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

"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

"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

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

| 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.

Try reading the quote, for once.

Johnson used an OPPOSITE SIGN CONVENTION for acceleration.

I predict that you will snip everything relevant and will attempt
to cover up your embarrassment with abusive language.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
|
| | 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.
|
| Try reading the quote, for once.
|
| Johnson used an OPPOSITE SIGN CONVENTION for acceleration.

Try understanding reason for once. Read between the lines, or you
will fail psychiatry and psychology.

Physics degree from Chicago...
What does that tell you? It tells me he doesn't have his master's yet and
copied his crap out of a text book, which is why the scanned gif is
blurred.
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
THE GUY IS A TRANSPARENT MINDLESS PARROT, LIKE YOU!

This is what Kepler thinks of you:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Kepler.gif

Funny how the velocity curve of a huff-puff star is Keplerian:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KepVel.gif
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

Find someone else that can handle Kepler's equation on a spreadsheet,
totally unimpressive stupid ****in' Jeery with the obstinacy of a
glutted adder.
Not even Galileo with a hammer would make the slightest impression on
a head as dense like yours.

Now **** OFF, arrogant bitch, I predict you'll only ever be less
than average!


Go play psychiatry on yourself, moron.
|
| I predict that you will snip everything relevant and will attempt
| to cover up your embarrassment with abusive language.

I don't give a flying **** what you predict, you are a moron.

Hey ****head, dog ate your homework?

Sorcerer wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
|
| | 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.
|
| Try reading the quote, for once.
|
| Johnson used an OPPOSITE SIGN CONVENTION for acceleration.

Try understanding reason for once. Read between the lines, or you
will fail psychiatry and psychology.

Physics degree from Chicago...
What does that tell you? It tells me he doesn't have his master's yet and
copied his crap out of a text book, which is why the scanned gif is
blurred.
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
THE GUY IS A TRANSPARENT MINDLESS PARROT, LIKE YOU!

What does Johnson's degree status have to do with his ability to scan
a paper? I find the small introductory images perfectly discernable
with the aid of the Windows Magnifier. The light curve varies between
approximately magnitude 5.0 to 5.9, in agreement with other
observations.

You prefer a fully refereed paper to a brief online discussion?
Try Bappu and Raghavan, 1969. The data is more recent and far more
extensive than Duncan's classic study:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

OK, now:

Your BEGINNING assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to
simultaneously fit the luminosity curve and the radial velocity curve
presented in Bappu and Raghavan (1969) using your modified Sekerin
theory.

This is what Kepler thinks of you:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Kepler.gif

Funny how the velocity curve of a huff-puff star is Keplerian:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KepVel.gif
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

Find someone else that can handle Kepler's equation on a spreadsheet,
totally unimpressive stupid ****in' Jeery with the obstinacy of a
glutted adder.
Not even Galileo with a hammer would make the slightest impression on
a head as dense like yours.

Now **** OFF, arrogant bitch, I predict you'll only ever be less
than average!


Go play psychiatry on yourself, moron.
|
| I predict that you will snip everything relevant and will attempt
| to cover up your embarrassment with abusive language.

I don't give a flying **** what you predict, you are a moron.

Hey ****head, dog ate your homework?

Jerry