On Jul 6, 12:01 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:57:55 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 5, 5:30 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) 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.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want. Your
total ignorance is evident to those who understand
what I am referring to.

In the mean time, you still have the MAJOR problem
of how to cram your INCOMPRESSIBLE sawblades into
a space less than one wavelength long.

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.

Who besides yourself ascribes any validity to your
imaginings? Even your former buddy Androcles believes
that you have gone off the deep end.

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 have given plenty of evidence for my assertion.

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

Pathetic.

That is not -your- curve fit, and the illustration is
merely an APPROXIMATION to the observed relationship
between luminosity and radial velocity.

In reality, Cepheid luminosity and radial velocity
curves show wavelength dependent phase lags. Check any
REAL data on this.

Let's start with RT Aurigae
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm

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.

Huh? Stating that a velocity curve measured in km/s has
"less" variation than a luminosity curve measured in
magnitude units is comparing apples versus oranges.

BaTh has failed, failed, and failed again.

Desperate, desperate and desperate again!

No, merely stating the truth.

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

These are all luminosity curves. Not one attempts
a simultaneous fit of luminosity -and- radial velocity
curves to observed data.

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.

This shows your lack of knowledge of multivariable
regression analysis.

Juggling six parameter values, hmmm... Is that why you
can fit .wav file outputs so well?

You've put together a general curve fitting program,
capable of matching flute sounds as well as Cepheids.

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...

You need to be able to match observed data.
You haven't matched observed data.
BaTh has failed.

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?

No, it is just that the observed evidence is not
consistent with dark matter being in the form of
compact objects. Do a bit of research on the topic,
will you?

Nah, you won't...

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....

I've found a WONDERFUL illustration of your theory:
http://www.jir.com/graph_contest/index.html#MoreGraphs

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri_diploma.htm

Henri Wilson's Use of Deceptive Language or,
Would You Buy A Used Ballistic Theory From This Man?
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus..._deception.htm

RT Aurigae versus Emission Theory or,
Henri Wilson's Faked Program Output
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm

Henri Wilson Attempts to Rewrite the Historical Record
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri_history.htm