Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 21:33:25 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:22:05 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

much longer distances in rare space. It is kind of an exponential
effect...but
with a diminishing 'k'.

Yes but we only need to worry about the total or the
integral of the effect. The speed changes from c+v
to c over some time and the integral of the extra
speed over time is asymptotic to a finite distance.
How the value of k varies isn't particularly important.
You mentioned the electron density in another post and
you should note that we don't know how that density
varies along the line of sight, to first order at
least the effects depend only on the total number
of electrons in the column (this is the area of the
telescope by the length of the LoS) and it is the
mean density that is measured.

You are using the wrong values for your radial velocities. In reality
they
are
much lower.
I suspect that DeSitter based his calculations on similarly wrong radial
velocities. I'll look it up.

Over all known binaries, there should be a statistical
spread of inclination (pitch) angles and the orbital
speeds are constrained by Kepler so probably he used
typical values rather than specifics.

Well the chances are he was wrong.

Nope, if he was wrong you wouldn't need speed equalisation
at all. The figures you give below say he was right.

With a very rough estimate based on your figure of
0.0007 light years for 45 degrees and a phase
uncertainty based on the time spread of 74ns on
a PRF of 2.295ms, I get a speed equalistion distance
of 54 light seconds. That should be typical of the
"property of space" for all stars.

I don't know what you are talking about..

Well punch the numbers into your program and see what
it tells you. I'm working these out mostly using mental
arithmetic with the occassional calculator number so
there's a big risk but they should be in the ball park.

For P1909
For a velocity change of 1:1.00009
I get a firm figure of 0.0007 LYs.....6 Lighthours.

OK, so 6 light hours gives you 45 degrees. Then if the
phase shift caused by ADoppler was 1 degree the distance
would be significantly smaller. There is no observed
discrepancy between the phase from the conventional
orbit and the Shapiro delay and the timing accuracy is
74ns in 2295 us or 32 parts per million. That's of the
order of 0.01 degrees which translates roughly to about
a light minute. (My figure of 54 light seconds could be
out by a factor of about root two.)

I'll emphasise again, these are _rough_ figures but
probably of the right order of magnitude based on what
you have said but to get an accurate value you should
use your program. That is its purpose.

Orbital velocity is 0.00003c

9km/s? I expected about three times that (c times the
93 parts per million you mentioned before) but it is
of the right order at least.

Actually, I think I have to double the velocity variation. I think the figure
you gave for variation of pulse spacing was +/- 1 in 1.00009, was it not.

I cannot find that figure again.

In that case, for a magnitude range of 1.00023:1, the maximum orbital velocity
is more like 0.00008c.

Another point, although this orbit is claimed to be very closely circular, it
might not be..... because of what I have outlined before. When I include
ellipses in my residuals section, I will know more about this.


..and I don't think you do either
George.
Your pulsar's true radial velocity (orbit speed x cos(pitch)) is only a
few
metres per second.

0.0013 m/s you said before IIRC. Sorry Henry, that's not
possible. The source would need to be a supermassive
black hole and nearby stars would have their velocities
grossly changed. The whole galaxy would be reshaped in
fact.

No that's not what I said.
I now get the above figure.

OK, I was always a bit sceptical of that previous
number. 9km/s is much more reasonable.

24 would be even more reasonable.

The simpler interpretation is that it is nearly edge on
and the speed equalisation distance is much smaller than
you though, in fact in line with the numbers from the
page we discussed before

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binarie4.htm

where the author gets 0.0045 light years. Of course that
also removes any problems with understanding the Shapiro
delay and apparent eclipsing behaviour of various pulsars.

Check my new figures. I think you will like them.

It's not a question of whether I like them or not,
they should be whatever the theory predicts, but
certainly they are now of the same sort of order
as my rough estimates. Now going from there to
a phase shift of 0.01 degrees gives you the upper
limit on speed equalisation distance. I suggested
using 45 degrees and extrapolating from there
because I don't think your program currently
tells you the relative phase shift.

The latest version is a lot better. It isn't complete but have a look.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/newvariables.exe

Click the red button first and after changing eccentricity, set you parameters
then click on 'george'.
When the curves are in the window, you can hold down the mouse button to
produce a vertical line for phase checking.



George


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

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

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:47:08 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:41:55 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

In article ,

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Dishman wrote:
..
The basic theory that light was emitted at c relative to the
source is not really crank. It was suggested in 1908 by Ritz
as an explanation for the MMx and is quite sensible in that
context. De Sitter pointed out that binary stellar systems
should show multiple images though looking at the numbers
suggests to me that this might only be the case for systems
that are too close to have been resolved in the telescopes
of the time.
...
Back then they weren't crank theories. Today is a different
matter though.....

A lot of originally sound scientific ideas, which were developed
into theories which were tested and later dismissed because their
predictions failed to agree with observations, later reappear as
crank theories, where the crackpot trying to resurrect them ignore
the data and observations which made these theories fail.

That is true but I see Henry as being the crank, not Ritz.

Of Course! If Ritz had still been alive today, he would most likely
agree that his theory failed.

Self delusion is a psychological abnormality. You should see a
psychiatrist
before you incur permanent damage.


Is that it? your best response?

DeSitter proposed a test for Ritz's theory and the test showed that c+v is
incorrect.

De Sitter was wrong.



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

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

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:55:11 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 14:40:34 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:11:58 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article , George Dishman
wrote:
...
The basic theory that light was emitted at c relative to the
source is not really crank. It was suggested in 1908 by Ritz
as an explanation for the MMx and is quite sensible in that
context. De Sitter pointed out that binary stellar systems
should show multiple images though looking at the numbers
suggests to me that this might only be the case for systems
that are too close to have been resolved in the telescopes
of the time.
...
Back then they weren't crank theories. Today is a different
matter though.....

Why? ...

Because they have _since_ been tested (Sagnac, Shapiro,
etc.) and failed. Experimental evidence now exists that
the idea does not model how nature behaves and clinging
to a falsified model in the face of actual results is
a large part of what defines crank for me.

Keep dreaming George.

You are starting to get the message. It is more than coincidence that so
many
brightness curves obey the BaTh predictions.


Yes, If the ballistic theory held it could produce brightness curves that
follow those observed, but if it held it would also make other predictions.
Those predictions are not observed.
Hence the ballistic theory of light is failed on observational evidence.

You don't know what you are talking about.



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

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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 22:31:07 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:30:42 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 00:33:16 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


OK, support it.
What is BaTh and what is extinction and how does it occur?

Ballistic theory of light.

Light moves at c wrt its source and at c+v wrt an observer moving
towards
the
source at v. Photons are lioght bullets fired from a gun.

Extinction is the term used to describe changes in light speed as it
enters a
medium such as a gas. Somebody here reckoned the extinction distance
in
air is
about 3 cms. If it is exponential, that would be a kind of 'half
distance', I
suppose.
I extended the scope of extinction to imply 'light speed unification'.
I
argue
that all photons moving through space in a particular direction tend
towards a
common speed..but only very slowly. There is good reason to believe
that
extinction rates are high in the vicinity of large masses and much
lower
in
remote space.
I also believe that extinction is not caused solely by the presence of
matter
but also by other factors such as the presence of fields or by the
interaction
between photons.
It's all a bit speculative although the principle of extinction is
generally
accepted.


OK , a totally crank theory then with no merit.

A theory that is supported by every bit of evidence there is.


Yes, any theory can be made to support every bit of evidence if you allow
yourself to add bits to the theory to explain away discrepancies.

Does Hubble show different spectra to ground based telescopes (as would be
required if atmospheric 'extinction' is part of the theory)? No, but only
because you invent a 'light speed unification' in-vacuo.

I didn't invent it, you moron.
The idea is a proven fact well known to every astronomer.

Which idea?
You seem to claim a theory that light 'somehow settles down' to a single
speed - which is 'a bit vague' as claims go.
why?
what speed?
why that speed?


You seem to have

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:47:08 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:41:55 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

In article ,

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Dishman wrote:
..
The basic theory that light was emitted at c relative to the
source is not really crank. It was suggested in 1908 by Ritz
as an explanation for the MMx and is quite sensible in that
context. De Sitter pointed out that binary stellar systems
should show multiple images though looking at the numbers
suggests to me that this might only be the case for systems
that are too close to have been resolved in the telescopes
of the time.
...
Back then they weren't crank theories. Today is a different
matter though.....

A lot of originally sound scientific ideas, which were developed
into theories which were tested and later dismissed because their
predictions failed to agree with observations, later reappear as
crank theories, where the crackpot trying to resurrect them ignore
the data and observations which made these theories fail.

That is true but I see Henry as being the crank, not Ritz.

Of Course! If Ritz had still been alive today, he would most likely
agree that his theory failed.

Self delusion is a psychological abnormality. You should see a
psychiatrist
before you incur permanent damage.


Is that it? your best response?

DeSitter proposed a test for Ritz's theory and the test showed that c+v is
incorrect.

De Sitter was wrong.

His observations were made.
you need to explain the observations.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:55:11 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 14:40:34 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:11:58 GMT, (Paul Schlyter)
wrote:
In article , George Dishman
wrote:
...
The basic theory that light was emitted at c relative to the
source is not really crank. It was suggested in 1908 by Ritz
as an explanation for the MMx and is quite sensible in that
context. De Sitter pointed out that binary stellar systems
should show multiple images though looking at the numbers
suggests to me that this might only be the case for systems
that are too close to have been resolved in the telescopes
of the time.
...
Back then they weren't crank theories. Today is a different
matter though.....

Why? ...

Because they have _since_ been tested (Sagnac, Shapiro,
etc.) and failed. Experimental evidence now exists that
the idea does not model how nature behaves and clinging
to a falsified model in the face of actual results is
a large part of what defines crank for me.

Keep dreaming George.

You are starting to get the message. It is more than coincidence that so
many
brightness curves obey the BaTh predictions.


Yes, If the ballistic theory held it could produce brightness curves that
follow those observed, but if it held it would also make other
predictions.
Those predictions are not observed.
Hence the ballistic theory of light is failed on observational evidence.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Yes I do.
Why does the Hubble space telescope not see smeared spectral lines from
binary stars?

On Apr 9, 4:36 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 01:27:02 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Apr 7, 4:29 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Keep dreaming George.

You are starting to get the message. It is more
than coincidence that so many
brightness curves obey the BaTh predictions.

Let me repeat the contents of a previous post, Henri.

You have not succeeded in matching the luminosity curve
of ANY variable star!!!

Silly little girl!
I have matched dozens on them.

You have at best ONLY matched SINGLE CYCLES of the light
curve of a pulsator. Over multiple cycles, the luminosity
curves of pulsators show period noise and amplitude noise.

Consider the luminosity curve of S Cas:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00064.gif

Sily little girl, these curves are based on visual estimates
using nearty reference stars. The weather conditions play a large
part. A slow change in ''''observed'''' period is to be expected
due to the binary system being in a larger orbit around some kind
of mass centre.

Dream on, Henri. Standard errors can be estimated from the degree
of scatter in the recorded observations. They amount to several
tenths of a magnitude.

The recorded amplitude noise amounts to over two orders of
magnitude, which is MANY times the standard error of estimate.

Demonstrate that you can fit the ENTIRE curve from 1921
to 2000 with a single set of parameters.

The plain fact of the matter is, that YOU CAN'T.

Silly girl. The variations are observational....due largely to
atmospheric and space conditions.

That is your standard response. Whenever your theory is
contradicted by observational data, you blame the data.

Since your theory is contradicted by ALL the data, you claim
that ALL observations are Willusion...

....showing that BaTh has failed yet again!

Likewise, you have only matched the light curve of
Algol-type binaries AT A SINGLE WAVELENGTH. BaTh predicts
the same light curve for Algol in IR, visible, and X-rays.
In reality, the light curves are dramatically different.
http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/...h/journey.html

Indeed, there is practically no variability in Algol's
luminosity at X-ray wavelengths.

Algol's X-ray spectrum shows Doppler shifts which are 180
degrees out of phase with the Doppler shifts measured in
visible light (the visible light spectrum being dominated
by that of the primary), but which are completely in phase
with the absorption lines of the secondary which have been
resolved.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ.../v606n2/59351/...

So what?
Algol is most probably an eclipsing binary....

AHA! So you ADMIT that your theory can't explain Algol...

BaTh fails yet again!

but you can bet your life most
other so-called eclipsing binaries are not that at all.

You want to bet MY life???
You aren't willing to bet YOUR OWN???
Sheesh, you're a coward....

BaTh has FAILED even at the single task in which you
claim it has succeeded.

silly girl. Go and test soeme urine samples...

How typical of you. You always resort to personal attacks
when you have no other response.

Let's go on to another old topic:

We know that BaTh cannot explain the wavelength-dependent
shape of the Algol luminosity curve. You've just admitted
that you lost the argument here.

Can BaTh explain the wavelength-dependent shape and phasing
of Cepheid luminosity curves?

Consider the dramatic differences seen in the luminosity
curves of HV12198 measured in the V and K bands:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0003213

BaTh offers no explanation for the dramatic differences in
shape and phasing of the luminosity curves measured at these
differing wavelengths.

ALL CEPHEIDS SHOW SIMILAR WAVELENGTH DEPENDENCIES IN THEIR
LUMINOSITY CURVES.

BaTh fails yet again!

Jerry

On 9 Apr 2007 17:20:07 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Apr 9, 4:36 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 01:27:02 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Apr 7, 4:29 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Keep dreaming George.

You are starting to get the message. It is more
than coincidence that so many
brightness curves obey the BaTh predictions.

Let me repeat the contents of a previous post, Henri.

You have not succeeded in matching the luminosity curve
of ANY variable star!!!

Silly little girl!
I have matched dozens on them.

You have at best ONLY matched SINGLE CYCLES of the light
curve of a pulsator. Over multiple cycles, the luminosity
curves of pulsators show period noise and amplitude noise.

Consider the luminosity curve of S Cas:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00064.gif

Sily little girl, these curves are based on visual estimates
using nearty reference stars. The weather conditions play a large
part. A slow change in ''''observed'''' period is to be expected
due to the binary system being in a larger orbit around some kind
of mass centre.

Dream on, Henri. Standard errors can be estimated from the degree
of scatter in the recorded observations. They amount to several
tenths of a magnitude.

The recorded amplitude noise amounts to over two orders of
magnitude, which is MANY times the standard error of estimate.

Demonstrate that you can fit the ENTIRE curve from 1921
to 2000 with a single set of parameters.

The plain fact of the matter is, that YOU CAN'T.

Silly girl. The variations are observational....due largely to
atmospheric and space conditions.

That is your standard response. Whenever your theory is
contradicted by observational data, you blame the data.

Since your theory is contradicted by ALL the data, you claim
that ALL observations are Willusion...

Read what the britastro crowd says.


...showing that BaTh has failed yet again!

Likewise, you have only matched the light curve of
Algol-type binaries AT A SINGLE WAVELENGTH. BaTh predicts
the same light curve for Algol in IR, visible, and X-rays.
In reality, the light curves are dramatically different.
http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/...h/journey.html

Indeed, there is practically no variability in Algol's
luminosity at X-ray wavelengths.

Algol's X-ray spectrum shows Doppler shifts which are 180
degrees out of phase with the Doppler shifts measured in
visible light (the visible light spectrum being dominated
by that of the primary), but which are completely in phase
with the absorption lines of the secondary which have been
resolved.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ.../v606n2/59351/...

So what?
Algol is most probably an eclipsing binary....

AHA! So you ADMIT that your theory can't explain Algol...

BaTh fails yet again!

Have you thrown all logic out the window....in typical relativist fashion?
The BaTh can produce a brightness curve that looks exactly like Algol's.
That doesn't mean that it isn't eclipsing.
It still could be, the curves are very similar.

Obviously there are binary pairs out tehre that DO eclipse one another.


but you can bet your life most
other so-called eclipsing binaries are not that at all.

You want to bet MY life???
You aren't willing to bet YOUR OWN???
Sheesh, you're a coward....

I am thoroughly enjoying watching relativists sqirm as the truth slowlly but
surely emerges.

BaTh has FAILED even at the single task in which you
claim it has succeeded.

silly girl. Go and test soeme urine samples...

How typical of you. You always resort to personal attacks
when you have no other response.

Let's go on to another old topic:

We know that BaTh cannot explain the wavelength-dependent
shape of the Algol luminosity curve. You've just admitted
that you lost the argument here.

Can BaTh explain the wavelength-dependent shape and phasing
of Cepheid luminosity curves?

Consider the dramatic differences seen in the luminosity
curves of HV12198 measured in the V and K bands:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0003213

Of course.
They probably originate from different levels.

But I'm more interested in the fact that the velocity curve is a mirror image
of the Vbrightness curve. ...just as I predict.

BaTh offers no explanation for the dramatic differences in
shape and phasing of the luminosity curves measured at these
differing wavelengths.

ALL CEPHEIDS SHOW SIMILAR WAVELENGTH DEPENDENCIES IN THEIR
LUMINOSITY CURVES.

BaTh fails yet again!

Silly girl. ....hasn't a clue...

I hope I'm never one of her patients...



Jerry

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

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

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:15:28 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:55:11 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 14:40:34 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:11:58 GMT, (Paul Schlyter)
wrote:
In article , George Dishman
wrote:
...
The basic theory that light was emitted at c relative to the
source is not really crank. It was suggested in 1908 by Ritz
as an explanation for the MMx and is quite sensible in that
context. De Sitter pointed out that binary stellar systems
should show multiple images though looking at the numbers
suggests to me that this might only be the case for systems
that are too close to have been resolved in the telescopes
of the time.
...
Back then they weren't crank theories. Today is a different
matter though.....

Why? ...

Because they have _since_ been tested (Sagnac, Shapiro,
etc.) and failed. Experimental evidence now exists that
the idea does not model how nature behaves and clinging
to a falsified model in the face of actual results is
a large part of what defines crank for me.

Keep dreaming George.

You are starting to get the message. It is more than coincidence that so
many
brightness curves obey the BaTh predictions.


Yes, If the ballistic theory held it could produce brightness curves that
follow those observed, but if it held it would also make other
predictions.
Those predictions are not observed.
Hence the ballistic theory of light is failed on observational evidence.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Yes I do.
Why does the Hubble space telescope not see smeared spectral lines from
binary stars?

I should imagine if thermal broadening exists, then the HST will pick it up.

The BaTh says nothing dramatic about 'smearing' of spectral lines.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

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

On Apr 9, 8:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 17:20:07 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Apr 9, 4:36 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 01:27:02 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

Let me repeat the contents of a previous post, Henri.

You have not succeeded in matching the luminosity curve
of ANY variable star!!!

Silly little girl!
I have matched dozens on them.

You have at best ONLY matched SINGLE CYCLES of the light
curve of a pulsator. Over multiple cycles, the luminosity
curves of pulsators show period noise and amplitude noise.

Consider the luminosity curve of S Cas:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00064.gif

Sily little girl, these curves are based on visual estimates
using nearty reference stars. The weather conditions play a large
part. A slow change in ''''observed'''' period is to be expected
due to the binary system being in a larger orbit around some kind
of mass centre.

Dream on, Henri. Standard errors can be estimated from the degree
of scatter in the recorded observations. They amount to several
tenths of a magnitude.

The recorded amplitude noise amounts to over two orders of
magnitude, which is MANY times the standard error of estimate.

Demonstrate that you can fit the ENTIRE curve from 1921
to 2000 with a single set of parameters.

The plain fact of the matter is, that YOU CAN'T.

Silly girl. The variations are observational....due largely to
atmospheric and space conditions.

That is your standard response. Whenever your theory is
contradicted by observational data, you blame the data.

Since your theory is contradicted by ALL the data, you claim
that ALL observations are Willusion...

Read what the britastro crowd says.

...showing that BaTh has failed yet again!

Likewise, you have only matched the light curve of
Algol-type binaries AT A SINGLE WAVELENGTH. BaTh predicts
the same light curve for Algol in IR, visible, and X-rays.
In reality, the light curves are dramatically different.
http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/...h/journey.html

Indeed, there is practically no variability in Algol's
luminosity at X-ray wavelengths.

Algol's X-ray spectrum shows Doppler shifts which are 180
degrees out of phase with the Doppler shifts measured in
visible light (the visible light spectrum being dominated
by that of the primary), but which are completely in phase
with the absorption lines of the secondary which have been
resolved.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ.../v606n2/59351/...

So what?
Algol is most probably an eclipsing binary....

AHA! So you ADMIT that your theory can't explain Algol...

BaTh fails yet again!

Have you thrown all logic out the window....in typical
relativist fashion?
The BaTh can produce a brightness curve that looks exactly
like Algol's.
That doesn't mean that it isn't eclipsing.
It still could be, the curves are very similar.

BaTh CANNOT produce a brightness curve that simultaneously
matches the brightness curve of Algol at 1920 Angstroms AND
at 4350 Angstroms AND at 5500 Angstroms AND at 1.2 microns.

The eclipsing binary hypothesis has no trouble explaining
the brightness curve. BaTh is not only superfluous, but is
completely wrong.

BaTh FAILS, FAILS, FAILS, AND FAILS AGAIN...


Obviously there are binary pairs out tehre that DO eclipse
one another.

....and BaTh is totally inadequate for explaining their
luminosity curves.

but you can bet your life most
other so-called eclipsing binaries are not that at all.

You want to bet MY life???
You aren't willing to bet YOUR OWN???
Sheesh, you're a coward....

I am thoroughly enjoying watching relativists sqirm
as the truth slowlly but surely emerges.

In your dreams, Henri.

BaTh has FAILED even at the single task in which you
claim it has succeeded.

silly girl. Go and test soeme urine samples...

How typical of you. You always resort to personal attacks
when you have no other response.

Let's go on to another old topic:

We know that BaTh cannot explain the wavelength-dependent
shape of the Algol luminosity curve. You've just admitted
that you lost the argument here.

Can BaTh explain the wavelength-dependent shape and phasing
of Cepheid luminosity curves?

Consider the dramatic differences seen in the luminosity
curves of HV12198 measured in the V and K bands:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0003213

Of course.
They probably originate from different levels.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

But I'm more interested in the fact that the velocity curve
is a mirror image of the Vbrightness curve. ...just as I predict.

WHICH brightness curve? The V-band or the K-band curve?
The two are dramatically different.

BaTh offers no explanation for the dramatic differences in
shape and phasing of the luminosity curves measured at these
differing wavelengths.

ALL CEPHEIDS SHOW SIMILAR WAVELENGTH DEPENDENCIES IN THEIR
LUMINOSITY CURVES.

BaTh fails yet again!

Silly girl. ....hasn't a clue...

Poor Henri. No valid response, so he resorts to abuse again...

I hope I'm never one of her patients...

You must be having REAL problems if you think you might need
the services of an ob-gyn.

Jerry