"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
| | On 24 Dec 2006 16:31:24 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
| |
| | Henri Wilson wrote:
| | On 23 Dec 2006 16:16:17 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
| |
| | Henri Wilson wrote:
| | On 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
| |
| | Sorcerer wrote:
| | "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| | (double yawn)
| | Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
| | Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
| | that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
| |
| | I have produced these curves.
| | see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
| |
| | Not a bad fit, eh Jeery?
| |
| | Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
| |
| | Totally unimpressive.
| | With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
| | You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
| |
| | You can't get out of it that easily Jerry.
| | The basic maths is limited to the use of c+v.cos(theta) only. The parameters I
| | can change wont make any difference to the range of basic shapes I can produce.
| |
| | Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
| |
| | I have shown them before.
| |
| |
| | Cepheid curves are typical of stars in moderately eccentric orbits with their
| | major axes lying about 45 degres away fronm the LOS.
| |
| | It so happens that the current view of these 'huff-puff' stars might also give
| | a similar brightness curve, based on the variable c+v of their surface facing
| | Earth..
| |
| | So I win either way.
| |
| | Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
| |
| | I have shown them before.
| |
| | I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
| |
| | Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
| |
| | I have shown them before.
| |
| | Then why don't you show your radial velocity curves and the
| | brightness curves on a single set of plots?
| |
| | I did once before.
| | I can't find it now.
| |
| | Uh, huh...
| |
| | I have shown them before.
| |
| | The radial velocity curves are exactly those of a star with the above
| | parameters.
| | However there was a great deal of doubt as to the actual phasing between the
| | published brightness and velocity curves. This was admitted by the author.
| |
| | Uh huh...
| |
| | Try this set of curves:
| | http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
| |
| | THat's the one to which I just referred you.
|
| That diagram is as poor as ****, unreadable, scanned straight out of
| a text book.
|
| The fit in THIS curve is pure bloody guesswork:
| http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif
|
| Johnson writes:
| "This is a 'smoothed curve' graph and is a best-fit to a group of
| around 25 data points. The radial velocity data generally has
| significant error factors since the values are determined entirely by
| rather subtle Doppler shifts in the spectral lines. Therefore, the
| raw data is less useful for these purposes, and a smoothed curve is
| used here."
|
| The term "best-fit" has a precise technical meaning.

Least squares, idiot.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LeastSq...ponential.html



|
| The REAL data:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/RTAurVel.GIF
|
| I suppose that when YOU fit raw data to your curve fits, that EVERY
| point lies on top of your graphs and that you NEVER find outliers?
| Don't be silly.

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

You'd suppose anything, you are a moron.
You whine about "noise" and don't know what it is.
YOU are an example of noise. Shut the **** up and learn, idiot.




|
| And the DERIVED data is idiotic:
|
| "The acceleration information for the entire cycle can be found by differentiating the velocity graph by time. "
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...urVelCheat.GIF
|
| The acceleration goes up while the velocity goes down?
| No way, Jose!
|
| 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.
I dumped his "data" into an Excel spreadsheet, ****head.

He's even labelled the velocity as "mag" (magnitude).


|
| | Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
| | and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
|
|
| I want to see JEERY simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
| and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
|
| It is the responsibility of the individuals making the extraordinary
| claims (ANDROCLES and HENRI) to provide the extraordinary evidence
| (ability of their modified Sekerin theories to model all features of
| Cepheid variables).
|
| Which neither of you have done...

Dog ate your homework, ****head?
No, you didn't do any, bone idle bitch.



|
| | I have shown them before.
|
| H, let the cartoon cat and mouse team Tom and Jeery do it, the lying phuckwits.
| I want to see the brightness PHASE matched to the velocity phase, or
| the JULIAN DATE matched to the velocity curve. That crucial data is ALWAYS
| missing.
| Why?
| I'll tell you why. They are NOT in phase as the cheating idiots pretend.
|
| The gif at http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid6.gif is FAKED.
|
| If you take the extreme stance that all astronomers are grouped in a
| wild conspiracy to disprove a theory of Cepheid variability that most
| astronomers aren't even aware of, then there really isn't any hope
| for you.

**** off. I was talking to Henri, not you, mobster with the obstinacy of
a glutted adder.