Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:48:25 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .


Maybe Jerry wouldn't since again you are contradicting
yourself. Ballistic theory says both luminosity (photon
rate) and frequency (wavecrest rate) get altered by the
same ratio.

No George, you left out the factor 'K'.

No, I was drawing a distinction between "Ballistic
theory" above and your bodge next.

For a spectroscopic speed of 300km/s the
luminosity is changed by 0.001 mag so for typical Cepheid
variations, the speeds are way too high. You invented the
silly "K" factor to reduce the speed measurement by
effectively reducing the ADoppler contribution to the
Doppler to a negligible level.

That's correrct.

See, you only needed to read a few more lines.

George, George, let me explain.
One thing we know is the observed magnitude change.
When matching a curve, that is the main criterion.
I then adjust eccentricity and yaw angle to get the right curve shape.

What I get out of this is a figure representing (maximum orbit speed x distance
x cos(pitch angle).

If I plug in the known Hipparcos distance, I invariably require a very small
velocity. It is more likely that the extinction distance is considerably less
than the known one and the velocity is larger. I have no way of determining
which is true. ..so I cannot really give you a value for 'K'. I can only tell
you that there is good reason to believe it exists and has a value 1.

That solves you scaling
problem but it means the spectroscopic speed is now
accurate other than time of arrival. That is, the peak
to peak velocity is right but the X-axis of a plot is
slightly squeezed and stretched.

No it doesn't

Yes it does.

You of all people should know that a.sin(xt) is in phase with bsin(xt)

We are comparing A*sin(w*t) with A*sin(w*t')
where t' is a cyclic function of t.

No we're not. Both frequencies are the same.

The peak
to peak amplitude remains 2*A but the shape
will be changed. The peak to peak spectroscopic
speed variation depends only on A so phase is
of no relevance to this discussion.

That's the problem with ad hoc bodges Henry, add too
many they start to get in each other's way.

The problem, George, is that I have a much better understanding of maths
than
you do.

ROFL, Henry you can't even follow the discussion.'

You just made an embarrassing blunder.


George




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.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:53:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 09:58:54 +0100, "George Dishman"

http://tinyurl.com/239mw6

George, I wish you wouldn't keep referring to this ****y little curve ...

Of course you wish that Henry, but until you realise
that it provides your only way to distinguish VDoppler
from ADoppler, I will have to keep referring you to it.
Once you sit down and think _seriously_ about what it
tells you, we can move on but if you just keep repeating
tired mantras that are of no relevance to the topic, I
have to keep returning to it. I know it's tedious but
you leave me no choice.

George, ADoppler produces similar curves.


George




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.

Henri Wilson a écrit :
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:25:52 +0200, YBM wrote:

Henri Wilson a écrit :
The geometry requires that light move at c in _all_
inertial frames.
Which of course is plainly impossible.
Do you mean that SR geometry is contradictory ?

It's worse than that.

Is worse than contradictory, contradictory or not ?

Why should little planet Earth be
special, the only object in the entire universe
relative to which light _doesn't_ move at c and for
which the rule that governs the rest of the universe
doesn't apply?
Come on George, even Einstein admitted that light will be seen to approach
moving objects at c+v.
Are you, like Andro****, confusing closing velocity with relative velocity,
or are you just lying as usual ?

MY BaTh theory relies solely on 'closing velocity'.

I don't give a sh*t about your "BaTh (non)theory", note that your sentence
is about what Einstein said, hence is related to SR not to your piece of
crap.

Maybe you will now realise how pathetically stupid you are.

I wonder if you'll realize how many stupidities you've written here before
you die, Ralph Rabbidge.

On Jul 8, 5:51 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 05:55:38 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 8, 6:22 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:52:21 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

If you use your brain, you will see that it is just another
way of stating Einstein's second postulate. It doesn't prove
anything.

However, EXPERIMENT reveals that Minkowski geometry provides a
correct description of reality in the low gravitation limit.

Yes yes, we've heard all this before.

In one of your ears and out the other.

You haven't the foggiest inkling of what Minkowski geometry
is all about, and yet claim it can't explain anything?

It is just a 4D way of expressing the second postulate.
It isn't true no matter how you want to define it.

It is an alternative description of SR in geometric terms, the
truth and usefulness of which is established by its ability to
match experimental results and to enable far simpler
calculations than Einstein's original approach.

Obviously you relativists DO believe the Earth holds some
special place in the universe?

Nope.

You don't even know your own minds.

You really should apply some basic logic to your arguments
instead of quoting circular nonsnese.

You really should learn the subject rather than retreating
into your religious mantra.

Hahahahohohhw\ahwhawhawhoho!

A relativist accusing othersd of 'religious mantra'!!!!!!

[amused sneer]

Teach yourself ELEMENTARY LINEAR ALGEBRA before displaying
your ignorance again.

Let's get back to the problem. Your sawblade photons have
a "front" and a "back", correct? Does that not imply a
minimum duration for a pulse? How do you get around the
predicted minimum duration to explain the existence of
femtosecond laser pulses? If you understood the branch
of mathematics to which I refer, you MIGHT have some
means of explaining it.

Silly girl...

In other words, you are unable to explain this paradox.

I asked for YOUR explanation.

Femtosecond pulses are not explainable in terms of incompressible
Wilsonian sawblades. Or compressible Wilsonian sawblades, for
that matter.

They are easily explained in terms of classical wave theory.

Jerry, tell me more about thse femtosecond pulses.
How many wavelength long is a femtosecond photon?
What is the colour of the light from this laser?

This site includes downloadable articles:
http://www.attoworld.de

No. I want YOU to tell me...

Too lazy to do your own research?

You can assume the velocity curves are similar to the
brightness curves in the majority of cases.

I assume nothing. SHOW YOUR CURVES.

My curves are like this
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

I want to see YOUR curves, not see what you claim looks like
them.

In other words, YOU HAVE NO RESULTS, and have nothing but
bull**** and hot air.

That's rather strong language...

But apparently quite true.

Well these curves are obviously more than coincidence.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

Sure. You fit flute sounds with equal facility:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/root.jpg
http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/CE3K-0.wav

I've saved your fit, by the way. Anytime you want to claim
how rigorous a demonstration your Cepheid fits are of your
theory's validity, I can bring your flute fit up from my
own web site.

Or perhaps I should modify my statement. You HAVE results,
but the results are in contradiction to your claims. You
refuse to publish them because publishing them will reveal
your pattern of lies.

Your desperation is really showing now....

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

I should not have to teach you such an elementary fact but....
the 'variation' of anything is an expression of the ratio
between its maximum and minimum.

Nope. That's your own completely made-up definition.
Beside which, you are comparing linear versus log scale
measurements.

Pig's arse! My program produces both.

What does it mean, to take the ratio of two log scale
measures?

Example: The magnitude of the Sun is -27, whilc the magnitude
of Vega is zero. The ratio -27/0 is undefined. What does this
ratio mean?

Example: The magnitude of the Sun is -27, while the magnitude
of 3C 273 is 13. The ratio -27/13 = -2.1. What does this
ratio mean?

That's not how I do it.

I use the variation in 'photon density'as an indicator of
arrival flux density. I find the linear maximum/minimum
ratio and quote that as the linear brightness variation.
I quote the log of that ratio as the 'log magnitude
change'...log to base ~2.5...that is.

You stated, that the 'variation' of ANYTHING is an expression
of the ratio between its maximum and minimum.

You now admit that that was a false statement. At least
we have THAT cleared up.

I smell a rat here.......or has Minor Crank returned
from the dead...

You are free to believe anything you want to believe.

Hello Crank....why do you pretend you are female? Are you
a secret cross dresser as well?

You are a insecure sexist pig.

APPROXIMATELY resemble. You have NO MATCHES.
Your theory has FAILED.

...and all starlight is adjusted by the fairies to
travel at c wrt little planet Earth....

Back to your mindless mantra, again...

I know the truth must hurt Crank....

You know the truth. You have no matches.

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.

Your program predicts equal numbers of both kinds.
This is completely at odds with observation.

I just explained why.

Your program predicts curve shapes that are NEVER seen.

No it doesn't.
Remember, the critical distance is never approached
because of extinction.

Henri, here is an experiment for you. It should be easy because
your computer program "does all the work" and you can compute
more curves in a few minutes than Einstein or de Sitter could
in a lifetime of work.

Pick a constant distance, say 100 light years.
Pick a typical orbital radius and period.
Pick a typical eccentricity. Let's start with 0
Assume two stars of equal brightness.
Generate curves for every combination of yaw and pitch at 36
degree intervals.
You should have 100 graphs.

Pick another reasonable eccentricity. Try 0.15.
Repeat the process.

Pick another reasonable eccentricity. Try 0.30.
Repeat the process.

Display your 300 graphs systematically organized so that you
have 3 displays 10 across and 10 down.

Publish your results for us to examine.

The program aready does that for any particular eccentricity.
You can run my program and do it yourself. Use the 'Scan on'
feature.

Can you find stars to match all of your results?

Yes.

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

But remember critical distance is never reached because
of 'extinction'.

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.

Most but not all. Your program predicts a large number of
oddities that have never been observed.

No it doesn't.

Show us that it doesn't. Do the experiment that I described
above.

It is done. Allow ten seconds for processing time.
...but it would have taken
DeSitter hundreds of years....

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

Astronomers love concentrating on oddities. Your program
predicts the existence of oddities that have never been seen.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. If you dispute this, do the experiment that I
described above.

I have.
I will be speeding up the scan process soon.

Can you or can't you supply them?

Just assume they are about the same.

In other word, YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THEM. Not now, not ever.

Jerry, I can't do everything at once....
I already spend far too much time trying to educate you
poor misguided relativists...

Excuses, excuses...

Jerry, the velocity and brightness curves are about the same
shape in most cases.

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

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri_diploma.htm

Henri Wilson's Use of Deceptive Language or,
Would You Buy A Used Ballistic Theory From This Man?
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus..._deception.htm

RT Aurigae versus Emission Theory or,
Henri Wilson's Faked Program Output
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm

Henri Wilson Attempts to Rewrite the Historical Record
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri_history.htm

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:25:52 +0200, YBM wrote:

Henri Wilson a écrit :
The geometry requires that light move at c in _all_
inertial frames.

Which of course is plainly impossible.

Do you mean that SR geometry is contradictory ?

It's worse than that.

Why should little planet Earth be
special, the only object in the entire universe
relative to which light _doesn't_ move at c and for
which the rule that governs the rest of the universe
doesn't apply?

Come on George, even Einstein admitted that light will be seen to
approach moving objects at c+v.

Are you, like Andro****, confusing closing velocity with relative
velocity, or are you just lying as usual ?

MY BaTh theory relies solely on 'closing velocity'.
Maybe you will now realise how pathetically stupid you are.

Closing velocity is not 'real' velocity as seen by either of the objects
involved in the closing. It is a value computed by a third observer and
gives the closing velocity of the two objects as seen by the third
observer.

The closing velocity has NO effect upon the transit time of one of the
objects as seen by the other object.

In other words, if BaTh deals with 'closing velocity' then it tells you
NOTHING about how long it takes the light to make its journey.

I am afraid that either BaTh must NOT be using 'closing velocity' or you
have just proven that BaTh produces no measurable effect on the travel time
of the light in its journey to earth (or to any other observer).





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:00:52 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .


This what you said:

"I am assuming the
time of arrival is similarly spaced to the time
of departure but that is correct if the effect
is VDoppler only.
""""

Yep, I also said that I was aware that was wrong but it
only affects the rectangular pulse width. Maybe that
was too complex for you to follow.

IT IS CORRECT ONLY IF EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE IS TRUE.

I said it wasn't correct, perhaps you should read
more carefully.

You said it in a very strange way.


Of course, but also if they are both emitted while
the source is moving towards the observer, the pair
arrive earlier at their destination than pulses
emitted at the same time but from a source at rest
wrt the barycentre. That is the only effect I have
omitted since the pulse width is arbitrary anyway
and it is only an illustration, not a simulation.

You seem to be digging your hole deeper and deeper..

Nope, just pointing out I was already aware of the
simplification I was making in the diagram. If you
understood ballistic theory as well as I, you wouldn't
have batted an eyelid.

It so happens that the shape of some elliptical orbits in particular is
such
that pulses emitted at regular interval from 'concave' sections bunch
together
whilst those emitted from the convex, move apart. There are sections
from which
light emitted sequentially over a certain time interval will arrive at
an
observer over a much shorter time interval. An observer will see this as
large
brightness increase.

Yes, and that is what I have been discussing all along.

Then why did you make the stupid claim, above?

They are all accurate as you would know if you understood
the theory.

George, I have yet to see you provide an equation for or calculate 'photon
bunching' at a particular distance.


The frequency is not infinite, it is included.

Frequency itself is not an issue. The difference between emission and
arrival
frequencies IS.

Yep, and that change produces what we have been
calling VDoppler for months.

Not it isn't George.
It's ADoppler.
It is caused by the source continually changing velocity, ie., accelerating.

To summarise - the time between pulses (or wavecrest
emissions) is non-zero. During that time the source
moves some distance towards or away from the observer.
That leads to the VDoppler term, (1+v/c). In addition
the speed for one pulse may differ from the previous
which leads to the ADoppler term, 1/(1-Ra/c^2). The
distance moved and the difference in speed also affect
the time of arrival of each wavecrest which slightly
distorts the resulting curves. So what do you think
I have missed?

You are making the wrong calculation. You are not calculating how
photon/pulse
density changes with distance.

Yes I am, we have been calling that 'bunching' effect
ADoppler for months.

It is the same as the arrival frequency that you just attributed to VDoppler.

You have not even included observer distance.

No need, the observer distance is always much greater
than the speed equalisation distance (as you point
out - no multiple images) so I take the limit at
infinity.

You haven't included distance at all.
It is fundamental to the theory and calculation.

George




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.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:48:47 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 8, 5:51 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 05:55:38 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

You haven't the foggiest inkling of what Minkowski geometry
is all about, and yet claim it can't explain anything?

It is just a 4D way of expressing the second postulate.
It isn't true no matter how you want to define it.

It is an alternative description of SR in geometric terms, the
truth and usefulness of which is established by its ability to
match experimental results and to enable far simpler
calculations than Einstein's original approach.

It's nothing but an alternative and quite unnatural way to express the second
postulate and its consequences. It novelty and unique collection of meaningless
expressions is plainly hypnotic to impressionable trendies like you and eric
geese.



I asked for YOUR explanation.

Femtosecond pulses are not explainable in terms of incompressible
Wilsonian sawblades. Or compressible Wilsonian sawblades, for
that matter.

How about Wilsonian rotating charges?

They are easily explained in terms of classical wave theory.

What? you just cut a wave into minute pieces and still call it a wave?
How do femtosecond pulses conform with the P.E. effect?


That's rather strong language...

But apparently quite true.

Well these curves are obviously more than coincidence.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

Sure. You fit flute sounds with equal facility:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/root.jpg

What is wrong with that, please?

http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/CE3K-0.wav

I've saved your fit, by the way. Anytime you want to claim
how rigorous a demonstration your Cepheid fits are of your
theory's validity, I can bring your flute fit up from my
own web site.

That isn't a cepheid. The curve slopes the wrong way.

Or perhaps I should modify my statement. You HAVE results,
but the results are in contradiction to your claims. You
refuse to publish them because publishing them will reveal
your pattern of lies.

Your desperation is really showing now....

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.



That's not how I do it.

I use the variation in 'photon density'as an indicator of
arrival flux density. I find the linear maximum/minimum
ratio and quote that as the linear brightness variation.
I quote the log of that ratio as the 'log magnitude
change'...log to base ~2.5...that is.

You stated, that the 'variation' of ANYTHING is an expression
of the ratio between its maximum and minimum.

You now admit that that was a false statement. At least
we have THAT cleared up.

What is false about it?

I smell a rat here.......or has Minor Crank returned
from the dead...

You are free to believe anything you want to believe.

Hello Crank....why do you pretend you are female? Are you
a secret cross dresser as well?

You are a insecure sexist pig.

maybe Crank has had a sex change...



Back to your mindless mantra, again...

I know the truth must hurt Crank....

You know the truth. You have no matches.

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.


Publish your results for us to examine.

The program aready does that for any particular eccentricity.
You can run my program and do it yourself. Use the 'Scan on'
feature.

Can you find stars to match all of your results?

Yes.

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

But remember critical distance is never reached because
of 'extinction'.

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....

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


Show us that it doesn't. Do the experiment that I described
above.

It is done. Allow ten seconds for processing time.
...but it would have taken
DeSitter hundreds of years....

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

You are free to do it yourself.

Just assume they are about the same.

In other word, YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THEM. Not now, not ever.

Jerry, I can't do everything at once....
I already spend far too much time trying to educate you
poor misguided relativists...

Excuses, excuses...

Jerry, the velocity and brightness curves are about the same
shape in most cases.

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.

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))


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.

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

On Jul 8, 5:51 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

It is an alternative description of SR in geometric terms, the
truth and usefulness of which is established by its ability to
match experimental results and to enable far simpler
calculations than Einstein's original approach.

It's nothing but an alternative and quite unnatural way to
express the second postulate and its consequences. It novelty
and unique collection of meaningless expressions is plainly
hypnotic to impressionable trendies like you and eric geese.

You mock what you do not understand. How typical.

I asked for YOUR explanation.

Femtosecond pulses are not explainable in terms of incompressible
Wilsonian sawblades. Or compressible Wilsonian sawblades, for
that matter.

How about Wilsonian rotating charges?

Yes. What about them?

They are easily explained in terms of classical wave theory.

What? you just cut a wave into minute pieces and still call
it a wave?

As I've said before, the properties of femtosecond pulses are
quite understandable in terms of a certain branch of mathematics
whose utility you have mocked. I will leave you in ignorance
of what I am speaking, except with a hint: Search your posting
history if you want to discover to what I refer.

How do femtosecond pulses conform with the P.E. effect?

No problem with QM either.

It is only YOUR theory that does not conform with the
existence of femtosecond pulses.

How can incompressible Wilsonian sawblades be crammed into
a femtosecond envelope?

Well these curves are obviously more than coincidence.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

Sure. You fit flute sounds with equal facility:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/root.jpg

What is wrong with that, please?

You claim that your ability to match Cepheid curves proves
that Cepheid luminosity variations have their origin in
c+v effects.

Likewise, you claim that your ability to match eclipsing
binary curves proves that purported eclipsing binaries
in reality are non-eclipsing binaries, whose luminosity
variations have their origin in c+v effects.

Logically, your ability to match flute music proves that
flute sounds have their origin in V+v effects, where V
is the velocity of sound in air.

http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/CE3K-0.wav

I've saved your fit, by the way. Anytime you want to claim
how rigorous a demonstration your Cepheid fits are of your
theory's validity, I can bring your flute fit up from my
own web site.

That isn't a cepheid. The curve slopes the wrong way.

Of course not. Your program matched a flute.

Or perhaps I should modify my statement. You HAVE results,
but the results are in contradiction to your claims. You
refuse to publish them because publishing them will reveal
your pattern of lies.

Your desperation is really showing now....

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

You now admit that that was a false statement. At least
we have THAT cleared up.

What is false about it?

I smell a rat here.......or has Minor Crank returned
from the dead...

You are free to believe anything you want to believe.

Hello Crank....why do you pretend you are female? Are you
a secret cross dresser as well?

You are a insecure sexist pig.

maybe Crank has had a sex change...

Maybe you are an arrogant moron.

You know the truth. You have no matches.

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.

Publish your results for us to examine.

The program aready does that for any particular eccentricity.
You can run my program and do it yourself. Use the 'Scan on'
feature.

Can you find stars to match all of your results?

Yes.

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

But remember critical distance is never reached because
of 'extinction'.

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.

Jerry, the velocity and brightness curves are about
the same shape in most cases.

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.

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.

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?

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri_diploma.htm

Henri Wilson's Use of Deceptive Language or,
Would You Buy A Used Ballistic Theory From This Man?
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus..._deception.htm

RT Aurigae versus Emission Theory or,
Henri Wilson's Faked Program Output
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm

Henri Wilson Attempts to Rewrite the Historical Record
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri_history.htm

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.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 03:21:10 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:25:52 +0200, YBM wrote:

Henri Wilson a écrit :
The geometry requires that light move at c in _all_
inertial frames.

Which of course is plainly impossible.

Do you mean that SR geometry is contradictory ?

It's worse than that.

Why should little planet Earth be
special, the only object in the entire universe
relative to which light _doesn't_ move at c and for
which the rule that governs the rest of the universe
doesn't apply?

Come on George, even Einstein admitted that light will be seen to
approach moving objects at c+v.

Are you, like Andro****, confusing closing velocity with relative
velocity, or are you just lying as usual ?

MY BaTh theory relies solely on 'closing velocity'.
Maybe you will now realise how pathetically stupid you are.

Closing velocity is not 'real' velocity as seen by either of the objects
involved in the closing. It is a value computed by a third observer and
gives the closing velocity of the two objects as seen by the third
observer.

That's right...and the third observer will deduce that an observer on the
target planet will see brightness fluctuations of the source star as a result.

The closing velocity has NO effect upon the transit time of one of the
objects as seen by the other object.

In other words, if BaTh deals with 'closing velocity' then it tells you
NOTHING about how long it takes the light to make its journey.

I am afraid that either BaTh must NOT be using 'closing velocity' or you
have just proven that BaTh produces no measurable effect on the travel time
of the light in its journey to earth (or to any other observer).

garbage...




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.