🚀 go-pugleaf

"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message 
news:25n0j51i0vkf10nuuuj3vhnj0m7gjvig15@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:47:04 -0000, "Androcles" 
> <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:en70j5lm9e808nrgomlcenj5sk4dmpavnh@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:03:30 -0000, "Androcles"
>>> <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>>news:d6dui5lsugo526sdbf34iq1537r87gcfb7@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:25:55 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>>> <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> The anomalies 2, 4  and 5 are pretty obvious but I cannot explain 
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>> other than lensing..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hint:
>>>>>>  http://www.britastro.org/vss/
>>>>>>HT Cas
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not much of a curve.
>>>>> What does it tell us?
>>>>
>>>>That's for you to work out.
>>>
>>> Two curves are shown there. .. just a couple of bits and pieces.
>>> I don't understand.
>>> Incidentally, Einstein derived a gravitational lensing curve that was
>>> supposed
>>> to be unique and which described a star's brightness variation. See:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_microlensing#Events_yielding_the_Einstein_angle
>>>
>>Why are you so concerned about Einstein's gravitational microlensing
>>in wackypedia?
>>  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>> It turns out that this is perfectly matched and explained by BaTh.
>>
>>Nobody knows what BaTh, WaSh or SoAp are. I'll enlighten them...
>>SoAp is "Silly old Aussie Prick". BaTh is "Batty Aussie Theory".
>>WaSh is "WilsoniA Shit".
>>
>>> It is just
>>> the brightness curve of an orbiting star with yaw angle about 180.
>>> Periastron
>>> furthest from us.
>>> The BaTh match is near the top at: http://www.scisite.info/group1.jpg
>>>
>>The data is there, Henry Wilson, old buddy (HwOb). It's up to you to
>>match it before I do. It could be too late but I'll give you a shot at it.
>>(You know I've already done it, don't you?) :-)
>
> YOUR explanation is not THE explanation. Light is bent by mass. Light is
> concentrated by the lensing effect.

> But the star itself must be nerly behind the planet that causes the 
> bending.
> That fits in perfectly with our c+v generated brightness curves....and 
> ours are
> the same shape as Einstein's....


And your evidence for that bullshit is what?