A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Perihelion of Mercury question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 26th 06, 04:32 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default 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  
Old December 26th 06, 10:42 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Sorcerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default 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  
Old December 26th 06, 02:22 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default 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  
Old December 26th 06, 02:35 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Sorcerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default 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  
Old December 26th 06, 03:05 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default 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  
Old December 26th 06, 03:21 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Dirk Van de moortel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default 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  
Old December 26th 06, 03:26 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Sorcerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default 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  
Old December 26th 06, 05:42 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default 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  
Old December 26th 06, 06:03 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Sorcerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default 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  
Old December 26th 06, 07:07 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.