Sorcerer wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
|
| | At the end of the article, Johnson explains the column headings and
| | the sign conventions used:
| | "In the (Measured) Radial Velocity column and Relative Radial Velocity
| | column, plus numbers mean moving away from Earth. The opposite is
| | true in the Acceleration column, where negative values indicate
| | acceleration away from us, toward the center of the star, or a
| | gravitational collapsing effect...."
|
| The guy is a ****ing idiot, just like you, he got the sign wrong.
|
| Try reading the quote, for once.
|
| Johnson used an OPPOSITE SIGN CONVENTION for acceleration.

Try understanding reason for once. Read between the lines, or you
will fail psychiatry and psychology.

Physics degree from Chicago...
What does that tell you? It tells me he doesn't have his master's yet and
copied his crap out of a text book, which is why the scanned gif is
blurred.
Totally unimpressive. With enough free parameters, you can fit anything
to anything. You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
-- Jeery, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800
THE GUY IS A TRANSPARENT MINDLESS PARROT, LIKE YOU!

What does Johnson's degree status have to do with his ability to scan
a paper? I find the small introductory images perfectly discernable
with the aid of the Windows Magnifier. The light curve varies between
approximately magnitude 5.0 to 5.9, in agreement with other
observations.

You prefer a fully refereed paper to a brief online discussion?
Try Bappu and Raghavan, 1969. The data is more recent and far more
extensive than Duncan's classic study:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

OK, now:

Your BEGINNING assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to
simultaneously fit the luminosity curve and the radial velocity curve
presented in Bappu and Raghavan (1969) using your modified Sekerin
theory.

This is what Kepler thinks of you:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Kepler.gif

Funny how the velocity curve of a huff-puff star is Keplerian:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KepVel.gif
Totally unimpressive. With enough free parameters, you can fit anything
to anything. You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
-- Jeery, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800

Find someone else that can handle Kepler's equation on a spreadsheet,
totally unimpressive stupid ****in' Jeery with the obstinacy of a
glutted adder.
Not even Galileo with a hammer would make the slightest impression on
a head as dense like yours.

Now **** OFF, arrogant bitch, I predict you'll only ever be less
than average!


Go play psychiatry on yourself, moron.
|
| I predict that you will snip everything relevant and will attempt
| to cover up your embarrassment with abusive language.

I don't give a flying **** what you predict, you are a moron.

Hey ****head, dog ate your homework?

Jerry