Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jul 2005 18:50 On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Aristotle wrote: >>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>>>>SR. >>>>>How COULD it be wrong? >>>> >>>>See? :-) >>>> >>>>Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was >>>>the one time he tested his program with measured data >>>>of a known binary. >>> >>>All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave. >> >> >> And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? >> You sure duck questions like one. > >Henri Wilson has tested his program only once with real >measured data of a binary, namely HD80715. >His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable. >It isn't. >Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory. Paul, I think your time would be better spent training those pet fairies to catch GPS clock ticks. > >He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-) YOU don't like to be reminded that I have explained many time why it SHOULD NOT be a variable. You can do it yourself if you like, using my program. > > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Aristotle on 24 Jul 2005 06:50 >>Henri Wilson has tested his program only once with real >>measured data of a binary, namely HD80715. >>His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable. >>It isn't. >>Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory. > >Paul, I think your time would be better spent training those pet fairies to >catch GPS clock ticks. > >> >>He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-) > >YOU don't like to be reminded that I have explained many time why it SHOULD NOT >be a variable. >You can do it yourself if you like, using my program. Use somethng that is based on nonsense to prove what?> >> >> >>Paul > > >HW. >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. Well you should since you are. >The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. And you haven't donr that.
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Jul 2005 06:54 On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:13:36 GMT, Aristotle <wandering_philosopher(a)socratic_discipline.org> wrote: >>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the >>>>mythical >>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. >>> >>> >>> Consistent and a pair of cajones. >>> No only do you still duck the questions you accuse others of doing it >>> as well. >> >>Nor is it even true, I am still pointing out the >>obvious error in his post and will continue to >>do so. On the other hand, Henri said: >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:vra0e1l2dnmc55eu4h5185co82auufal1l(a)4ax.com... >>... >>> George, I am not interested in discucssing >>> the sagna c any more. >> >>George >I have long given up any hope of hearing Henri speak the truth. Go away! > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 24 Jul 2005 16:22 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:10:59 GMT, Aristotle > <wandering_philosopher(a)socratic_discipline.org> wrote: > > >>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>>>>SR. >>>>>How COULD it be wrong? >>>> >>>>See? :-) >>>> >>>>Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was >>>>the one time he tested his program with measured data >>>>of a known binary. >>> >>>All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave. >> >>And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? >>You sure duck questions like one. > > > I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten > what the question was. Quite. And here is your answer to the forgotten question. Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004: | I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory | predicts HD80715 should look like. | | "phase" is normalized, one period = 1. | "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star | | phase brightness | | 0.0 1.22 | 0.1 1.21 | 0.17 1.97 | 0.18 2.45 | 0.19 5.90 | 0.1913 60.00 | 0.191310 infinite | 0.2 0.66 | 0.3 0.64 | 0.4 0.63 | 0.5 0.62 | 0.6 0.63 | 0.7 0.64 | 0.8 0.67 | 0.808719 infinite | 0.8089 21.6 | 0.809 11.80 | 0.81 3.90 | 0.9 1.34 | 1.0 1.22 | | 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. But HD80715 is no variable. So just by clicking his mouse a few times, Henri Wilson falsified the ballistic theory. > Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical > 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. Indeed. There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof. "The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as predicted by GR, prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish." That's why we all have ran for cover. Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 24 Jul 2005 17:05
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Aristotle wrote: >> >>>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>>>>>SR. >>>>>>How COULD it be wrong? >>>>> >>>>>See? :-) >>>>> >>>>>Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was >>>>>the one time he tested his program with measured data >>>>>of a known binary. >>>> >>>>All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave. >>> >>> >>>And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? >>>You sure duck questions like one. >> >>Henri Wilson has tested his program only once with real >>measured data of a binary, namely HD80715. >>His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable. >>It isn't. >>Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory. See Henri diverting the attention: > > Paul, I think your time would be better spent training those pet fairies to > catch GPS clock ticks. Invoking fairies again, Henri? Henri Wilson wrote October 15. 2004: | OK Paul, I will never refer to PAUL ANDERSEN'S FAMOUS TICK FAIRIES again....... | | ....unless I have a justifiable reason. Can you state your justifiable reason please? Or would you like me to quote the conversation that made you make the above remark? I will do it with pleasure, you know. >>He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-) > > > YOU don't like to be reminded that I have explained many time why it SHOULD NOT > be a variable. Quite the contrary, Henri. It gives me much pleasure to see your desperate attempts to explain why your program doesn't work. BTW, what DID you say the reason was? I must have forgotten. Was it something about gas which slows down photons to explain why light from distant galaxies are red shifted, but which OTOH adjust the speed of light from binaries to be c? > You can do it yourself if you like, using my program. Quite. Just a few clicks on the mouse, and you have falsified the ballistic theory. Paul |