How much more proof does one need?

"Henry Wilson DSc ." HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:39:14 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc ." HW@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 GMT, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Sorry, here's the website:
www.scisite.info/R Cru2.jpg

Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..


There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a
couple of days I was getting worried about ya.
If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this:
www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg

OK Try this: http://www.scisite.info/r_cru.jpg

Pretty convincing, eh?

Not bad. Now do it with 100 points as I did.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

Eccentricity .25
Yaw angle 82
Pitch angle 0
Distance 280
Phase 1
Sample 0




Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch.
I
haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
because I cannot find reliable figures.

EXACTLY!
Distance is the Holy Grail of Astronomy, that's why Hipparcos
and Tycho were launched.


Hipparcos and Tycho give different
values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product
(distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a
particular
factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same
curve, as
you should know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hi...accuracies.gif

I have a question, though.
Why does your program refer to more than one star?
A cepheid is a star and a planet, not a double star.

On 2009-11-21, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). HW@ wrote:
Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I
haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different
values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively.


I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it
past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho
catalog does not include parallax.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On 2009-11-21, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). HW@ wrote:
Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes
pitch. I
haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give
different
values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively.


I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it
past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho
catalog does not include parallax.


http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/catalogs/tycho2.html
The Tycho-2 positions and magnitudes are based on precisely the same
observations as the Tycho-1 Catalogue (ESA SP-1200, 1997) collected by the
star mapper of the ESA Hipparcos satellite, but Tycho-2 is much bigger and
slightly more precise, owing to a more advanced reduction technique.

I shall ignore Hennessy's farting, he has his head up his arse.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file ****wits like you.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and **** off.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:51:07 GMT, Greg Hennessy wrote:

On 2009-11-21, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). HW@ wrote:
Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I
haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different
values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively.


I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it
past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho
catalog does not include parallax.

What is this then?

http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_sc...logueSearch.pl
Catogue T(ycho), parallax = 3.1

Here's the Hipparcos one:
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_sc...logueSearch.pl

trig parallx = 1.97

So who is the dickhead now?

Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc." HW@.. wrote in message
news
Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.

Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct

Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.

Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

"Henry Wilson DSc." HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial"
wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc." HW@.. wrote in message
news
Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.

Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct

Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.

Wrong

"Henry Wilson DSc ." HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:51:07 GMT, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On 2009-11-21, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). HW@ wrote:
Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes
pitch. I
haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured
value
because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give
different
values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively.


I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it
past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho
catalog does not include parallax.

What is this then?

http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_sc...logueSearch.pl
Catogue T(ycho), parallax = 3.1

Here's the Hipparcos one:
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_sc...logueSearch.pl

trig parallx = 1.97

So who is the dickhead now?

Hennessy is the dickhead with his cock up his own arse.

"Henry Wilson DSc ." HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial"
wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc." HW@.. wrote in message
news
Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.

Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct

Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.

Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm

Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
Why do you bother with ****wits?

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Henry Wilson DSc ." HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial"
wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc." HW@.. wrote in message
news Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.

Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct

Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.

Einstein's third postulate is clearly wrong.

Of course, there is no third postulate

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm

That doesn't show anything wrong apart from you

Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway.
Why do you bother with ****wits?

Because you are entertaining.

On Nov 21, 1:04*pm, BURT wrote:
On Nov 21, 12:42*pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:



On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:39:14 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc ." HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:53:57 GMT, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Sorry, here's the website:
www.scisite.info/RCru2.jpg

Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

* * * Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a
couple of days I was getting worried about ya.
If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this:
*www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg

OK Try this:http://www.scisite.info/r_cru.jpg

Pretty convincing, eh?

Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I
haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value
because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different
values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product
(distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a particular
factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same curve, as
you should know.

Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

* * * *Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The speed of light is a constant until inside the atom.

Mitch Raemsch

Photons or quantum strings if you like can not coexist inside the
atom.

~ BG