|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Perihelion of Mercury question
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Perihelion of Mercury question
"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? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Perihelion of Mercury question
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Perihelion of Mercury question
"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | 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? So your conspiracy theory is nothing more than stupid mindless copying. Totally unimpressive. With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything. You need to show that you can explain ALL the data. -- Jeery the ****head, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800 | I find the small introductory images perfectly discernable | with the aid of the Windows Magnifier. You couldn't find a flaw in your reasong if it bit you in the arse. | The light curve varies between | approximately magnitude 5.0 to 5.9, in agreement with other | observations. So ****ing what? The velocity curve of your magical huff puff star is a Keplerian curve, mobster with the obstinacy of a glutted adder. | | You prefer a fully refereed paper to a brief online discussion? No, I prefer you to explain why the velocity curve of your huff puff star is accidentally Keplerian. [snip unwanted crap] | | OK, now: | | Your BEGINNING assignment, **** off, ****head. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Perihelion of Mercury question
Sorcerer wrote: "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | 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? So your conspiracy theory is nothing more than stupid mindless copying. Totally unimpressive. With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything. You need to show that you can explain ALL the data. -- Jeery the ****head, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800 | I find the small introductory images perfectly discernable | with the aid of the Windows Magnifier. You couldn't find a flaw in your reasong if it bit you in the arse. | The light curve varies between | approximately magnitude 5.0 to 5.9, in agreement with other | observations. So ****ing what? The velocity curve of your magical huff puff star is a Keplerian curve, mobster with the obstinacy of a glutted adder. | | You prefer a fully refereed paper to a brief online discussion? No, I prefer you to explain why the velocity curve of your huff puff star is accidentally Keplerian. [snip unwanted crap] YOU need to fit the velocity curve to your modified Sekerin theory, matching PHASE, SHAPE, and MAGNITUDE. | | OK, now: | | Your BEGINNING assignment, **** off, ****head. You also need to explain the color curves. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...NRAS.117..406E You have the computer programs at your disposal. FIT THE DATA. Jerry |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Perihelion of Mercury question
"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... Sorcerer wrote: "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | 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? So your conspiracy theory is nothing more than stupid mindless copying. Totally unimpressive. With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything. You need to show that you can explain ALL the data. -- Jeery the ****head, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800 | I find the small introductory images perfectly discernable | with the aid of the Windows Magnifier. You couldn't find a flaw in your reasong if it bit you in the arse. | The light curve varies between | approximately magnitude 5.0 to 5.9, in agreement with other | observations. So ****ing what? The velocity curve of your magical huff puff star is a Keplerian curve, mobster with the obstinacy of a glutted adder. | | You prefer a fully refereed paper to a brief online discussion? No, I prefer you to explain why the velocity curve of your huff puff star is accidentally Keplerian. [snip unwanted crap] YOU need to fit the velocity curve to your modified Sekerin theory, matching PHASE, SHAPE, and MAGNITUDE. | | OK, now: | | Your BEGINNING assignment, **** off, ****head. You also need to explain the color curves. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...NRAS.117..406E You have the computer programs at your disposal. FIT THE DATA. Jerry Don't you understand? He *wants* you to use vile language. Like you said, he is a lonely human being craving attention, but don't you see that it's really *insults* he wants? Why do you keep giving him what he doesn't want? Why don't you give him what he really needs? Isn't it obvious? Surely you don't pretend to know better than he what it is he wants? Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It doesn't work and it annoys the pig. Push its snout in manure. *That* is what the pig likes. Do't take me wrong, you have all my sympathy, but I really think you should stop trying to prove your Giving Respect Point- you lost it before you even started :-) Cheers, Dirk Vdm |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Perihelion of Mercury question
"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | | Sorcerer wrote: | "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | | 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? | | So your conspiracy theory is nothing more than stupid mindless | copying. | Totally unimpressive. With enough free parameters, you can fit anything | to anything. You need to show that you can explain ALL the data. | -- Jeery the ****head, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800 | | | | | | I find the small introductory images perfectly discernable | | with the aid of the Windows Magnifier. | | | You couldn't find a flaw in your reasong if it bit you in the arse. | | | | | The light curve varies between | | approximately magnitude 5.0 to 5.9, in agreement with other | | observations. | | So ****ing what? | The velocity curve of your magical huff puff star is a Keplerian curve, | mobster with the obstinacy of a glutted adder. | | | | | You prefer a fully refereed paper to a brief online discussion? | | | No, I prefer you to explain why the velocity curve of your huff puff | star is accidentally Keplerian. | [snip unwanted crap] | | YOU need **** off, I do as I please, you do not give me assignments. Explain why the velocity curve of your magical huff puff star is accidentally Keplerian. What Kepler thinks of your psychiatry: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Kepler.gif Dog ate your homework... ****head? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Perihelion of Mercury question
Sorcerer wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | | Sorcerer wrote: | "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | | 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? | | So your conspiracy theory is nothing more than stupid mindless | copying. | Totally unimpressive. With enough free parameters, you can fit anything | to anything. You need to show that you can explain ALL the data. | -- Jeery the ****head, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800 | | | | | | I find the small introductory images perfectly discernable | | with the aid of the Windows Magnifier. | | | You couldn't find a flaw in your reasong if it bit you in the arse. | | | | | The light curve varies between | | approximately magnitude 5.0 to 5.9, in agreement with other | | observations. | | So ****ing what? | The velocity curve of your magical huff puff star is a Keplerian curve, | mobster with the obstinacy of a glutted adder. | | | | | You prefer a fully refereed paper to a brief online discussion? | | | No, I prefer you to explain why the velocity curve of your huff puff | star is accidentally Keplerian. | [snip unwanted crap] | | YOU need **** off, I do as I please, you do not give me assignments. Explain why the velocity curve of your magical huff puff star is accidentally Keplerian. What Kepler thinks of your psychiatry: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Kepler.gif Dog ate your homework... ****head? Androcles, YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL that a simple Sekerin model yields computed radial velocity curves that are 90 degrees out of sync with the results of actual observation. With Cepheids, the peak of the radial velocity curve closely (but in general, does not exactly) coincides with the peak of the luminosity curve. In Sekerin's model, the radial velocity curve lags the luminosity curve by a quarter cycle. Even modified forms of Sekerin's model fail to match all features of the observed radial velocity curves. For example, a modified Doppler formula has been tried. While this modified formula allows matching phase between the radial velocity and luminosity curves and provides a QUALITATIVE match between the shape of the computed radial velocity curve and the observed curve, the computed radial velocity curve fails on a QUANTITATIVE level. The computed radial velocities simply do not match the observed radial velocities. That is why you resort to snipping and abuse. You simply cannot do the fit, and you know it. Jerry |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Perihelion of Mercury question
"Jerry" wrote in message oups.com... | Sorcerer wrote: | "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | | | | Sorcerer wrote: | | "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | | | 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? | | | | So your conspiracy theory is nothing more than stupid mindless | | copying. | | Totally unimpressive. With enough free parameters, you can fit anything | | to anything. You need to show that you can explain ALL the data. | | -- Jeery the ****head, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800 | | | | | | | | | | | I find the small introductory images perfectly discernable | | | with the aid of the Windows Magnifier. | | | | | | You couldn't find a flaw in your reasong if it bit you in the arse. | | | | | | | | | The light curve varies between | | | approximately magnitude 5.0 to 5.9, in agreement with other | | | observations. | | | | So ****ing what? | | The velocity curve of your magical huff puff star is a Keplerian curve, | | mobster with the obstinacy of a glutted adder. | | | | | | | | You prefer a fully refereed paper to a brief online discussion? | | | | | | No, I prefer you to explain why the velocity curve of your huff puff | | star is accidentally Keplerian. | | [snip unwanted crap] | | | | YOU need | | **** off, I do as I please, you do not give me assignments. | Explain why the velocity curve of your magical huff puff | star is accidentally Keplerian. | | What Kepler thinks of your psychiatry: | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Kepler.gif | | Dog ate your homework... ****head? | | Androcles, | | YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL that a simple Sekerin model yields computed | radial velocity curves that are 90 degrees out of sync with the | results of actual observation. So provide the data, Julian dates of the velocity curve, YOU ****ING ****HEAD! Totally unimpressive. With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything. You need to show that you can explain ALL the data. Jerry 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800 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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Perihelion of Mercury question
Sorcerer wrote: "Jerry" wrote in message oups.com... | Sorcerer wrote: | "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | | | | Sorcerer wrote: | | "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com... | | | 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? | | | | So your conspiracy theory is nothing more than stupid mindless | | copying. | | Totally unimpressive. With enough free parameters, you can fit anything | | to anything. You need to show that you can explain ALL the data. | | -- Jeery the ****head, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800 | | | | | I find the small introductory images perfectly discernable | | | with the aid of the Windows Magnifier. | | | | You couldn't find a flaw in your reasong if it bit you in the arse. | | | | | The light curve varies between | | | approximately magnitude 5.0 to 5.9, in agreement with other | | | observations. | | | | So ****ing what? | | The velocity curve of your magical huff puff star is a Keplerian curve, | | mobster with the obstinacy of a glutted adder. | | | | | You prefer a fully refereed paper to a brief online discussion? | | | | | | No, I prefer you to explain why the velocity curve of your huff puff | | star is accidentally Keplerian. | | [snip unwanted crap] | | | | YOU need | | **** off, I do as I please, you do not give me assignments. | Explain why the velocity curve of your magical huff puff | star is accidentally Keplerian. | | What Kepler thinks of your psychiatry: | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Kepler.gif | | Dog ate your homework... ****head? | | Androcles, | | YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL that a simple Sekerin model yields computed | radial velocity curves that are 90 degrees out of sync with the | results of actual observation. So provide the data, Julian dates of the velocity curve, YOU ****ING ****HEAD! For starters, how about the web site of one of your fellow emission-theory supporters (but one far more polite)? http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binarie2.htm Of course, you snipped most of my relevant comments. Let me restore them. Androcles, YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL that a simple Sekerin model yields computed radial velocity curves that are 90 degrees out of sync with the results of actual observation. With Cepheids, the peak of the radial velocity curve closely (but in general, does not exactly) coincides with the peak of the luminosity curve. In Sekerin's model, the radial velocity curve lags the luminosity curve by a quarter cycle. Even modified forms of Sekerin's model fail to match all features of the observed radial velocity curves. For example, a modified Doppler formula has been tried. While this modified formula allows matching phase between the radial velocity and luminosity curves and provides a QUALITATIVE match between the shape of the computed radial velocity curve and the observed curve, the computed radial velocity curve fails on a QUANTITATIVE level. The computed radial velocities simply do not match the observed radial velocities. That is why you resort to snipping and abuse. You simply cannot do the fit, and you know it. Jerry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mercury/Gemini question | Pat Flannery | History | 25 | December 16th 06 07:14 AM |
Perihelion of Mercury with classical mechanics ? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 34 | April 28th 05 06:57 PM |
Perihelion shift of S2 | Ed Keane III | Astronomy Misc | 17 | January 28th 04 04:25 PM |
Mercury MR-3 Freedom 7 Question | Robert Conley | History | 2 | January 22nd 04 05:32 PM |
Perihelion Puzzle | OG | UK Astronomy | 3 | January 6th 04 01:17 AM |