"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:50:11 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:19:48 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...

The phase reference is only determined by your previous
claims that the luminosity is usually in phase with the
velocity, hence you are claiming the radial velocity
peaks at the same time as the eclipse - I don't think so.

Sorry George, you are wrong again.

I am repeating what you told me and pointing out a
consequence that seems to have conveniently escaped
your notice.

That is not what I told you George.

You told me on several ocassions that the luminosity
is typically in phase with the velocity, ceck your
posts.

The implication of that claim is that th radial ACCELERATION should peak
at
roughly the same time as the eclipse.

If the velocity peaks with the luminosity and
is 90 degrees out from the acceleration then
the acceleration should peaks 90 degrees out
from the luminosity.

You still havent gotten used to ADoppler yet George.

You still haven't got used to calculus Henry.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/sine_wrong.png

Check the bottom two plots, those are the true motion
curves so as you can see I did use the equivalent of a
circular orbit. Try putting it into your program. If
you don't get the same as mine, check your coding.

That distance change is negligible.

It is the radius curve and is directly
measurable for L Car.


So who is going to prove the results wrong, eh?..even if they are way out.

Results are published as they are measured
Henry, you are completely clueless about the
process. If you bothered to read the pages I
cite you would find that they measured the
angular variation and then did a best fit to
the integrated Doppler treating the distance
to the star as a free parameter. The value
they get for that distance from the fit is
close to that from other methods but not quite
the same, but it is published regardless.

What you are missing is first that their
results will be scrutinised by competing teams
who will look to find fault, and second that
their method may give a better distance measure
and be able to correct everyone else's which
means they get the credit for a major advance.

You are so used to cheating your own results
by putting in "K" factors or "forces unknown"
or "speed equalisation" bodges that you have
never understood how real science is done.

Irrespective of all that, all we are concerned
with at the moment is the variation of angular
diameter because that directly affects the
luminosity and until you take it into account
your fitting process is simply wrong. For K band
the brightness change is about a fifth of the
luminosity change due to the radius variation.

George