"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On 3 Sep 2004 06:34:09 -0700, (Myxococcus xanthus)
wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

But why would you call the secondary a "dark companion"
or a planet when we know it is a K4 star?

You don't know that.
You cannot resolve the orbits. You cannot see each star individually. All you
see is the combined brightness variation.

You can resolve their spectra. Learn some astronomy.

and the spectra are fully explained buy the ballistic theory.

I would indeed like to see how the ballistic theory explains
that the spectrum from "a dark companion" or a planet
should look like the spectrum of a K4 star.

Can you explain that, please?

Paul

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:35:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:47:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:




Living in the same fantasy world as Androcles an Henri Wilson, are you? :-)

Just look at the curves predicted by the ballistic theory Paul;. See for
yourself.

That's exactly what I have done, Henry.
I have looked what the ballistic theory predicts
the light curve of Algol should look when we use
the real, measured data. It is indeed very different
from the observed one.

Rot!

The Algol type curve is a common prediction of the ballistic theory.
All stars in orbits with eccentricity above about 0.5 and with their
perihelions nearest to the observer will exhibit this common curve.

Einstein based analysis says these are eclipsinig stars. In general, they are
not.


You are making a big fool of yourself.
Even bigger than Einstein.



The radial velocity of the primary B8 star is measured to be 4 km/s.

that may be so, maybe not.

It is so.
Spectroscopy.
Real measured data.

..within what limits?


I can tell you that if you use real measured data for Algol,
the ballistic theory predicts the light curve to be very different
from what it actually is.

No Paul, the 'constant c' myth produces a model of Algol that is very different
from what it actually is.

We know all the important data for Algol, you do not have to invent them.
The ballistic theory predicts a light curve very different from
what is observed.

The ballistic theory predicts curves exactly like Algol's.
What are you tring to prove..That you are an idiot?
Have a look for yourself.

Enter the correct data into your program and see for yourself.

...and what IS the correct data...according to the indoctrinated DHR CDs?


Whenever we know the data of a binary,
the predictions of the ballistic theory are way off.

You are blind

Quite the contrary, Henry.
I can clearly see that whenever we use known, measured
data for a binary, the predictions of the ballistic theory
are way off.

I challenge you to show a single example of the contrary.
You can not!
You HAVE however proven that your program predicts
that close binaries which are NOT variables should be.

But you are blind and don't see the wrong predictions
of your own program, right? :-)

Don't repeat this lie, Paul.

Why don't youi just give up your faith. It is dead.


Paul



Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:30:49 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html

Yes, there must be plenty like this.

Ther must also be plenty of stars orbiting red giants, white dwarfs, gallactic
centres and any other lump of matter one can think of.

Everything is in orbit around something else.

Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:45:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Androcles" skrev i melding ...

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:47:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding
...
| On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Robert" H@.. skrev i melding
...
| On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:27:55 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:

" http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html
I told you so."
Androcles.

Listen to Androcles, Henri.
He is telling you that spectroscopic measurements
are so sensitive that a radial velocity of 15 m/s
can be measured.

And you think the 4 km/s radial velocity of the primary
of Algol is NOT measured? :-)

Paul


So what?

Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:49:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On 3 Sep 2004 06:34:09 -0700, (Myxococcus xanthus)
wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

But why would you call the secondary a "dark companion"
or a planet when we know it is a K4 star?

You don't know that.
You cannot resolve the orbits. You cannot see each star individually. All you
see is the combined brightness variation.

You can resolve their spectra. Learn some astronomy.

and the spectra are fully explained buy the ballistic theory.

I would indeed like to see how the ballistic theory explains
that the spectrum from "a dark companion" or a planet
should look like the spectrum of a K4 star.

Can you explain that, please?

If it is a K4 it obviously isn't a dark companion. So what?


Paul



Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Sun, 05 Sep 2004 20:57:36 GMT
:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:35:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

[snip]

But you are blind and don't see the wrong predictions
of your own program, right? :-)

Don't repeat this lie, Paul.

Why don't youi just give up your faith. It is dead.

Explain, then, why the Crab Nebula supernova faded into insignificance
after just 1 year.

Parameters:

Estimated distance: 7,000 light years
Estimated size: 10 light years
Explosion time: 1054 A.D.
Computed speed of matter: 1/95 c
Computed red-blue delta: 1/47.5 c * 7000 l-year = 147.4 years
(assuming spherical shell)

[snip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:35:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:47:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:




Living in the same fantasy world as Androcles an Henri Wilson, are you? :-)

Just look at the curves predicted by the ballistic theory Paul;. See for
yourself.

That's exactly what I have done, Henry.
I have looked what the ballistic theory predicts
the light curve of Algol should look when we use
the real, measured data. It is indeed very different
from the observed one.

Rot!

The Algol type curve is a common prediction of the ballistic theory.
All stars in orbits with eccentricity above about 0.5 and with their
perihelions nearest to the observer will exhibit this common curve.

If you use the real, measured radial velocity, and not
your carefully tuned fantacy velocity, the ballistic
theory predicts that the light curve of Algol should
be very different from what it factually is.


Einstein based analysis says these are eclipsinig stars. In general, they are
not.

Algol is.

You are making a big fool of yourself.
Even bigger than Einstein.



The radial velocity of the primary B8 star is measured to be 4 km/s.

that may be so, maybe not.

It is so.
Spectroscopy.
Real measured data.

..within what limits?


I can tell you that if you use real measured data for Algol,
the ballistic theory predicts the light curve to be very different
from what it actually is.

No Paul, the 'constant c' myth produces a model of Algol that is very different
from what it actually is.

We know all the important data for Algol, you do not have to invent them.
The ballistic theory predicts a light curve very different from
what is observed.

The ballistic theory predicts curves exactly like Algol's.
What are you tring to prove..That you are an idiot?
Have a look for yourself.

Enter the correct data into your program and see for yourself.

..and what IS the correct data...according to the indoctrinated DHR CDs?

I told you.
The _measured_ radial velocity of the primary is 4 km/s.

Whenever we know the data of a binary,
the predictions of the ballistic theory are way off.

You are blind

Quite the contrary, Henry.
I can clearly see that whenever we use known, measured
data for a binary, the predictions of the ballistic theory
are way off.

I challenge you to show a single example of the contrary.
You can not!
You HAVE however proven that your program predicts
that close binaries which are NOT variables should be.

But you are blind and don't see the wrong predictions
of your own program, right? :-)

Don't repeat this lie, Paul.

Does that mean that you lied when stating that your
program predicted the same as my calculation for
the light curve of HD80715?

Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004:
| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory
| predicts HD80715 should look like.
| From:
| http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9912/9912158.pdf
| You can see from the spectrum that the H_alpha line split ca. 2.5A,
| which is a relative split of 3.8*10^-4.
| This means that the amplitude of each component is ca. 1.9*10^-4.
| The amplitude of the radial (from observer) component of
| the orbital speed will thus be v/c = 1.9*10^-4, or v = 57 km/s.
| The period is 3.8 days.
| From:
| http://astro.estec.esa.nl/hipparcos_...logueSearch.pl
| we find that the distance is 24 parsecs.
|
| These number will give the ratio (2*pi*d*v/c^2)/p
| the value 9.
| So we will during one period see five stars all the time,
| and two additional stars part of the time. These two last
| stars will either merge in a brilliant flash, or suddenly
| appear in a brilliant flash and then split.
| These flashes will be brighter than 1 for 0.036 period,
| brighter than 10 for 0.0004 period,
| brighter than 100 for 0.000004 period.
| By adding the brightness of the stars, we will get
| the following light curve:
|
| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1.
| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star
| N is number of stars seen.
|
| phase brightness N
|
| 0.0 1.22 7
| 0.1 1.21 7
| 0.17 1.97 7
| 0.18 2.45 7
| 0.19 5.90 7
| 0.1913 60.00 7
| 0.191310 infinite 7-5
| 0.2 0.66 5
| 0.3 0.64 5
| 0.4 0.63 5
| 0.5 0.62 5
| 0.6 0.63 5
| 0.7 0.64 5
| 0.8 0.67 5
| 0.808719 infinite 5-7
| 0.8089 21.6 7
| 0.809 11.80 7
| 0.81 3.90 7
| 0.9 1.34 7
| 1.0 1.22 7
|
| Note that the integral over one period is 1,
| that is the average brightness is 1.
|
| The above is for one of the stars, you can get
| the light curve for both stars by translating
| the above half a period and adding.

Henri Wilson responded:
| I can get these figures from my program.
|
| Surprisingly, they agree exactly with yours..... proves my program is
| correct.... not that I ever doubted it.
|
| So I could have saved you all that time and trouble.
| Just click your mouse a
| few times and...there is your curve.

Why don't youi just give up your faith. It is dead.

Which faith are you referring to?
That according to Henri Wilson, the ballistic theory
predicts that binaries which are not variables should be so?

Paul

"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:49:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On 3 Sep 2004 06:34:09 -0700, (Myxococcus xanthus)
wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

But why would you call the secondary a "dark companion"
or a planet when we know it is a K4 star?

You don't know that.
You cannot resolve the orbits. You cannot see each star individually. All you
see is the combined brightness variation.

You can resolve their spectra. Learn some astronomy.

and the spectra are fully explained buy the ballistic theory.

I would indeed like to see how the ballistic theory explains
that the spectrum from "a dark companion" or a planet
should look like the spectrum of a K4 star.

Can you explain that, please?

If it is a K4 it obviously isn't a dark companion. So what?

A wise retreat, Henry. :-)

By admitting that you were wrong when calling it
a "dark companion" or planet, you don't have to defend your
claim that the ballistic theory can explain how the spectrum
of your dark companion look like the spectrum of a K4 star.

Paul

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:10:34 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Sun, 05 Sep 2004 20:57:36 GMT
:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:35:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

[snip]

But you are blind and don't see the wrong predictions
of your own program, right? :-)

Don't repeat this lie, Paul.

Why don't youi just give up your faith. It is dead.

Explain, then, why the Crab Nebula supernova faded into insignificance
after just 1 year.

Parameters:

Estimated distance: 7,000 light years
Estimated size: 10 light years
Explosion time: 1054 A.D.
Computed speed of matter: 1/95 c
Computed red-blue delta: 1/47.5 c * 7000 l-year = 147.4 years
(assuming spherical shell)

[snip]

I don't know Ghost. I haven't thought about it. Maybe your parameters are all
wrong.

If it involves the source dependency of light speed, then no doubt the
explanation is simple.

The only difference between a preacher and a used car salemans is that the latter actually has a product to sell.

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:07:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:35:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


The ballistic theory predicts curves exactly like Algol's.
What are you tring to prove..That you are an idiot?
Have a look for yourself.

Enter the correct data into your program and see for yourself.

..and what IS the correct data...according to the indoctrinated DHR CDs?

I told you.
The _measured_ radial velocity of the primary is 4 km/s.

What is its supposed distance and orbit eccentrity?


Whenever we know the data of a binary,
the predictions of the ballistic theory are way off.

You are blind

Quite the contrary, Henry.
I can clearly see that whenever we use known, measured
data for a binary, the predictions of the ballistic theory
are way off.

I challenge you to show a single example of the contrary.
You can not!
You HAVE however proven that your program predicts
that close binaries which are NOT variables should be.

But you are blind and don't see the wrong predictions
of your own program, right? :-)

Don't repeat this lie, Paul.

Does that mean that you lied when stating that your
program predicted the same as my calculation for
the light curve of HD80715?

Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004:
| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory
| predicts HD80715 should look like.
| From:
| http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9912/9912158.pdf
| You can see from the spectrum that the H_alpha line split ca. 2.5A,
| which is a relative split of 3.8*10^-4.
| This means that the amplitude of each component is ca. 1.9*10^-4.
| The amplitude of the radial (from observer) component of
| the orbital speed will thus be v/c = 1.9*10^-4, or v = 57 km/s.
| The period is 3.8 days.
| From:
| http://astro.estec.esa.nl/hipparcos_...logueSearch.pl
| we find that the distance is 24 parsecs.
|
| These number will give the ratio (2*pi*d*v/c^2)/p
| the value 9.
| So we will during one period see five stars all the time,
| and two additional stars part of the time. These two last
| stars will either merge in a brilliant flash, or suddenly
| appear in a brilliant flash and then split.
| These flashes will be brighter than 1 for 0.036 period,
| brighter than 10 for 0.0004 period,
| brighter than 100 for 0.000004 period.
| By adding the brightness of the stars, we will get
| the following light curve:
|
| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1.
| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star
| N is number of stars seen.
|
| phase brightness N
|
| 0.0 1.22 7
| 0.1 1.21 7
| 0.17 1.97 7
| 0.18 2.45 7
| 0.19 5.90 7
| 0.1913 60.00 7
| 0.191310 infinite 7-5
| 0.2 0.66 5
| 0.3 0.64 5
| 0.4 0.63 5
| 0.5 0.62 5
| 0.6 0.63 5
| 0.7 0.64 5
| 0.8 0.67 5
| 0.808719 infinite 5-7
| 0.8089 21.6 7
| 0.809 11.80 7
| 0.81 3.90 7
| 0.9 1.34 7
| 1.0 1.22 7
|
| Note that the integral over one period is 1,
| that is the average brightness is 1.
|
| The above is for one of the stars, you can get
| the light curve for both stars by translating
| the above half a period and adding.

Henri Wilson responded:
| I can get these figures from my program.
|
| Surprisingly, they agree exactly with yours..... proves my program is
| correct.... not that I ever doubted it.
|
| So I could have saved you all that time and trouble.
| Just click your mouse a
| few times and...there is your curve.

Why don't youi just give up your faith. It is dead.

Which faith are you referring to?
That according to Henri Wilson, the ballistic theory
predicts that binaries which are not variables should be so?

Why don't you include my subsequent explanation as to why this star's
brightness doesn't vary much.


Paul



The only difference between a preacher and a used car salemans is that the latter actually has a product to sell.