially hidden from an
Earth viewer by a roughly sinusoidally varying amount. When it was in line with
Earth, it could be completely dark if in an edge on orbit.

......get it so far?

Of course its reflected spectra would contain only the lines of the star but in
considerably different proportions depending on the nature of its surface.

The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a cooler
star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase wrt the
star.

.......Understand now?







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

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

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:10:06 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:

On Apr 20, 7:09*am, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:

Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a
curve that had a large dip something like an eclipse, for
obvious reasons.

Good grief!
I must be talking to a complete moron.


Of course, Henri consistently succeeds in fitting curves assuming
this scenario... by drawing in points by hand...
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus.../deception.htm

BaTh is not refuted by the refusal of its opponents to read or understand the
reasons why their pathetic refutation attempts are themselves refuted.

Jerry



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

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
cooler
star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase wrt
the
star.


What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:10:06 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:

On Apr 20, 7:09 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:

Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a
curve that had a large dip something like an eclipse, for
obvious reasons.

Good grief!
I must be talking to a complete moron.


Of course, Henri consistently succeeds in fitting curves assuming
this scenario... by drawing in points by hand...
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus.../deception.htm

BaTh is not refuted by the refusal of its opponents to read or understand
the
reasons why their pathetic refutation attempts are themselves refuted.


True.
That is not the reason.

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:09:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:41:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:07:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
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.
So you ARE too stupid to understand the giant idiocy
in such a statement.
Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a curve that had a
large dip something like an eclipse, for obvious reasons.
Good grief!
I must be talking to a complete moron.

this is obviously way too hard for you.

A large cool planet, orbiting a star would periodically change brightness for
the simple reason that its illuminated side would be partially hidden from an
Earth viewer by a roughly sinusoidally varying amount. When it was in line with
Earth, it could be completely dark if in an edge on orbit.

.....get it so far?

Of course its reflected spectra would contain only the lines of the star but in
considerably different proportions depending on the nature of its surface.

The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a cooler
star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase wrt the
star.

And the spectrum of Mars can easily be mistaken for what kind of star?

......Understand now?

Indeed. I AM talking to a complete moron.

--
Paul

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