Perihelion of Mercury question

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


No Julian dates. Provide the data, Julian dates of the velocity curve, YOU ****ING ****HEAD!

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


No Julian dates. Provide the data, Julian dates of the velocity curve, YOU ****ING ****HEAD!

You are stalling. These are WELL-KNOWN problems of the Sekerin model,
which even your fellow emission-theorists acknowledge represent a
difficulty.

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

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


No Julian dates. Provide the data, Julian dates of the velocity curve, YOU ****ING ****HEAD!

You are stalling. These are WELL-KNOWN problems of the Sekerin model,
which even your fellow emission-theorists acknowledge represent a
difficulty.

Henri, for instance, simply tries to pretend that definitive data
doesn't exist relating radial velocity with luminosity, so no
problem! YOU, however, DO know that the data exists, don't you?

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

On 26 Dec 2006 08:42:30 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

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

| | 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.

This is not true, as I have resently discovered. You must realise the observed
velocity curves are a Willusion. I am further improving my program so that it
will plot the predicted velocity curves that should be observed for a
particular broghtness curve. These curves turn out to be quite different in
both phase and shape from the true ones.

Besides, it is admitted in your reference that the published velocity curve is
based on very rough data. IN OTHER WORDS IT HAS BEEN FIDDLED TO SUIT THE
STANDARD CEPHEID THEORY.


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.

That's what I told you last year. I know now there is a lot more to it than
that.

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.

You don't have accurate curves anyway... so cut the bull****....


That is why you resort to snipping and abuse.
You simply cannot do the fit, and you know it.

Jerry

On 26 Dec 2006 11:48:11 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:


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

| 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


No Julian dates. Provide the data, Julian dates of the velocity curve, YOU ****ING ****HEAD!

You are stalling. These are WELL-KNOWN problems of the Sekerin model,
which even your fellow emission-theorists acknowledge represent a
difficulty.

Henri, for instance, simply tries to pretend that definitive data
doesn't exist relating radial velocity with luminosity, so no
problem! YOU, however, DO know that the data exists, don't you?

Henri now knows that the observed radial velocity curves can be very differnet
from the true ones at the source.

Now that I have some free time, I will be working on my variable star program
again and wil be able to provide my info about this.

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.

You resort to boring repetition of your own beliefs. You admit you know nothing
about physics.

read the cepheid articles. You will find that invariably, the velocity curves
are based on very vague data. ....EASY TO MANIPULATE, EH?....


Jerry

On 2006-12-26 21:41:49 +0000, HW@..... said:

This is not true, as I have resently discovered. You must realise the observed
velocity curves are a Willusion. I am further improving my program so that it
will plot the predicted velocity curves that should be observed for a
particular broghtness curve. These curves turn out to be quite different in
both phase and shape from the true ones.

Screw the program - post the math.
--

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| |
| | 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
|
|
| No Julian dates. Provide the data, Julian dates of the velocity curve, YOU ****ING ****HEAD!
|
| You are stalling.

Stop running your mouth and provide the data.

"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| |
| | 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
|
|
| No Julian dates. Provide the data, Julian dates of the velocity curve, YOU ****ING ****HEAD!
|
| You are stalling.

Stop running your mouth and provide the data, ****head.

Sorcerer wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| |
| | 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
|
|
| No Julian dates. Provide the data, Julian dates of the velocity curve, YOU ****ING ****HEAD!
|
| You are stalling.

Stop running your mouth and provide the data, ****head.

Your repeated stalling reaffirms that YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF MEETING
THE CHALLENGE.

Your task is to simultaneously model all features of the luminosity
and radial velocity curves of RT Aurigae.

The data that you need to fit are here in these two papers:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...NRAS.117..406E

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

Sorcerer wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| |
| | 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
|
|
| No Julian dates. Provide the data, Julian dates of the velocity curve, YOU ****ING ****HEAD!
|
| You are stalling.

Stop running your mouth and provide the data.

Your repeated stalling reaffirms that YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF MEETING
THE CHALLENGE.

Your task is to simultaneously model all features of the luminosity
and radial velocity curves of RT Aurigae.

The data that you need to fit are here in these two papers:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...NRAS.117..406E

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