Perihelion of Mercury question

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
| On 24 Dec 2006 16:31:24 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On 23 Dec 2006 16:16:17 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| | Koobee Wublee wrote:
| | On Dec 21, 6:17 pm, "
| | wrote:
|
|
| (double yawn)
| Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
| Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
| that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
|
| I have produced these curves.
| see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
|
| Not a bad fit, eh Jeery?
|
| Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
|
| Totally unimpressive.
| With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
| You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
|
| You can't get out of it that easily Jerry.
| The basic maths is limited to the use of c+v.cos(theta) only. The parameters I
| can change wont make any difference to the range of basic shapes I can produce.
|
| Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
|
| I have shown them before.
|
|
| Cepheid curves are typical of stars in moderately eccentric orbits with their
| major axes lying about 45 degres away fronm the LOS.
|
| It so happens that the current view of these 'huff-puff' stars might also give
| a similar brightness curve, based on the variable c+v of their surface facing
| Earth..
|
| So I win either way.
|
| Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
|
| I have shown them before.
|
| I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
|
| Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
|
| I have shown them before.
|
| Then why don't you show your radial velocity curves and the
| brightness curves on a single set of plots?
|
| I did once before.
| I can't find it now.
|
| Uh, huh...
|
| I have shown them before.
|
| The radial velocity curves are exactly those of a star with the above
| parameters.
| However there was a great deal of doubt as to the actual phasing between the
| published brightness and velocity curves. This was admitted by the author.
|
| Uh huh...
|
| Try this set of curves:
| http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
|
| THat's the one to which I just referred you.

That diagram is as poor as ****, unreadable, scanned straight out of
a text book.

The fit in THIS curve is pure bloody guesswork:
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif

The REAL data:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/RTAurVel.GIF

And the DERIVED data is idiotic:

"The acceleration information for the entire cycle can be found by differentiating the velocity graph by time. "

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...urVelCheat.GIF

The acceleration goes up while the velocity goes down?
No way, Jose!

| Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
| and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.


I want to see JEERY simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.


| I have shown them before.

H, let the cartoon cat and mouse team Tom and Jeery do it, the lying phuckwits.
I want to see the brightness PHASE matched to the velocity phase, or
the JULIAN DATE matched to the velocity curve. That crucial data is ALWAYS
missing.
Why?
I'll tell you why. They are NOT in phase as the cheating idiots pretend.

The gif at http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid6.gif is FAKED.

C Johnson, Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago is yet another incompetent moron who can't even get the sign of the acceleration correct, like you and your **** the '-'.

Who the **** would use DERIVED data?

Androcles.

Sorcerer wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
| On 24 Dec 2006 16:31:24 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On 23 Dec 2006 16:16:17 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| (double yawn)
| Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
| Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
| that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
|
| I have produced these curves.
| see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
|
| Not a bad fit, eh Jeery?
|
| Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
|
| Totally unimpressive.
| With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
| You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
|
| You can't get out of it that easily Jerry.
| The basic maths is limited to the use of c+v.cos(theta) only. The parameters I
| can change wont make any difference to the range of basic shapes I can produce.
|
| Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
|
| I have shown them before.
|
|
| Cepheid curves are typical of stars in moderately eccentric orbits with their
| major axes lying about 45 degres away fronm the LOS.
|
| It so happens that the current view of these 'huff-puff' stars might also give
| a similar brightness curve, based on the variable c+v of their surface facing
| Earth..
|
| So I win either way.
|
| Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
|
| I have shown them before.
|
| I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
|
| Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
|
| I have shown them before.
|
| Then why don't you show your radial velocity curves and the
| brightness curves on a single set of plots?
|
| I did once before.
| I can't find it now.
|
| Uh, huh...
|
| I have shown them before.
|
| The radial velocity curves are exactly those of a star with the above
| parameters.
| However there was a great deal of doubt as to the actual phasing between the
| published brightness and velocity curves. This was admitted by the author.
|
| Uh huh...
|
| Try this set of curves:
| http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
|
| THat's the one to which I just referred you.

That diagram is as poor as ****, unreadable, scanned straight out of
a text book.

The fit in THIS curve is pure bloody guesswork:
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif

Johnson writes:
"This is a 'smoothed curve' graph and is a best-fit to a group of
around 25 data points. The radial velocity data generally has
significant error factors since the values are determined entirely by
rather subtle Doppler shifts in the spectral lines. Therefore, the
raw data is less useful for these purposes, and a smoothed curve is
used here."

The term "best-fit" has a precise technical meaning.

The REAL data:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/RTAurVel.GIF

I suppose that when YOU fit raw data to your curve fits, that EVERY
point lies on top of your graphs and that you NEVER find outliers?
Don't be silly.

And the DERIVED data is idiotic:

"The acceleration information for the entire cycle can be found by differentiating the velocity graph by time. "

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...urVelCheat.GIF

The acceleration goes up while the velocity goes down?
No way, Jose!

At the end of the article, Johnson explains the column headings and
the sign conventions used:
"In the (Measured) Radial Velocity column and Relative Radial Velocity
column, plus numbers mean moving away from Earth. The opposite is
true in the Acceleration column, where negative values indicate
acceleration away from us, toward the center of the star, or a
gravitational collapsing effect...."

| Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
| and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.


I want to see JEERY simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.

It is the responsibility of the individuals making the extraordinary
claims (ANDROCLES and HENRI) to provide the extraordinary evidence
(ability of their modified Sekerin theories to model all features of
Cepheid variables).

Which neither of you have done...

| I have shown them before.

H, let the cartoon cat and mouse team Tom and Jeery do it, the lying phuckwits.
I want to see the brightness PHASE matched to the velocity phase, or
the JULIAN DATE matched to the velocity curve. That crucial data is ALWAYS
missing.
Why?
I'll tell you why. They are NOT in phase as the cheating idiots pretend.

The gif at http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid6.gif is FAKED.

If you take the extreme stance that all astronomers are grouped in a
wild conspiracy to disprove a theory of Cepheid variability that most
astronomers aren't even aware of, then there really isn't any hope
for you. I could easily go to the university library and scan dozens
of articles for you.

But that's not my mission in life, despite anything you might think.
And you wouldn't read the articles anyway.

C Johnson, Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago is yet
another incompetent moron who can't even get the sign of the
acceleration correct, like you and your **** the '-'.

Who the **** would use DERIVED data?

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
| | On 24 Dec 2006 16:31:24 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
| |
| | Henri Wilson wrote:
| | On 23 Dec 2006 16:16:17 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
| |
| | Henri Wilson wrote:
| | On 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
| |
| | Sorcerer wrote:
| | "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| | (double yawn)
| | Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
| | Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
| | that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
| |
| | I have produced these curves.
| | see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
| |
| | Not a bad fit, eh Jeery?
| |
| | Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
| |
| | Totally unimpressive.
| | With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
| | You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
| |
| | You can't get out of it that easily Jerry.
| | The basic maths is limited to the use of c+v.cos(theta) only. The parameters I
| | can change wont make any difference to the range of basic shapes I can produce.
| |
| | Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
| |
| | I have shown them before.
| |
| |
| | Cepheid curves are typical of stars in moderately eccentric orbits with their
| | major axes lying about 45 degres away fronm the LOS.
| |
| | It so happens that the current view of these 'huff-puff' stars might also give
| | a similar brightness curve, based on the variable c+v of their surface facing
| | Earth..
| |
| | So I win either way.
| |
| | Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
| |
| | I have shown them before.
| |
| | I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
| |
| | Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
| |
| | I have shown them before.
| |
| | Then why don't you show your radial velocity curves and the
| | brightness curves on a single set of plots?
| |
| | I did once before.
| | I can't find it now.
| |
| | Uh, huh...
| |
| | I have shown them before.
| |
| | The radial velocity curves are exactly those of a star with the above
| | parameters.
| | However there was a great deal of doubt as to the actual phasing between the
| | published brightness and velocity curves. This was admitted by the author.
| |
| | Uh huh...
| |
| | Try this set of curves:
| | http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
| |
| | THat's the one to which I just referred you.
|
| That diagram is as poor as ****, unreadable, scanned straight out of
| a text book.
|
| The fit in THIS curve is pure bloody guesswork:
| http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif
|
| Johnson writes:
| "This is a 'smoothed curve' graph and is a best-fit to a group of
| around 25 data points. The radial velocity data generally has
| significant error factors since the values are determined entirely by
| rather subtle Doppler shifts in the spectral lines. Therefore, the
| raw data is less useful for these purposes, and a smoothed curve is
| used here."
|
| The term "best-fit" has a precise technical meaning.

Least squares, idiot.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LeastSq...ponential.html



|
| The REAL data:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/RTAurVel.GIF
|
| I suppose that when YOU fit raw data to your curve fits, that EVERY
| point lies on top of your graphs and that you NEVER find outliers?
| Don't be silly.

Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
Jeery 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800

You'd suppose anything, you are a moron.
You whine about "noise" and don't know what it is.
YOU are an example of noise. Shut the **** up and learn, idiot.




|
| And the DERIVED data is idiotic:
|
| "The acceleration information for the entire cycle can be found by differentiating the velocity graph by time. "
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...urVelCheat.GIF
|
| The acceleration goes up while the velocity goes down?
| No way, Jose!
|
| At the end of the article, Johnson explains the column headings and
| the sign conventions used:
| "In the (Measured) Radial Velocity column and Relative Radial Velocity
| column, plus numbers mean moving away from Earth. The opposite is
| true in the Acceleration column, where negative values indicate
| acceleration away from us, toward the center of the star, or a
| gravitational collapsing effect...."

The guy is a ****ing idiot, just like you, he got the sign wrong.
I dumped his "data" into an Excel spreadsheet, ****head.

He's even labelled the velocity as "mag" (magnitude).


|
| | Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
| | and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
|
|
| I want to see JEERY simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
| and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
|
| It is the responsibility of the individuals making the extraordinary
| claims (ANDROCLES and HENRI) to provide the extraordinary evidence
| (ability of their modified Sekerin theories to model all features of
| Cepheid variables).
|
| Which neither of you have done...

Dog ate your homework, ****head?
No, you didn't do any, bone idle bitch.



|
| | I have shown them before.
|
| H, let the cartoon cat and mouse team Tom and Jeery do it, the lying phuckwits.
| I want to see the brightness PHASE matched to the velocity phase, or
| the JULIAN DATE matched to the velocity curve. That crucial data is ALWAYS
| missing.
| Why?
| I'll tell you why. They are NOT in phase as the cheating idiots pretend.
|
| The gif at http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid6.gif is FAKED.
|
| If you take the extreme stance that all astronomers are grouped in a
| wild conspiracy to disprove a theory of Cepheid variability that most
| astronomers aren't even aware of, then there really isn't any hope
| for you.

**** off. I was talking to Henri, not you, mobster with the obstinacy of
a glutted adder.

Sorcerer wrote:

He's even labelled the velocity as "mag" (magnitude).

The "mag" goes with the next diagram down.
Your powers of perception need improving.

Or maybe your glasses.

Jerry

"Sorcerer" wrote in message o.uk...

"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

| The term "best-fit" has a precise technical meaning.

Least squares, idiot.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LeastSq...ponential.html

[snip]

| I suppose that when YOU fit raw data to your curve fits, that EVERY
| point lies on top of your graphs and that you NEVER find outliers?
| Don't be silly.

Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
Jeery 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800

You'd suppose anything, you are a moron.
You whine about "noise" and don't know what it is.
YOU are an example of noise. Shut the **** up and learn, idiot.

[snip]

| At the end of the article, Johnson explains the column headings and
| the sign conventions used:
| "In the (Measured) Radial Velocity column and Relative Radial Velocity
| column, plus numbers mean moving away from Earth. The opposite is
| true in the Acceleration column, where negative values indicate
| acceleration away from us, toward the center of the star, or a
| gravitational collapsing effect...."

The guy is a ****ing idiot, just like you, he got the sign wrong.
I dumped his "data" into an Excel spreadsheet, ****head.

He's even labelled the velocity as "mag" (magnitude).

[snip]

| It is the responsibility of the individuals making the extraordinary
| claims (ANDROCLES and HENRI) to provide the extraordinary evidence
| (ability of their modified Sekerin theories to model all features of
| Cepheid variables).
|
| Which neither of you have done...

Dog ate your homework, ****head?
No, you didn't do any, bone idle bitch.

[snip]

|
| If you take the extreme stance that all astronomers are grouped in a
| wild conspiracy to disprove a theory of Cepheid variability that most
| astronomers aren't even aware of, then there really isn't any hope
| for you.

**** off. I was talking to Henri, not you, mobster with the obstinacy of
a glutted adder.

Hm, it seems that our lovely human being is feeling lonely, and
therefore deserving respect again...

Sorry, Tom, can't resist ;-)

Dirk Vdm

"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| He's even labelled the velocity as "mag" (magnitude).
|
|
So you SNIP.
Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
Jeery, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800

****head, **** off.

"Sorcerer" wrote in message .uk...

"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| He's even labelled the velocity as "mag" (magnitude).
|
|
So you SNIP.
Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
Jeery, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800

****head, **** off.

Soooooo lonely this human being must be feeling ;-)

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Sorcerer" wrote in message
.uk...

"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| | He's even labelled the velocity as "mag" (magnitude).
| |
So you SNIP.
Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
Jeery, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800

****head, **** off.

Soooooo lonely this human being must be feeling ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Does androcles change his return e-mail every now and then? I had already
blocked him when his return address was ics_f. Then
he started showing up again since he changed to
ics_g.

Does he do this alot? Thanks and Merry Christmas to you and yours Dirk!

Best regards

Pete

"Pmb" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Sorcerer" wrote in message
.uk...

"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| | He's even labelled the velocity as "mag" (magnitude).
| |
So you SNIP.
Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
Jeery, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800

****head, **** off.

Soooooo lonely this human being must be feeling ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Does androcles change his return e-mail every now and then? I had already
blocked him when his return address was ics_f. Then
he started showing up again since he changed to
ics_g.

I think he does it whenever he suspects his audience has shrunken
below a critical threshold ;-)


Does he do this alot? Thanks and Merry Christmas to you and yours Dirk!

Best regards

Merry Christmas to you.
Take care!

Dirk Vdm

Pmb wrote:

Does androcles change his return e-mail every now and then? I had already
blocked him when his return address was ics_f. Then
he started showing up again since he changed to
ics_g.

Does he do this alot? Thanks and Merry Christmas to you and yours Dirk!

Hello!

As usual with people I don't know, I searched your Usenet history,
and found that you've had a long posting history on this newsgroup,
even though you stopped posting for a while. You used to get into a
lot of acrimonious debate over what I'd consider changing fashions
in nomenclature, but obviously you've mellowed out.

The most important thing that I noticed, though, was that you are a
cancer survivor.

Best wishes on your continued health, and Merry Christmas!

Jerry