Perihelion of Mercury question

Sorcerer wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:03:46 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:14:23 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| |
|
|
| | One doesn't need to know the pitch from a popint source. It is
| | automatically
| | included in the observed doppler shift and velocity graph.
| |
| |
| | http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/g...TF/HTF541B.HTM
| |
| | I'm quite aware of that.
| | For predicting star brightness, only TWO angles are required.
|
|
| For star DISTANCE as well, three angles are needed.
|
| I don't care much how far away it is. I'm mainly interested in matching curve
| shape. That's why pitch doesn't matter either.


Ok. Incomplete, and you will not match any velocity curves.
But you don't model them anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Did you check out my post?
No...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...id/cepheid.htm
Since you can't accept slow light is passed by fast light
you can't ever model a fold-back velocity curve or V 1493 Aql.


|
| | You can rotate any orbit around the LoS and get the same result.
|
| WHY DON'T YOU LEARN TO READ, WABO?
| If I need any roll I use the Advanced Abo technique:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tele.gif
|
| How far can it fire a shell?
|
| The ordinary wabo stands on his head, all ozzies do.
| A wabo wouldn't understand that, it's too high-tech for him.
|
| ****ing old drunk...
|
| | Even you should understand that....even when drunk.
|
| WHY DON'T YOU LEARN TO READ WHILE DRUNK, WABO?
| If I need any roll I use the Advanced Abo technique:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tele.gif
|
| The ordinary wabo stands on his head, all ozzies do.
| A wabo wouldn't understand that, it's too high-tech for him.
|
| ****ing old drunk...
|
| | | some martial art or other, and it is planning on a psychiatry course.
| | | Women do not boast about physical prowess in combat.
| | |
| | | Sounds like 'delusions of grandeur' syndrome....
| |
| | Absolutely. It can't stand be wrong.
| |
| | Must be a genuine female then.
|
| Sounds like you have 'delusions of chivalry' syndrome...
|
| It pays to be reasonably nice to women.

Its not a woman, its Minor Crank. Gullible old drunken wabo,
are you fool or a faggot?

|
| |
| | Ask Blind Poe why it takes a bus longer to stop than a car
| | and he'll try to explain it.
|
| Icy road, perhaps?

Same for car and bus. A roller skate takes longer to stop,
it doesn't have brakes.



|
| The fact that it doesn't means nothing
| | to him. I wish he'd stay the hell away from students, he's not
| | helping any of them.
| |
| | Po cannot understand my force question.
|
| You cannot understand when you are being conned.
|
| well you're a ****ing con man if ever I saw one.

You ARE ****in' drunk, h-aether, uni****ation, you'll
invent anything.

|
|
| | |
| |
|

KO0KFITE!!

--
Official "netcabal.com demon"

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:47:32 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
| On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:03:46 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:
|

| For star DISTANCE as well, three angles are needed.
|
| I don't care much how far away it is. I'm mainly interested in matching curve
| shape. That's why pitch doesn't matter either.


Ok. Incomplete, and you will not match any velocity curves.
But you don't model them anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Did you check out my post?

yes. I already commented that you seemed to be improving...

No...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...id/cepheid.htm
Since you can't accept slow light is passed by fast light
you can't ever model a fold-back velocity curve or V 1493 Aql.

Of course I can.
All you have is a typical double peak that results from bunching of light
emited from both sides of the concave part of the orbit.
My theory of light speed unification does not preclude double imagery under
some circumstances....but it will be a rare event...

| | You can rotate any orbit around the LoS and get the same result.
|
| WHY DON'T YOU LEARN TO READ, WABO?
| If I need any roll I use the Advanced Abo technique:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tele.gif
|
| How far can it fire a shell?
|
| The ordinary wabo stands on his head, all ozzies do.
| A wabo wouldn't understand that, it's too high-tech for him.
|
| ****ing old drunk...
|
| | Even you should understand that....even when drunk.
|
| WHY DON'T YOU LEARN TO READ WHILE DRUNK, WABO?
| If I need any roll I use the Advanced Abo technique:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tele.gif
|
| The ordinary wabo stands on his head, all ozzies do.
| A wabo wouldn't understand that, it's too high-tech for him.
|
| ****ing old drunk...
|
| | | some martial art or other, and it is planning on a psychiatry course.
| | | Women do not boast about physical prowess in combat.
| | |
| | | Sounds like 'delusions of grandeur' syndrome....
| |
| | Absolutely. It can't stand be wrong.
| |
| | Must be a genuine female then.
|
| Sounds like you have 'delusions of chivalry' syndrome...
|
| It pays to be reasonably nice to women.

Its not a woman, its Minor Crank. Gullible old drunken wabo,
are you fool or a faggot?

No, it's definitely a woman. Minor Crank could certainly produce the same kind
of bull**** but he couldn't present it as well as Jerry does.

| | Ask Blind Poe why it takes a bus longer to stop than a car
| | and he'll try to explain it.
|
| Icy road, perhaps?

Same for car and bus. A roller skate takes longer to stop,
it doesn't have brakes.

Randy's buses run on icy roads.

| The fact that it doesn't means nothing
| | to him. I wish he'd stay the hell away from students, he's not
| | helping any of them.
| |
| | Po cannot understand my force question.
|
| You cannot understand when you are being conned.
|
| well you're a ****ing con man if ever I saw one.

You ARE ****in' drunk, h-aether, uni****ation, you'll
invent anything.

...if it works...

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:00:51 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
| On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:13:17 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message ups.com...

I know full well I can stop it as fast as any car, but when
carrying passengers one does not attempt to knock them off
their feet when walking down the ****in' aisle, so expect
a bus not to stop quickly. That's common sense, but Poe
doesn't have any.
Those poor old dears with there shopping carts and young
women with push chairs, of course a bus will take longer
to stop than a car, deliberately. It doesn't mean they can't.

There isn't a driving training manual in the world that
can replace first hand experience, and Poe doesn't have
any of that either.
The guy is just an argumentative idiot.

.....tell him straight out, the distance cars and buses take to stop is
determined solely by the coefficient of friction between rubber and bitumen.

Sorcerer wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
| On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:13:17 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message ups.com...
| |
| | Sorcerer wrote:
| | Ask Blind Poe why it takes a bus longer to stop than a car
| | and he'll try to explain it. The fact that it doesn't means nothing
| | to him.
| |
| | I see you got a lot from the drivers' manuals I posted that
| | said "Remember, a bus takes longer to stop than a car",
| | and those tables of stopping distances (bus car).
| |
| | Poor reading-disabled Androcles.
| |
| | - Randy
|
| I'm discussing physics with Henri, Blind Poe, and your stupidity
| came up.
| Go on, Poe, explain to Henri and I why it takes a motorcycle
| longer to stop than a car, your driver's manual says it does.
|
| Remember, a car takes longer to stop than an AirBUS
| or a roller skate.
| Poor ****head Poe doesn't know the difference between
| physics and psychology. Tell a lie often enough and people
| will start to believe it. Poe believes what he's told to believe.
| Poor retarded Poe.
|
| He's going down hill fast...definitely not as sharp as he was a few years
| ago,,,


Yeah, driver's manuals are his physics text books.

No, drivers' manuals are my source for what government
departments of transportation tell drivers about stopping
distances.

- Randy

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 22:21:30 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

What I saw, was that you were making what seemed contradictory
statements and citing figures that don't correlate with ANYTHING that
I could see in Johnson's graphs. What else could I conclude but that
you were misreading the graphs and switching your position back and
forth?

Androcles had previously made the gross error of not carefully
reading Johnson's notes and getting Johnson's sign conventions mixed
up. Androcles wrote, "The acceleration goes up while the velocity
goes down? No way, Jose!"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...b02d0acd4630ca

Looking carefully at your posting history, I'm afraid that my jumping
to the conclusion that you were, like Androcles, reading one or
another of the graphs upside down, was a false one. I will accept
your explanation that you had made a simple typographical error when
you wrote that the velocity peak preceded the brightness peak.

For your part, you must accept that I know perfectly well how to
read Johnson's graphs, and you will retract your falsely derogatory
statements that I was reading the brightness curve upside down.

Do we have peace on that score?

OK, a truce is called.

-------------------------------------------

Nevertheless, I totally disagree with your "40-50 degrees" statement.

Naturally you would.

When I examine Johnson's plot of Duncan's velocity data, I see the
radial velocity peak at about 0.2 days after the brightness maximum.
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif

Given a period of 3.73 days, this translates into the radial velocity
peak lagging the brightness maximum by 19 degrees.

Well it is hard to explain why that velocity graph has been
obviously drawn to fit the theory NOT the points.
Why do you think that is the case Jerry?

Observational astronomers don't work the way that you think they do.
They fit the curves as they see them, and are quite content to let
the theoreticians play catch-up.

In doing research on Cepheids, I have seen radial velocity peaks
timed almost exactly with the visual luminosity peaks (i.e. 0 degrees
phase lag), and I have seen radial velocity peaks lagging the
luminosity peaks by as much as 40 degrees. Most typical are lags from
10 to 20 degrees.

In other words, I see a whole range of phase lags, and I have seen
no evidence that anyone, anywhere, has attempted to fudge their
curve fits to match their preconceived notions of how Cepheids
"ought" to behave.

That is, EXCEPT FOR YOU. Please show me how you could POSSIBLY fit
a curve through Duncan's radial velocity data to get a phase lag
of "40-50 degrees" relative to the luminosity maximum.
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif

Under no circumstances can I understand your statement that the
radial velocity peak lags the brightness maximum by "40-50 degrees",
which would imply the velocity maximum should lag the brightness
maximum by approximately 0.41-0.52 days. I just do not see how this
could be concluded from the graph.

If you draw the graph properly, you will soon see where the 40-50 degrees comes
in. The graph is nowhere near the points. It is a concoction...designed to
impress people like you who don't know what a 'best fit' is.

(Note that Johnson's scan of his graph is slightly tilted, and
this tilt must be compensated for when reading the graph.)

The graph is nonsense. The peak should be much further to the right. You will
also notice that the second cycle is just a repetition of the first.
He even admits in the text that the velocity readings are very vague.

Show me your fit.

They are VAGUE all right....so vague they are not worth the paper they're
written on.


In addition, when I look at the 1969 data of Bappu and Raghavan,
I would estimate the maximum velocity towards the Earth occurs at
phase 0.04, i.e. at about 14 degrees after the brightness peak.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

Since your modified Sekerin model predicts a lag of the radial
velocity peak of 40-50 degrees after the brightness maximum, I
would say that the match between predicted and observed lags is
very poor.

When an author admits his figures are very approximate, I wouldn't
stake my reputation on them as you appear to be doing Jerry.


You also did not indicate the amplitude of the predicted Doppler
shifts and how closely they match the observed values.

Sekerin and you are assume the OBSERVED velocity curve is the same
as the EMITTED one.
It is not. It can be significantly different.

You obviously, however, believe that you can compute what the
velocity curve would be OBSERVED to be.

Let's try a different Cepheid variable. How about Delta Cephei,
the prototype Cepheid. This is an example of a Cepheid where there
is virtually NO phase lag between the radial velocity curve and the
visual luminosity curve.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1946BAN....10...91W

Or how about HV 12197 in the Large Magellanic Cloud? Gieren et al.
(2000) were granted what appears to be an exceptionally generous
amount of telescope time to get V and K luminosity curves (visual and
infrared) and radial velocity curves for this and other Cepheids
in the LMC, in an effort to improve the extra-galactic distance
scale. Radial velocity towards the Earth peaks at about a 10 degree
lag relative to the V luminosity curve.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0003213

NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE IN PHASING BETWEEN THE V AND K LUMINOSITY
CURVES. The K luminosity curve peaks at about a 105 degree lag
relative to the V luminosity peak. Is there ANYTHING in BaTh that
can explain the difference in phasing between the luminosity curves
of light in the greenish-yellow V band, versus light in the infrared
K band?

HV 12198 is by no means unique. ALL Cepheids that have been studied
show marked color changes during their cycle. The color differences
in HV 12198 are just more noticeable because K band studies are not
as frequently performed as visual light studies.

Jerry

On 30 Dec 2006 14:37:23 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 22:21:30 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

What I saw, was that you were making what seemed contradictory
statements and citing figures that don't correlate with ANYTHING that
I could see in Johnson's graphs. What else could I conclude but that
you were misreading the graphs and switching your position back and
forth?


Do we have peace on that score?

OK, a truce is called.

-------------------------------------------

Nevertheless, I totally disagree with your "40-50 degrees" statement.

Naturally you would.

When I examine Johnson's plot of Duncan's velocity data, I see the
radial velocity peak at about 0.2 days after the brightness maximum.
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif

Given a period of 3.73 days, this translates into the radial velocity
peak lagging the brightness maximum by 19 degrees.

Well it is hard to explain why that velocity graph has been
obviously drawn to fit the theory NOT the points.
Why do you think that is the case Jerry?

Observational astronomers don't work the way that you think they do.
They fit the curves as they see them, and are quite content to let
the theoreticians play catch-up.

In doing research on Cepheids, I have seen radial velocity peaks
timed almost exactly with the visual luminosity peaks (i.e. 0 degrees
phase lag), and I have seen radial velocity peaks lagging the
luminosity peaks by as much as 40 degrees. Most typical are lags from
10 to 20 degrees.

Since when did a non scientist like you do research on cepheids, Jeery?


In other words, I see a whole range of phase lags, and I have seen
no evidence that anyone, anywhere, has attempted to fudge their
curve fits to match their preconceived notions of how Cepheids
"ought" to behave.

That is, EXCEPT FOR YOU. Please show me how you could POSSIBLY fit
a curve through Duncan's radial velocity data to get a phase lag
of "40-50 degrees" relative to the luminosity maximum.
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif

This curve is nowhere near the best fit of the points shown. Anyoone can see
that as plainly as day. It's a fiddle.


Under no circumstances can I understand your statement that the
radial velocity peak lags the brightness maximum by "40-50 degrees",
which would imply the velocity maximum should lag the brightness
maximum by approximately 0.41-0.52 days. I just do not see how this
could be concluded from the graph.

If you draw the graph properly, you will soon see where the 40-50 degrees comes
in. The graph is nowhere near the points. It is a concoction...designed to
impress people like you who don't know what a 'best fit' is.

(Note that Johnson's scan of his graph is slightly tilted, and
this tilt must be compensated for when reading the graph.)

The graph is nonsense. The peak should be much further to the right. You will
also notice that the second cycle is just a repetition of the first.
He even admits in the text that the velocity readings are very vague.

Show me your fit.

can't you even draw a curve through some points?
Also notice the RH wave is just a copy of the first one. The author admits the
velocity curve is derived from very very vague data.

What kind of science is this?

They are VAGUE all right....so vague they are not worth the paper they're
written on.


In addition, when I look at the 1969 data of Bappu and Raghavan,
I would estimate the maximum velocity towards the Earth occurs at
phase 0.04, i.e. at about 14 degrees after the brightness peak.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

Since your modified Sekerin model predicts a lag of the radial
velocity peak of 40-50 degrees after the brightness maximum, I
would say that the match between predicted and observed lags is
very poor.

When an author admits his figures are very approximate, I wouldn't
stake my reputation on them as you appear to be doing Jerry.


You also did not indicate the amplitude of the predicted Doppler
shifts and how closely they match the observed values.

Sekerin and you are assume the OBSERVED velocity curve is the same
as the EMITTED one.
It is not. It can be significantly different.

You obviously, however, believe that you can compute what the
velocity curve would be OBSERVED to be.

Let's try a different Cepheid variable. How about Delta Cephei,
the prototype Cepheid. This is an example of a Cepheid where there
is virtually NO phase lag between the radial velocity curve and the
visual luminosity curve.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1946BAN....10...91W

Or how about HV 12197 in the Large Magellanic Cloud? Gieren et al.
(2000) were granted what appears to be an exceptionally generous
amount of telescope time to get V and K luminosity curves (visual and
infrared) and radial velocity curves for this and other Cepheids
in the LMC, in an effort to improve the extra-galactic distance
scale. Radial velocity towards the Earth peaks at about a 10 degree
lag relative to the V luminosity curve.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0003213

NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE IN PHASING BETWEEN THE V AND K LUMINOSITY
CURVES. The K luminosity curve peaks at about a 105 degree lag
relative to the V luminosity peak. Is there ANYTHING in BaTh that
can explain the difference in phasing between the luminosity curves
of light in the greenish-yellow V band, versus light in the infrared
K band?

HV 12198 is by no means unique. ALL Cepheids that have been studied
show marked color changes during their cycle. The color differences
in HV 12198 are just more noticeable because K band studies are not
as frequently performed as visual light studies.

I have already pointed out that the BaTh would still apply to huff-puff stars
or indeed to any stars that are varying in brightness and shape for some
particular reason.

You and your astronomer friends are working with one standard model for
cepheids. They are obviously having a lot of trouble with that model...as they
are with ALL variable stars..

In the case of a genuine huff-puff, if such exists, the BaTh would have to take
into account at least three different factors.....the intrinsic brightness
variation, the radial velocity due to the star's resonance and the radial
velocity due to any orbit in which it might be moving.

This is quite a complex situation and one which might produce a variety of
different phase relationships between velocity and brightness.

Since I am not a totally indoctrinated 'know-all' like you, I will retain an
open mind on these supposed 'cepheids' until I have incorporated the relevant
tools into my already mammoth variable star program.


Jerry

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 14:37:23 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

OK, a truce is called.

-------------------------------------------

Nevertheless, I totally disagree with your "40-50 degrees" statement.

Naturally you would.

When I examine Johnson's plot of Duncan's velocity data, I see the
radial velocity peak at about 0.2 days after the brightness maximum.
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif

Given a period of 3.73 days, this translates into the radial velocity
peak lagging the brightness maximum by 19 degrees.

Well it is hard to explain why that velocity graph has been
obviously drawn to fit the theory NOT the points.
Why do you think that is the case Jerry?

Observational astronomers don't work the way that you think they do.
They fit the curves as they see them, and are quite content to let
the theoreticians play catch-up.

In doing research on Cepheids, I have seen radial velocity peaks
timed almost exactly with the visual luminosity peaks (i.e. 0 degrees
phase lag), and I have seen radial velocity peaks lagging the
luminosity peaks by as much as 40 degrees. Most typical are lags from
10 to 20 degrees.

Since when did a non scientist like you do research on cepheids, Jeery?

The word "research" has many meanings.
In this context, I meant library and internet research.
Which YOU apparently don't do, because you don't
want your fantasies disturbed by real data.

In other words, I see a whole range of phase lags, and I have seen
no evidence that anyone, anywhere, has attempted to fudge their
curve fits to match their preconceived notions of how Cepheids
"ought" to behave.

That is, EXCEPT FOR YOU. Please show me how you could POSSIBLY fit
a curve through Duncan's radial velocity data to get a phase lag
of "40-50 degrees" relative to the luminosity maximum.
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif

This curve is nowhere near the best fit of the points shown. Anyoone can see
that as plainly as day. It's a fiddle.

Whereas YOU obviously play string bass.

Under no circumstances can I understand your statement that the
radial velocity peak lags the brightness maximum by "40-50 degrees",
which would imply the velocity maximum should lag the brightness
maximum by approximately 0.41-0.52 days. I just do not see how this
could be concluded from the graph.

If you draw the graph properly, you will soon see where the 40-50 degrees comes
in. The graph is nowhere near the points. It is a concoction...designed to
impress people like you who don't know what a 'best fit' is.

Show your fit.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to justify 40-50 degrees.

(Note that Johnson's scan of his graph is slightly tilted, and
this tilt must be compensated for when reading the graph.)

The graph is nonsense. The peak should be much further to the right. You will
also notice that the second cycle is just a repetition of the first.
He even admits in the text that the velocity readings are very vague.

Show me your fit.

can't you even draw a curve through some points?
Also notice the RH wave is just a copy of the first one. The author admits the
velocity curve is derived from very very vague data.

What kind of science is this?

More than you've ever done.

They are VAGUE all right....so vague they are not worth the paper they're
written on.


In addition, when I look at the 1969 data of Bappu and Raghavan,
I would estimate the maximum velocity towards the Earth occurs at
phase 0.04, i.e. at about 14 degrees after the brightness peak.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

Since your modified Sekerin model predicts a lag of the radial
velocity peak of 40-50 degrees after the brightness maximum, I
would say that the match between predicted and observed lags is
very poor.

When an author admits his figures are very approximate, I wouldn't
stake my reputation on them as you appear to be doing Jerry.


You also did not indicate the amplitude of the predicted Doppler
shifts and how closely they match the observed values.

Sekerin and you are assume the OBSERVED velocity curve is the same
as the EMITTED one.
It is not. It can be significantly different.

You obviously, however, believe that you can compute what the
velocity curve would be OBSERVED to be.

Let's try a different Cepheid variable. How about Delta Cephei,
the prototype Cepheid. This is an example of a Cepheid where there
is virtually NO phase lag between the radial velocity curve and the
visual luminosity curve.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1946BAN....10...91W

Or how about HV 12197 in the Large Magellanic Cloud? Gieren et al.
(2000) were granted what appears to be an exceptionally generous
amount of telescope time to get V and K luminosity curves (visual and
infrared) and radial velocity curves for this and other Cepheids
in the LMC, in an effort to improve the extra-galactic distance
scale. Radial velocity towards the Earth peaks at about a 10 degree
lag relative to the V luminosity curve.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0003213

NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE IN PHASING BETWEEN THE V AND K LUMINOSITY
CURVES. The K luminosity curve peaks at about a 105 degree lag
relative to the V luminosity peak. Is there ANYTHING in BaTh that
can explain the difference in phasing between the luminosity curves
of light in the greenish-yellow V band, versus light in the infrared
K band?

HV 12198 is by no means unique. ALL Cepheids that have been studied
show marked color changes during their cycle. The color differences
in HV 12198 are just more noticeable because K band studies are not
as frequently performed as visual light studies.

I have already pointed out that the BaTh would still apply to huff-puff stars
or indeed to any stars that are varying in brightness and shape for some
particular reason.

Explain the color changes, please.

You and your astronomer friends are working with one standard model for
cepheids. They are obviously having a lot of trouble with that model...as they
are with ALL variable stars..

In the case of a genuine huff-puff, if such exists, the BaTh would have to take
into account at least three different factors.....the intrinsic brightness
variation, the radial velocity due to the star's resonance and the radial
velocity due to any orbit in which it might be moving.

This is quite a complex situation and one which might produce a variety of
different phase relationships between velocity and brightness.

Hand-waving and waffling.

How typical of you.

Since I am not a totally indoctrinated 'know-all' like you, I will retain an
open mind on these supposed 'cepheids' until I have incorporated the relevant
tools into my already mammoth variable star program.

Jerry

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...


[snip Minor Crank]

Why do you bother with that ****in' kinky parasitic idiot? At best it's
a sheep, at worst a troll.
The velocity curve of RT Aurigae is Keplerian, noted for it's
straight section.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...id/cepheid.htm
(Two new images added.)
It would be stretching the imagination to beyond incredulity
to claim the star expanded and collapsed according to Kepler's
second law purely by coincidence when an orbit is so obvious.
The Einstein dingleberries with say anything to defend the Holey
Church of Relativity, and this particular moron is totally unable
to respond to sense.
Maybe you like being a drunken goatherd.

"Jerry" wrote in message oups.com...


Hey ****head! Giving up?

You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
Jeery 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800

Explain why the huff-puff star has a Keplerian velocity curve, dumb****.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...id/cepheid.htm

Which of these statements do you disagree with:

1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.

-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348



2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727



3) Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955


4) The facts:

4a) The velocity curve of all magical huff-puff stars is Keplerian.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KepVel.gif


4b) The velocity of light is source dependent, proven by Sagnac.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

4c) An eclipsing variable is a magical huff-puff star with different obital parameters.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rnicus/LCV.htm.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm



5) Tom and Jerry are cartoon characters by W. Hanna and J. Barbera.
Tom only differs from Jerry in toes, ears, colour and size.

http://diariodeumpintelhofo.no.sapo....-and-jerry.jpg

6) You are a ****in' idiot mobster with the obstinacy of a glutted adder.
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac...s/Galileo.html

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:44:07 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...


[snip Minor Crank]

Why do you bother with that ****in' kinky parasitic idiot? At best it's
a sheep, at worst a troll.
The velocity curve of RT Aurigae is Keplerian, noted for it's
straight section.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...id/cepheid.htm
(Two new images added.)
It would be stretching the imagination to beyond incredulity
to claim the star expanded and collapsed according to Kepler's
second law purely by coincidence when an orbit is so obvious.
The Einstein dingleberries with say anything to defend the Holey
Church of Relativity, and this particular moron is totally unable
to respond to sense.
Maybe you like being a drunken goatherd.

I like them because they are so sure they are right...when in fact nothing they
say has any backing...but some of the questions they ask help me develop the
BaTh.
What do you think of their 'best fit' curve for RT Aur? It's a joke
surely...nowhere near the plotted points.


These people are typical religious worshippers who will defend their faith to
the death.

But fair enough! Suicide bombers are in great demand these days. It's a great
career... with good money to be made...