On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:57:55 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 5, 5:30 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:28:57 -0700, Jerry
wrote:


So what is YOUR model of a femtosecond photon?

Understanding femtosecond pulses (or for that matter,
any pulses at all) requires knowledge of a branch of
mathematics of which you are not merely ignorant...
it is a branch of mathematics for which you have
expressed open contempt.

In other words, you haven't a clue.

George, bz, Jeff etc. etc. all understand this branch
of mathematics. You do not.

That's all the hint that I will give you.

In other words, you haven't a clue.



I recognize many forms of mental illness by now.
Remember, I did a rotation in a psychiatric ward.

Remeber I have a psychology degree...so I can easily
recognize your delusion of being a great physicist.

Who has delusions? I know perfectly well that I am
merely an advanced amateur astronomer.

Being starry-eyed doesn't make you an astronomer.

You, on the other hand, rank yourself as undoubtedly
the foremost physicist in the entire world, whose
theories about light will overturn and revolutionize
the last three centuries of physics.

.....they certainly appear to do just that....But of course, I'm not the only
one who thinks so.

This despite the fact that you barely have any grasp
of mathematics beyond basic algebra.

What you believe doesn't worry me at all.

You STILL haven't provided evidence that you can
simultaneously fit luminosity and radial velocity
curves.

I have. You didn't join my conversations with George.

***** SHOW YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY FITS *****

You have not presented any satisfactory SIMULTANEOUS
fits of luminosity and radial velocity for any star.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

For single stars or well separated buinaries, the brightness and velocity
curves will be virtually identical. The velocity curve might have considerably
less variation than the brightness one.

BaTh has failed, failed, and failed again.

Desperate, desperate and desperate again!

From what I can see, your BaTh program STILL fails
even the simplest fits, despite your addition of
kludge after kludge.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

I might add that some of these take about two hours
to match because I have to juggle about six parameter
values in the process. The end result usually
produces values accurate to within about 1%.

***** WHERE ARE YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY CURVES? *****

Do you mean the true ones or those based on observed grating diffraction
angles?
There's a big difference you know.....or maybe you wouldn't know...


Relativists claim there is about four times as much
dark matter as visible.
I agree. ...and I have found what it is.
Most variable stars are orbiting some kind of dark object.

The plain fact is, there are far more cold objects
throughout the universe than hot ones.
Why shouldn't there be?

Too hard for you, Jerry?

My theory is now almost complete ...and is quite
consistent.

In your dreams...

It will be published soon.

In the Journal of Irreproducible Results, perhaps?

Naw, your theory doesn't even have the merit of
being humorous...

Silly little girl....

Jerry




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.