Perihelion of Mercury question

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
| On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:07:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
| | On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:13:19 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| | wrote:
| |
|
| |
| | Correct.
| |
| | | You are going into double imagery.
| | | I can produce the same...however it never happens in the real universe because
| | | of extinction.
| |
| |
| | V 1493 Aql says it does.
| | "Contact binaries" -- a ****ing joke -- says it does.
| |
| | When you have the velocity S-curve or foldback curve
| | and model the spectrum, you'll see one set of lines move
| | up and another set move down, looking like two stars.
| | DeSitter said we never see two stars when there is only one,
| | but we DO.
| |
| | If that were true, those two stars should appear spontaneously in a bright
| | flash and would subsequently move apart and eventually disappear. That process
| | should repeat itself.
| |
| | that is not how a 'contact binary' behaves.....
|
|
| Do you happen to have a complete 28-year movie of this?
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Crab.gif
| I think I saw a spontaneous bright flash at 11:24 pm GMT
| on 14th of March 1996, but unfortunately I didn't have my camera
| handy to record it.
| Oh... wait... You don't even a have a ****ing telescope, but
| you know all about how contact binaries behave even when
| you can't see them, I forgot you were all-knowing and all-seeing,
| O Mighty God, you ****in' ARSEHOLE who gets all his data
| second-hand from the world wide web!
| You are not, never were and never will be a scientist, you are
| forever an arsehole.
|
| Cut the bull, you old dope, be serious for once.

Ok... if you will.


|
| How can you explain the hump in the curves of so-called 'type B cepheids'?..
| http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00425.000.html

Another planet. I never did bother to model ternary systems,
it is too complicated to bother. Who's going to enter all the data?


| As far as I can see it requires a second or third object orbiting at the same
| period but with a different eccentricity and YAW angle. There is no known way
| for that to happen.

It doesn't have the same period, and you need to learn sampling theory.
http://netzmafia.de/skripten/dvs/nyquist.gif

Unfortunately I didn't find a good website, here's another.

http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/urz/lehre/...io/nyquist.png

One cannot tell if the green curve is correct or the red curve is
correct from the samples, and astronomical data is always sampled.
It has to be, the Earth turns and you can only watch a star for
12 hours tops. Sometimes cloud gets in the way.

|
| Maybe there are stable orbits in three body systems that allow this.

I won't touch three body systems, they are WAY to difficult and
fraught with problems. There are enough problems with two-body
systems, the first thing you have to overcome is prejudice and
bull**** about "wavelength".



|
| 'Type A cepheids' have the types of curves we cn produce easily.
| It would also appear that type B and C cepheids differ only wrt the yaw angle
| of the main star.

Yep.

|
| | I've been waiting seven ****ing years for you to get off your
| | arse and model the velocity curve, Wilson, but you are
| | ****ing slow and lazy with your head up your arse most of the
| | time, you and your ****ing theories. You learnt that from
| | Einstein, the worst teacher there ever could be.
| | No wonder you ozzies could only farm sheep and goats while
| | I was building Concorde. Ozzies, bunch of ****ing dreamers. :-)
| |
| | All theory, my friend, is gray,
| | But green is the lustrous tree of life. -- Mephistopheles, as quoted in Goethe's Faust
| | My familiar, Fizz, added that. I'm a sorcerer, y'know. His full name
| | is Mephistopheles, Fizz for short. In everyday life he looks just
| | like a black cat, but he's a killer. He likes to read my library books,
| | and he'll eat me If I don't feed him.
| |
| | Sounds like he's been well and truly feeding your hangover...or rather,
| | drowning it...
|
|
| At least he doesn't see contact binaries when he's drunk.
| Most people manage pink elephants, you are the first I've
| ever come across that sees contact binaries, knows how they
| behave and are permanently inebriated, insane, and with an
| expanded polystyrene ego puffed up like ****in' soap bubble.
|
| Of course they aren't ****ing 'in contact'. That's just what Tussellad thinks.
| ....but I doubt very much if they can be explained by double imagery.

The spectrum says two stars, unless you understand the
velocity S-curve.
Keep in mind that stars look like points of light, the only
double you'll ever see is Sirius, 50 year orbit and 8 light years away.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041222.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010318.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001006.html


|
| See: http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/res...ries_prog.html
|
| Observed period can certainly be reduced by time compression, by maybe a factor
| of four of five.....maybe that is happening here.
|

Give up the indoctrination, there are NO short period binaries;
learn Nyquist sampling, learn the velocity S-curve, program it
in 2D. You can't go half-arsed with c+v.

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:33:47 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
| On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:07:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:

| Cut the bull, you old dope, be serious for once.

Ok... if you will.


|
| How can you explain the hump in the curves of so-called 'type B cepheids'?..
| http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00425.000.html

Another planet. I never did bother to model ternary systems,
it is too complicated to bother. Who's going to enter all the data?

| As far as I can see it requires a second or third object orbiting at the same
| period but with a different eccentricity and YAW angle. There is no known way
| for that to happen.

It doesn't have the same period, and you need to learn sampling theory.
http://netzmafia.de/skripten/dvs/nyquist.gif

Unfortunately I didn't find a good website, here's another.

http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/urz/lehre/...io/nyquist.png

What the **** is that supposed to tell me?
Is that an FM signal or what?

One cannot tell if the green curve is correct or the red curve is
correct from the samples, and astronomical data is always sampled.
It has to be, the Earth turns and you can only watch a star for
12 hours tops. Sometimes cloud gets in the way.

Well I assume astronomers aren't completely stupid and that the curves for
'type B cepheids' are consistent over many periods. That implies it has the
same period as the other one.
The 'bump' can only be produced if a second object is orbiting the same centre
but with a completely different eccentricity and yaw.

| Maybe there are stable orbits in three body systems that allow this.

I won't touch three body systems, they are WAY to difficult and
fraught with problems. There are enough problems with two-body
systems, the first thing you have to overcome is prejudice and
bull**** about "wavelength".

You haven't told me what happens to the 'wavelength' of light as it enters a
glass plate...

| 'Type A cepheids' have the types of curves we cn produce easily.
| It would also appear that type B and C cepheids differ only wrt the yaw angle
| of the main star.

Yep.


| At least he doesn't see contact binaries when he's drunk.
| Most people manage pink elephants, you are the first I've
| ever come across that sees contact binaries, knows how they
| behave and are permanently inebriated, insane, and with an
| expanded polystyrene ego puffed up like ****in' soap bubble.
|
| Of course they aren't ****ing 'in contact'. That's just what Tussellad thinks.
| ....but I doubt very much if they can be explained by double imagery.

The spectrum says two stars, unless you understand the
velocity S-curve.
Keep in mind that stars look like points of light, the only
double you'll ever see is Sirius, 50 year orbit and 8 light years away.

...and you wont see their pitch angles either..

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041222.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010318.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001006.html


|
| See: http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/res...ries_prog.html
|
| Observed period can certainly be reduced by time compression, by maybe a factor
| of four of five.....maybe that is happening here.
|

Give up the indoctrination, there are NO short period binaries;
learn Nyquist sampling, learn the velocity S-curve, program it
in 2D. You can't go half-arsed with c+v.

Well I don't fully accept the idea of short period binaries either....but you
are certainly not offering any alternative.

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:19:57 GMT
:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:33:47 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
| On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:07:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:

| Cut the bull, you old dope, be serious for once.

Ok... if you will.


|
| How can you explain the hump in the curves of so-called 'type B cepheids'?..
| http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00425.000.html

Another planet. I never did bother to model ternary systems,
it is too complicated to bother. Who's going to enter all the data?

| As far as I can see it requires a second or third object orbiting at the same
| period but with a different eccentricity and YAW angle. There is no known way
| for that to happen.

It doesn't have the same period, and you need to learn sampling theory.
http://netzmafia.de/skripten/dvs/nyquist.gif

^^ [1]

Unfortunately I didn't find a good website, here's another.

http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/urz/lehre/...io/nyquist.png

^^ [2]

What the **** is that supposed to tell me?
Is that an FM signal or what?

Good question, that. [2] is titled "Nyquist-Theorem" with
two sinewaves. The abscissa (horizontal) is subtitled t
and ranges from 0 to about 60. The ordinate (vertical) is
subtitled Amplitude and ranges from -1.5 to +1.5. The two
curves are red (Originalwelle) and green (Resultat).
If one assumes German, Originalwelle = "Original wave"
in Babelfish, so presumably this is illustrating something,
although not very clearly.

It would have been far more straightforward to interpret
this diagram had dots been included at the tri-intersection
points formed by the gray, green, and red lines in [2]
(if one looks carefully one can see these intersection
points, but they're not called out by a dot or symbol).
[1] is a series of four curves, which illustrate various
sampling problems by using red dots.


It turns out Wiki has an entry for "Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_Theorem

which summarizes the result nicely as:

Exact reconstruction of a continuous-time baseband signal from its
samples is possible if the signal is bandlimited and the sampling
frequency is greater than twice the signal bandwidth.

I'll admit to some curiosity as to how difficult it would be to code up
a Java applet illustrating this theorem.

Whether this is relevant to orbital theory is not clear, since orbits
are usually constrained to far lower "bandwidths" than electronic
signals. However, I for one have noticed many problems with naive
simulations of orbits; the best I can do is solve the Newtonian orbital
equations, which results, surprisingly, in *time* as a function
of orbital *distance*:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Orbit.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...dyProblem.html

(There is a relativistic variant as well, apparently, but it is
far terser than the other two:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...dyProblem.html

Presumably relativity is only an issue if the bodies are near the
Scharzchild radius, or if the orbit is observed for long periods (a la
Mercury). Of course one subissue with relativity is *not* related to
the orbit per se, but with the light emitted from the bodies in orbit;
in SR this light travels at c and therefore does not exhibit various
Newtonian predicted effects such as "spikes".)

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
Linux makes one use one's mind.
Windows just messes with one's head.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 09:58:56 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote

|
| How can you explain the hump in the curves of so-called 'type B cepheids'?..
| http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00425.000.html

Another planet. I never did bother to model ternary systems,
it is too complicated to bother. Who's going to enter all the data?

| As far as I can see it requires a second or third object orbiting at the same
| period but with a different eccentricity and YAW angle. There is no known way
| for that to happen.

It doesn't have the same period, and you need to learn sampling theory.
http://netzmafia.de/skripten/dvs/nyquist.gif

^^ [1]

Unfortunately I didn't find a good website, here's another.

http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/urz/lehre/...io/nyquist.png

^^ [2]

What the **** is that supposed to tell me?
Is that an FM signal or what?

Good question, that. [2] is titled "Nyquist-Theorem" with
two sinewaves. The abscissa (horizontal) is subtitled t
and ranges from 0 to about 60. The ordinate (vertical) is
subtitled Amplitude and ranges from -1.5 to +1.5. The two
curves are red (Originalwelle) and green (Resultat).
If one assumes German, Originalwelle = "Original wave"
in Babelfish, so presumably this is illustrating something,
although not very clearly.

It would have been far more straightforward to interpret
this diagram had dots been included at the tri-intersection
points formed by the gray, green, and red lines in [2]
(if one looks carefully one can see these intersection
points, but they're not called out by a dot or symbol).
[1] is a series of four curves, which illustrate various
sampling problems by using red dots.

As it is presented, it is bloody meaningless...except maybe to Androcles who
manages to find hidden meanings in everything..

It turns out Wiki has an entry for "Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_Theorem

which summarizes the result nicely as:

Exact reconstruction of a continuous-time baseband signal from its
samples is possible if the signal is bandlimited and the sampling
frequency is greater than twice the signal bandwidth.

I'll admit to some curiosity as to how difficult it would be to code up
a Java applet illustrating this theorem.

Whether this is relevant to orbital theory is not clear, since orbits
are usually constrained to far lower "bandwidths" than electronic
signals. However, I for one have noticed many problems with naive
simulations of orbits; the best I can do is solve the Newtonian orbital
equations, which results, surprisingly, in *time* as a function
of orbital *distance*:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Orbit.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...dyProblem.html

I use a computer iteration to solve the orbit equation, using F=Gm1m2/r^2. It's
a lot easier..

(There is a relativistic variant as well, apparently, but it is
far terser than the other two:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...dyProblem.html

Presumably relativity is only an issue if the bodies are near the
Scharzchild radius, or if the orbit is observed for long periods (a la
Mercury). Of course one subissue with relativity is *not* related to
the orbit per se, but with the light emitted from the bodies in orbit;
in SR this light travels at c and therefore does not exhibit various
Newtonian predicted effects such as "spikes".)

Don't worry about it. Einstein's version is just a fantasy without any
connection to the real world.

[rest snipped]