On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 04:43:47 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

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


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.

YOU and fellow relativists still have the major problem of showing how all the
starlight in the universe miraculously travels towards our little planet at
precisely 'c', simply because of an ancient religious belief which proclaims
Earth as the centre of the universe.


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.

If somebody like Androcles ever regarded me as normal I would be extremely
concerned.

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.

.......says the bedpan expert

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.

Then write to hte authors and tell them so.

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

That's right.
Such phase differences are fully explained by my 'control sphere' model. It
depends on the ratio of VDoppler to ADoppler that emerges from the region of
the star. The presense of a companion star will invariably allow some VDoppler
to get through and cause a phase difference.

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.

I said 'less variation'. You'll never make it in medicine if you can't read
properly.

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.

That has been done.

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.

.......silly girl....
The program can only produce a very narrow range of curve shapes.
Don't you consider it a little more than coincidence that most star curves also
fit this range?

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.

The BaTh have succeeded well and truly...but it is far too complicated for you
to understand.

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...

I wont.... because what you just claimed is plain nonsense.

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

Is this what med students do all day?

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.