Perihelion of Mercury question

"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ur_Harvard.GIF
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/RTAurVel.GIF (Chicago)
|
| You know perfectly well that totally disagrees with the Chicago curves.
|
| There is no conspiracy, the ****heads can't even agree to conspire.
|
| Note the opposite SIGN CONVENTIONS employed.

Noted that you are a ****head.


| Note that V was monitored at different colors.


So the ****wit Einstein was wrong when he said
"At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour. "

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm


| Note that dr/dt is zeroed differently from the velocity curve.

All I can observe is dx/dt, dr/dt is all in your imagination, ****head.




| Note that you got your graphs mixed up/
| http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...Luminosity.gif
|
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

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

| Note that V was monitored at different colors.


So the ****wit Einstein was wrong when he said
"At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour. "

V stands for luminosity, not velocity.

You know perfectly well that the shape/amplitude of a variable star
luminosity curve depends significantly on the color at which is
monitored.

Try explaining that with emission theory, by the way.

Jerry

Sorcerer wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ur_Harvard.GIF
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/RTAurVel.GIF (Chicago)
|
| You know perfectly well that totally disagrees with the Chicago curves.
|
| There is no conspiracy, the ****heads can't even agree to conspire.
|
| Note the opposite SIGN CONVENTIONS employed.

Noted that you are a ****head.

That means that you realize you were reading the velocity curve
upside down. Good.

Jerry

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


[...]

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

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


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

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


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

Oh, come on. Giving up?
I was leaving a TRAP for you.

I was expecting that, after you realized that you were reading
Johnson's plot of Duncan's velocity data upside down, you would
notice a seeming massive discrepancy, and would come roaring after me
with this GREAT DISCOVERY of yours, saying something like:

"Hey [insult]-head! Even after turning the Chicago velocity plot
upside down, the plots are still incompatible! The Chicago velocity
plot spans a range of about 35 km/s, while the Harvard velocity plot
spans a range of 50 km/s! You are some [insulting sexual reference]
and the two [blasphemy] groups can't even conspire properly."

Then I would point out an important bit of data reduction that
Bappu and Raghavan (1969) did that Duncan (1909) didn't do.

Sixty years of increasing knowledge makes a big difference.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| | Sorcerer wrote:
| | "Jerry" wrote in message ups.com...
| [...]
|
|
| 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
|
| Oh, come on. Giving up?
Which of the statements do you disagree with?

On 26 Dec 2006 21:09:10 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:


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

|
| 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.

You are completely wrong here Jerry.

For instance the published curve for RT Aur, to which you referred, shows the
maximum velocity occuring maybe 30-50 degrees before the brightness peak. You
will notice that the curve doesn't even fit the points. Rather it was drawn to
suit your standard huff-puff theory.

The Wilson refinement of Sekerin's theory predicts that the brightness peak
will lead the velocity peak by an amount that depends on the degree of
brightness variation... ie distance from the particuar star. For small
variations like that of RT Aur, the phase difference should be around 30-50
degrees, exactly that shown in the published curve.

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 are making an absolute fool of yourself. You know virtually nothing about
the predictions of the BaTh.

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

People who persistently make out they are experts on something they know
nothing about, invite abuse.

Jerry

Henri Wilson wrote:

You are completely wrong here Jerry.

For instance the published curve for RT Aur, to which you referred, shows the
maximum velocity occuring maybe 30-50 degrees before the brightness peak. You
will notice that the curve doesn't even fit the points. Rather it was drawn to
suit your standard huff-puff theory.

Apparently, like Androcles, you are interpreting the velocity graph
UPSIDE DOWN.
Look carefully at the sign conventions employed.

Jerry

On 26 Dec 2006 21:14:44 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:


HW@..... wrote:
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?....

Here are high precision photometric measurements of luminosity and
radial velocity curves of RT Aurigae.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...NRAS.117..406E

All veru approximate, at best.


Fit the data, Henri. And
PUBLISH THE CODE THAT YOU USED TO FIT THE DATA.

You couldn't even understand the first lines of my code..


Jerry