On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:25:33 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:18:52 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

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.

The phasing is far more complicated than you think..

Don't be so ****ing stupid. The phasing is more complicated than
*YOU* don't think, it isn't more complicated than *I* KNOW.

The phase of the maximum varies with distance becasue of the size of the delay
between pulse emissions.
It stars out at exactly 90 ahead of the TRUE velocity and moves to a lesser
value with time. It also depends on the eccentricity of the orbit..
However the velocity that astronomers wrongly determine is exactly in phase
with the brightness curve. That's because they actually USE the brightness
curve to determine doppler shift.


Gawd, you **** me off sometimes, you think others are as ignorant
as you.

If you knew how to program properly you could see the effect yourself.


The change in 'luminosity' due to velocity is generally negligible.
The change in 'brightness' is what we are discussing.

luminosity:
Pronunciation: "lü-m&-'nä-s&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : the quality or state of being luminous b : something luminous
2 a : the relative quantity of light b : relative brightness of something
3 : the relative quantity of radiation emitted by a celestial source (as a star)

The change in 'luminosity' and the change in 'brightness'
are the same thing, you dumb cluck.

What the **** is wrong with you?

No they aren't.
However we are both wrong.

'Brightness' is luminous flux PER UNIT AREA.
Luminosity is what we are really measuring.

Listen, moron, the luminosity curve and the velocity curve
are different animals, but they are related.

Which velocity curve are you talking about?
I'm perfectly aware that the brightness curve is 90 ahead of the TRUE veocity
curve...but the fact is, maximum pulse bunching occurs at the same phase as
does maximum wavelength reduction. in fact the degree of bunching and the
wavelength reduction are the same for light emitted at any point around the
orbit.
Can you see now where astronomers have gone completely wrong?
'Bunching' greatly magnifies the real doppler shift.

This is more easily understood if you consider pulsars, which emit real pulses
at regular intervals around their orbits.


Now, are you discussing the velocity or the luminosity?

it is really luminosity but brightness is easier to write.

It is caused by the bunching and rarification [snip]

I know ****ing well what causes the change in luminosity that
you call 'brightness'. I modelled it long before you ever did.
I thought we'd at last got around to velocity curves after
8 years of your struggling and waffling and crazy theorizing.
Sheesh, you are stupid.

You still don't get it.
in the case of a pulsar, the individual pulses move either closer together or
further apart as they travel. When they arrive at Earth, the rate at which htey
arrive is wrongly taken as a doppler measure of the source speed. They are
wrong because they use constant c rather than c+v...in fact VERY wrong.

So while astronomers get the right velocities, they get them at
the wrong time. I thought you already knew this.

No A.

Ok, so you don't know it and now you have another crazy
theory of your own.
It must be time to put you back on the killfile.

If you follow the conversation I'm having with Geoerge, you might learn
something important.

They get completely wrong velocities.

****ing moron.

****ing raidio engineers don't knwo that brightness and luminosity are
different.

Astronomers observe ADoppler shifts and then treat them with VDoppler equations
......and get hugely exaggerated velocity figures.

STUPID ****ing moron.

****ing old pom..


This is where George corrected me....and contributed somewhat to his own
downfall.
I was previously working on the assumption that INDIVIDUAL photons did not
experience the same kind of 'bunching' as the pulses. It was only by analysing
pulsar pulse that I found the alternative possibility.

You couldn't analyze a ****in' pizza and tell if it had cheese in it.
Questioning Doppler now, sheesh.

According to our theory, pulses emitted as the neutron star [snip]

Does it ever occur to you that neutrons do not emit photons?

Don't come in here late and start swinging! I have been questioning how pulsar
pulse are emitted. I reckon they've gottten that all wrong too because they
have entirely the wrong speeds and orbit radii.

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.

No.

**** off, ****head.

Silly old pom...



"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.