Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
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.

Since "the BaTh" doesn't actually predict anything which can be measured,
it doesn't meet the first criterion of a scientific theory: it must
be falsifiable. "The BaTh" isn't a theory of physics, it is a religion.

The Ritz emission theory, OTOH, _is_ falsifiable and _is_ falsified
by numerous experiments and observations.
The Sagnac experiment is one of them:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf

--
Paul

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

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:52:29 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"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 ?

This is obviously far too hard for you. Stop making a fool of yourself and go
quietly away.


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

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

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:06:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
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.

Since "the BaTh" doesn't actually predict anything which can be measured,
it doesn't meet the first criterion of a scientific theory: it must
be falsifiable. "The BaTh" isn't a theory of physics, it is a religion.

The Ritz emission theory, OTOH, _is_ falsifiable and _is_ falsified
by numerous experiments and observations.
The Sagnac experiment is one of them:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf

hahahahahaha!
Completely wrong....



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

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

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:29:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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


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?

The spectrum of Mars will contain most if not all of emission and absorption
lines of our Sun but in different proportions to the original.
The relevant factor is that the peak wavelength in the distribution curve
WHICH IS AN INDICATOR OF TEMPERATURE, IE., STAR TYPE will probably be lower in
the case of Mars.

......Understand now?

Indeed. I AM talking to a complete moron.

No, YOU are writing messages like one.



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 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:06:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
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.
Since "the BaTh" doesn't actually predict anything which can be measured,
it doesn't meet the first criterion of a scientific theory: it must
be falsifiable. "The BaTh" isn't a theory of physics, it is a religion.

The Ritz emission theory, OTOH, _is_ falsifiable and _is_ falsified
by numerous experiments and observations.
The Sagnac experiment is one of them:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf

hahahahahaha!
Completely wrong....

Whenever you use the very convincing argument "hahahahahaha!",
you show that you are unable to prove what you claim.

So thanks for confirming your inability to find any error in these:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf

--
Paul

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

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:29:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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

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?

The spectrum of Mars will contain most if not all of emission and absorption
lines of our Sun but in different proportions to the original.
The relevant factor is that the peak wavelength in the distribution curve
WHICH IS AN INDICATOR OF TEMPERATURE, IE., STAR TYPE will probably be lower in
the case of Mars.

......Understand now?
Indeed. I AM talking to a complete moron.

No, YOU are writing messages like one.

Indeed.
That's because I am quoting messages by one:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."

--
Paul

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

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:07:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:06:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

The Ritz emission theory, OTOH, _is_ falsifiable and _is_ falsified
by numerous experiments and observations.
The Sagnac experiment is one of them:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf

hahahahahaha!
Completely wrong....

Whenever you use the very convincing argument "hahahahahaha!",
you show that you are unable to prove what you claim.

So thanks for confirming your inability to find any error in these:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf

Here is your Ritzian analysis:
"""""""""""""""""""""
The prediction of the Ritz Emission Theory
The difference in transit times method.
According to the Ritz Emission Theory the speed of light is c+v in the forward
beam and c-v in the backward beam.

The transit time tf of the beam emitted in the forward direction =
The transit time tb of the beam emitted in the reverse direction =

2pir/c

The difference in transit times = 0
"""""""""""""""""""""
Correct so far.


The predicted phase difference is thus = 0

WRONG!!!!!!

You fail to take account of the fact that in the nonrotating frame, the two
rays are doppler shifted by (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c.
Since the travel times are the same (in the nonrotating frame) the two rays are
out of phase at the (stationary) point where they reunite at the
detector/source.
BaTh predicts a fringe displacement of = 4Aw /clambda

That is your first mistake.

In your 'wavelength method', you wrongly use the rotating frame to claim that
the path lengths are the same, namely 2piR.

This second mistake is a typical example of the relativist's inability to
understand physical processes. You claim that the rotating ring when viewed in
the rotating frame is exactly the same situation as the non-rotating ring
viewed in the nonrotating frame.

You fail to take into account that, in the rotating frame, the emission point
of each element appears to MOVES BACKWARDS.

The path lengths are thus different - namely: 2piR(c-v)/c and 2piR(c+v)/c .

Wavelength is indeed constant. The correct analysis gives the experimentally
verified result.

Path length difference = 4piRv/c
= 4Aw /c
Fringe Displacement
= 4Aw /clambda






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

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

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:29:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

The spectrum of Mars will contain most if not all of emission and absorption
lines of our Sun but in different proportions to the original.
The relevant factor is that the peak wavelength in the distribution curve
WHICH IS AN INDICATOR OF TEMPERATURE, IE., STAR TYPE will probably be lower in
the case of Mars.

......Understand now?
Indeed. I AM talking to a complete moron.

No, YOU are writing messages like one.

Indeed.
That's because I am quoting messages by one:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."

You didn't read it properly.
I said the light from a small hot star when reflected off a close orbiting
planet could easily be mistaken for light being emitted from a second
star....since the doppler shifts of light from the two would be 180 out of
phase.

The wavelength distribution would also likely be different, probably with the
mode shifted towards the red, making the 'second star' appear cooler.




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, 22 Apr 2008 09:07:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:06:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

The Ritz emission theory, OTOH, _is_ falsifiable and _is_ falsified
by numerous experiments and observations.
The Sagnac experiment is one of them:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf
hahahahahaha!
Completely wrong....
Whenever you use the very convincing argument "hahahahahaha!",
you show that you are unable to prove what you claim.

So thanks for confirming your inability to find any error in these:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...ror_sagnac.pdf

Here is your Ritzian analysis:
"""""""""""""""""""""
The prediction of the Ritz Emission Theory
The difference in transit times method.
According to the Ritz Emission Theory the speed of light is c+v in the forward
beam and c-v in the backward beam.

The transit time tf of the beam emitted in the forward direction =
The transit time tb of the beam emitted in the reverse direction =

2pir/c

The difference in transit times = 0
"""""""""""""""""""""
Correct so far.


The predicted phase difference is thus = 0

WRONG!!!!!!

You fail to take account of the fact that in the nonrotating frame, the two
rays are doppler shifted by (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c.
Since the travel times are the same (in the nonrotating frame) the two rays are
out of phase at the (stationary) point where they reunite at the
detector/source.
BaTh predicts a fringe displacement of = 4Aw /clambda

That is your first mistake.

In your 'wavelength method', you wrongly use the rotating frame to claim that
the path lengths are the same, namely 2piR.

This second mistake is a typical example of the relativist's inability to
understand physical processes. You claim that the rotating ring when viewed in
the rotating frame is exactly the same situation as the non-rotating ring
viewed in the nonrotating frame.

You fail to take into account that, in the rotating frame, the emission point
of each element appears to MOVES BACKWARDS.

The path lengths are thus different - namely: 2piR(c-v)/c and 2piR(c+v)/c .

Wavelength is indeed constant. The correct analysis gives the experimentally
verified result.

Path length difference = 4piRv/c
= 4Aw /c
Fringe Displacement
= 4Aw /clambda


Your mindless babble is refuted numerous times by
numerous people, including me.

This statement of your sums up your confusion pretty well:
Henri Wilson wrote:
| YOUR 'wave' is a frozen sinewave that 'moves'.
|
| MY wave is one in which the phase of the leading edge
| is cycling as it moves.

Hilarious, no? :-)

--
Paul

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

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:29:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

The spectrum of Mars will contain most if not all of emission and absorption
lines of our Sun but in different proportions to the original.
The relevant factor is that the peak wavelength in the distribution curve
WHICH IS AN INDICATOR OF TEMPERATURE, IE., STAR TYPE will probably be lower in
the case of Mars.

......Understand now?
Indeed. I AM talking to a complete moron.
No, YOU are writing messages like one.
Indeed.
That's because I am quoting messages by one:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."

You didn't read it properly.

I quoted you litterally, and I read what you wrote.

I said the light from a small hot star when reflected off a close orbiting
planet could easily be mistaken for light being emitted from a second
star....since the doppler shifts of light from the two would be 180 out of
phase.

The wavelength distribution would also likely be different, probably with the
mode shifted towards the red, making the 'second star' appear cooler.

Not much better.
Light reflected off a planet will never
be mistaken for the light from a star.

But is this an attempt to flee your statement about Algol,
namely that the secondary K2 spectrum could easily be a reflection
of the primary B8 spectrum from a large cool dead star or planet?

Do you retract this statement, or do you defend it?

Or is this another case where you didn't say what you said? :-)

--
Paul

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