"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:12:26 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:12:27 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:
What's this, Wilson?
How can you get pitch from a point source, Wilson?
All orbits are edge-on, Wilson, you said so.
In fact you don't need ANY extinction, it is ALL explained by pitch,
you stupid old wabo.
ALL right...you fluked the right explanation....BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY.....
AND STILL DON'T.
Stupid old wabo, I've been modelling variables since 1987, of course I know.
The thing is, our brightness curves are also the true velocity curves....or
they would be if only one star was contributing to the curves.
The luminosity is out of phase with velocity.
Astronomers have
used doppler shifts of incoming light to calculate orbital velocities.
Of course. Why shouldn't they?
This is
where they have been going wrong for years.
The problem, H, is phase. Let's say a star is in a perfectly circular
orbit, seen edge-on. When it is coming directly toward us the
light gets here earlier than it should, and when it s moving directly
away the light gets here later than it should. That means we see
an elliptical orbit from the timing of max velocity and min velocity,
yet the orbit was a perfect circle. Max luminosity occurs when
the star is approaching.
So while astronomers get the right velocities, they get them at
the wrong time. I thought you already knew this.
It was only through arguing with
George about pulsars that I realised the mistake.
As you know, pulses bunch together as they travel due to c+v.
Of course.
Astronomers have treated this bunching as Einsteinian doppler shift and arrived
at completely exaggerated velocity values....so when you see a published
velocity curve...don't believe it.
Well, ok, that would make the *acceleration* wrong, and
it is from the acceleration that we determine longitude of
periastron. The velocity is still directly related to the doppler.
It's just that the velocity is stretched and contracted along
the time axis, and that is ... tada... a function of distance.
Remember that the SLOPE of a velocity/time graph is
acceleration. So the max and min velocity values are correct,
but the velocity curve should appear more sinusoidal than it does.
Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm
What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.
Funny how huff puff star all seem to have companions....
All recurring variables have an orbit. I'm of the opinion
that beat frequencies should be investigated.
For example, Pluto and Neptune.
http://www.nineplanets.org/gif/dobro3.gif
1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.
-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348
Translation:
Forget extinction and uni****ation, put in the pitch you know is there.
2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727
Translation:
Forget extinction and uni****ation, put in the pitch you know is there.
3) Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
Translation:
Add in extinction and uni****ation, make is as complicated as it can be
and pretend light travels at one speed only.
Of course the dunces are in confederacy against me, you are one
of them. You are as daft as Tom and Jeery, Phuckwit Duck, Blind Poe, Dishwater, Tusseladd, Jako Epke [Old Man], Dork Van de fumble mumbler... oops... I take that back, nobody is as daft as Dork.
But... no need to feel bad, old chap, even Galileo was wrong.
"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Galileo.html
The moon causing tides is childishness.... I don't think so.
However, uni****ation is childishness when the answer is plain.
Quit ****ing around with the speed of light and program in pitch,
it is all so simple, even Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Sagnac/Z1.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm