Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:22:29 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 4 May 2007 01:41:03 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 4 May, 00:35, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

...

No George, have another look at:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdrag.jpg

The peak velocity curve is in phase with the peak brightness curve,
which in in
phase with hte eclipses.

I had another look Henry, it is a fake again! The top is a cut-off
ellipse and
you have then drawn a number of dots along the actual curve by hand.

Of course.

Show a screen capture from your program, state the orbital parameters
and
_copy_ the curve onto a composite diagram like mine showing both
luminosity
and velocity curves with the correct relative phasing:

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

You are a charlatan Henry, a plain old fraud.

George, my diagram was never supposed to be accurate. It was merely
demonstrating the basic idea.
I will make a more accurate one for you if you like.

You have your program for precisely this purpose.
Use it to match the velocity curve of one star,
post a screengrab of the green curve and the
orbital parameters as you have before. Then add
180 to the yaw and scale the velocity to get the
second star and see if you can match its velocity
curve. Post that too. Then show how you take account
of the reductions due to eclipsing and show the total.
Don't sketch what you would like, instead plot the
sum using a spreadsheet or something similar.

Here is the combined curve of both stars (without the eclipse)

the details are shown.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdra.jpg

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.