On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:39:02 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 9, 12:42 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:48:47 -0700, Jerry
wrote:
snip rubbish

You could EASILY prove me wrong...or can you? Just publish
your results, complete with magnitude and km/s scales.

No need. Most velocity curves are just like the corresponding
brightness curves but with less variation.
Of course these do not reflect the TRUE velocities of the source.

Henri, published velocity curves are merely a trivial
restatement of observed Doppler shift. You certainly do
not doubt that Doppler shifts are observed, do you?

So therefore I will revise my statement. I assert that you
have luminosity and predicted Doppler shift curves, but the
results are in contradiction to your claims. You refuse to
publish them because publishing them will reveal your
pattern of lies.

If you wish to prove me wrong, just publish your results,
complete with magnitude and Doppler shift scales.

You can start with RT Aurigae
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

....my last lady friend used to go hysterical too, when something didnt go her
way...


You're just playing for time, just HOPING that you'll figure
out a way to tweak your program to produce the curves that
you need.

You and your colleagues are the ones playing for time by
making ME waste so much of it trying to get some sense
across to YOU.

No, I think most of us here who chat with you are just
entertaining ourselves. For example, if I weren't responding
to you, I'd be working Sudoku problems, except Sudoku
represents more of an intellectual challenge.

that's a total waste of time. Don't you have anyhting better to do


Repeat for other orbital radii and periods.

I would advise you to automate the process with a little
programming, a few nested loops.

It is already done.

Display your outputs in 10x10 grids. And show your predicted
radial velocities as well. Don't forget magnitude and km/s
scales.

I can't at this stage,..... too many unknowns....

What unknowns?

But that doesn't matter. The primary goal is to match
curve shapes.

Which apparently you cannot do.

Since when?


Not true. When was the last time that you looked at REAL
luminosity versus radial velocity data, rather than that
classroom illustration that you cite all the time?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

What you are referring to as REAL VELOCITY DATA is
just a Willusion.

Then do the trivial reverse computation from computed
km/s to observed Doppler shift.

Hahahahohohohawhawhaw!

When was the last time that you looked at REAL luminosity
versus observed Doppler shift data, rather than that
classroom illustration that you cite all the time?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

Please provide a simultaneous match to luminosity
and observed Doppler shift in the above paper.

You really haven't a clue. The observed doppler shift is a pretty measningless
willusion.
There is only one way to produce a source velocity curve for most stars and
that is to use the velocity, eccentricity and yaw values I have to feed in to
match their brightness curves.

the BaTh wins. It is the only way to find out what is really going on at the
star.

The true source velocity curves can only be obtained by
matching brightness curves accurately. Even then all I
can produce is the product (velocity x
extinction distance x cos(pitch))

Surely you can determine what the observed Doppler shift
would be?

If I find the velocity x cos(pitch) is say, 0.0001c, eccentricity = 0.135 and
the yaw angle is -63 then it is fairly simple to produce the true source
velocity curve.

This is definitely far too hard for you now.


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.