On 18 Mar 2007 06:32:51 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 18, 6:55 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...

Sure....and 'error bars' can come in very handy when
one wants to fiddle the results.

Ain't stats wonderful?

Even easier not to show them and claim you have a "match"
when you curve is obviously outside the bars, or even
better, don't show the velocity scale on your graph and
claim a "match" when the curves have the same shape even
though the peak amplitude of the measurement is 27983 m/s
but your model predicts 0.0013 m/s ;-)

Wow. I -knew- there was a reason that Henri never responded
to my challenge to display a velocity scale for his radial
velocity curves. I never suspected the discrepancy between
predicted and observed would be SEVEN orders of magnitude!

Sorry Jeery, it's a different ball game now. George is just trying to be
funny....when in fact he knows I am right.

ALL calculated velocity curves are lilely to be out my many orders of
magnitude. They are also mostly about 90 degrees out of phase wrt the REAL
radial velocities. If you knew enough physics to be able to follow the recent
converstions between George and myself you would understand why.
Also, pitch angle now comes into play.
Add a little extincr\tion and my figures become perfectly feasible....


Thanks,
Jerry


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.