Perihelion of Mercury question

"Jerry" wrote in message ps.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message oups.com...
| | Sorcerer wrote:
| | "Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
| | | On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 05:54:54 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| | | wrote:
| | |
| | |
| | | HW@..... wrote in message ...
| | | | On 26 Dec 2006 08:42:30 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| | | | 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.
| | |
| | |
| | | Exactly, H. The lying bitch knows perfectly well she's either a ****head or a liar.
| | | I go with ****head.
| | |
| | | She can't even interpret her own curves properly.
| | |
| | | The velocity curve for RT Aur clearly lags the brightness curve by about 30
| | | degrees...and that's after the author deliberately biased it to suit the
| | | huff-puff theory...It's more likely about 50 degrees lag
| | |
| | | My program predicts about the same order of phase difference..
| |
| |
| | Did you notice the stupid **** failed to answer my question and
| | then asks if *I* give up? What a bigot!
|
| [...]
|
| Did you notice the stupid **** failed to answer my question and
| then asks if *I* give up? What a bigot!
|
| You and Henri are making the extraordinary claims,

Did you notice the stupid **** failed to answer my question:

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


and then asks if *I* give up? What a bigot!

In 1979, Pope John Paul II set up a committee to study the Galileo case, and five years later, its findings were made public. But it wasn't until 1992 that the Vatican finally admitted that Galileo had been right.
http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...h/galileo.html

That's exactly the same mentality as the ****head, so don't expect any
capitulation from it for 328 years.

Now it's studying for a medical degree, Blood Letting 101.

Huff puff stars just happen to have Keplerian velocity curves
by accident,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KepVel.gif

but the Holey Church of Relativity says one speed for light
so they have to huff puff, recurrent novae have to blow themselves
to smithereens then settle back to normal and blow themselves to
smithereens again, Algol has to be eclipsed by a dark neighbour
as big as itself but cold and flare stars have to be roman candles.

Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of light speed and observer you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the light to stand still and the observer to change position -- eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be proved that the observer moves and the light stands still. -- Androcles, with Galileo paraphrased.

I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. -- Galileo.

Of course Wilson too has the obstinacy of a glutted adder, his worbits are
edge on and he can't get the distances right.
That's enough to make Kepler weep and his chin quiver.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Kepler.gif


If you want a united front, mate, you've got to tilt your worbits into orbits
AND allow slow light to be passed by fast light, otherwise ****s like
Tom&Jerry (used to be MinorCrank) will take the ****.
(It's one person with multiple personality disorder, all relativists have
some mental illness.)
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/05/0....07halllt.html

"Are mental illnesses like schizophrenia, depression and personality disorders a matter of biological dysfunction and thus best treated pharmacologically, or are they the product of psychosocial factors -- family dynamics, early childhood experiences, the whole closet of Freudian baggage -- and thus best treated by psychotherapy?"

Now it's ranting about date rape and how its "brother" taught it
some martial art or other, and it is planning on a psychiatry course.
Women do not boast about physical prowess in combat.
Blind Poe is lapping it up like the sick puppy he is.


The first give-away was the Freudian slip: "Cephalobus_alienus"
(a parasite), the second was "Tom and Jerry".

Whenever its relative comes home from college it goes into
this tirade.

Luke 4:23: Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
(And I'm no ****in' xtian, it won't get any psychotherapy from me.)

On 27 Dec 2006 12:49:25 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

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.

Sorry Jerry.

YOU ARE INTERPRETING THE BRIGHTNESS CURVE UPSIDE DOWN.


Jerry

On 27 Dec 2006 13:19:02 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 00:24:59 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Sorcerer wrote:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/RTAurVel.GIF (Chicago)

http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...Luminosity.gif

The velocity curve lags the brightness curve by about 45 degrees.
That's what the BaTh predicts.


You know perfectly well that you goofed.

You should know by now that you have made an absolute fool of yourself.

Read Johnson's explanatory notes at the end of
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html

He writes about his tables, but the sign conventions apply to his
figures as well.
"In the (Measured) Radial Velocity column and Relative Radial Velocity
column, plus numbers mean moving away from Earth."

The BOTTOMS of the velocity curves represent maximum velocity
towards the Earth. The TOPS represent maximum velocity away
from the Earth.

I am quite aware of that.

.....so.... sorry Jerry.

YOU ARE INTERPRETING THE BRIGHTNESS CURVE UPSIDE DOWN.

Silly old Henri...

Silly old Jerry.
Doesn't know how star magnitude is presented.

Maximum brightness occurs at the top of the brightness curve. It LEADS the
maximum velocity TOWARDS Earth by about 40-60 degrees (using the real best fit
curve, not the doctored one as drawn)

I think you are totally out of your depth here Jerry.

Jerry

On 27 Dec 2006 15:02:51 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 00:24:59 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Sorcerer wrote:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/RTAurVel.GIF (Chicago)

http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...Luminosity.gif

The velocity curve lags the brightness curve by about 45 degrees.
That's what the BaTh predicts.


You know perfectly well that you goofed.

You should know by now that you have made an absolute fool of yourself.

Seeing as you completely misinterpreted the velocity curve, thinking
that the TOP of the velocity curve represented maximum velocity
towards Earth rather than the BOTTOM of the velocity curve, your BaTh
prediction looks pretty awful now, doesn't it?

Seeing you have totally misinterpreted the BRIGHTNESS curve, your whole
credibiltiy looks pretty awful doesn't it.
Mind you, it always did.



Jerry

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:47:38 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
| On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 05:54:54 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:
|



Did you notice the stupid **** failed to answer my question and
then asks if *I* give up? What a bigot!

In 1979, Pope John Paul II set up a committee to study the Galileo case, and five years later, its findings were made public. But it wasn't until 1992 that the Vatican finally admitted that Galileo had been right.
http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...h/galileo.html

That's exactly the same mentality as the ****head, so don't expect any
capitulation from it for 328 years.

Now it's studying for a medical degree, Blood Letting 101.

Huff puff stars just happen to have Keplerian velocity curves
by accident,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KepVel.gif

She has the brightness graph upside down.

but the Holey Church of Relativity says one speed for light
so they have to huff puff, recurrent novae have to blow themselves
to smithereens then settle back to normal and blow themselves to
smithereens again, Algol has to be eclipsed by a dark neighbour
as big as itself but cold and flare stars have to be roman candles.

Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of light speed and observer you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the light to stand still and the observer to change position -- eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be proved that the observer moves and the light stands still. -- Androcles, with Galileo paraphrased.

I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. -- Galileo.

Of course Wilson too has the obstinacy of a glutted adder, his worbits are
edge on and he can't get the distances right.

He doesn't cheat with a cos(pitch) like the pommie engineers who built the
concord.

That's enough to make Kepler weep and his chin quiver.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Kepler.gif


If you want a united front, mate, you've got to tilt your worbits into orbits
AND allow slow light to be passed by fast light, otherwise ****s like
Tom&Jerry (used to be MinorCrank) will take the ****.

Just rotate your telescope and cos(pitch) is unnecessary.

(It's one person with multiple personality disorder, all relativists have
some mental illness.)
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/05/0....07halllt.html

"Are mental illnesses like schizophrenia, depression and personality disorders a matter of biological dysfunction and thus best treated pharmacologically, or are they the product of psychosocial factors -- family dynamics, early childhood experiences, the whole closet of Freudian baggage -- and thus best treated by psychotherapy?"

Now it's ranting about date rape and how its "brother" taught it
some martial art or other, and it is planning on a psychiatry course.
Women do not boast about physical prowess in combat.

Sounds like 'delusions of grandeur' syndrome....

Blind Poe is lapping it up like the sick puppy he is.

Blind Poe cannot even understand simple questions about mechanics.
Nor can his mate Wormy.

The first give-away was the Freudian slip: "Cephalobus_alienus"
(a parasite), the second was "Tom and Jerry".

Whenever its relative comes home from college it goes into
this tirade.

Luke 4:23: Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
(And I'm no ****in' xtian, it won't get any psychotherapy from me.)

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:10:34 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Jerry" wrote in message ps.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message oups.com...

The first give-away was the Freudian slip: "Cephalobus_alienus"
(a parasite), the second was "Tom and Jerry".

Whenever its relative comes home from college it goes into
this tirade.

Luke 4:23: Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
(And I'm no ****in' xtian, it won't get any psychotherapy from me.)

Instead of repeating this diversionary rubbish, why don't you quietly infrom
the woman that we are quite aware of what the velocity graph tells us but that
SHE has the brightness curve upside down.

Jerry obviously thinks a magnitude 3 star is less bright than one of magnitude
3.8.

Jerry has made such an idiot of herself I doubt if she will return
here...unless maybe under a different name.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 12:49:25 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

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.

Sorry Jerry.

YOU ARE INTERPRETING THE BRIGHTNESS CURVE UPSIDE DOWN.

Of course not.
Look at my blue magnitude annotations on the side.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...Luminosity.gif
I wrote 5.0 at the top.
I wrote 5.5 in the middle.
Therefore, BRIGHTEST IS AT THE TOP.

Look at Johnsons velocity notations.
40 km/s away from the Earth at the top.
5 km/s away from the Earth at the bottom.
Therefore, GREATEST RADIAL GROWTH RATE AT THE BOTTOM.

Jerry

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 13:19:02 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 00:24:59 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Sorcerer wrote:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/RTAurVel.GIF (Chicago)

http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...Luminosity.gif

The velocity curve lags the brightness curve by about 45 degrees.
That's what the BaTh predicts.


You know perfectly well that you goofed.

You should know by now that you have made an absolute fool of yourself.

Read Johnson's explanatory notes at the end of
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html

He writes about his tables, but the sign conventions apply to his
figures as well.
"In the (Measured) Radial Velocity column and Relative Radial Velocity
column, plus numbers mean moving away from Earth."

The BOTTOMS of the velocity curves represent maximum velocity
towards the Earth. The TOPS represent maximum velocity away
from the Earth.

I am quite aware of that.

....so.... sorry Jerry.

YOU ARE INTERPRETING THE BRIGHTNESS CURVE UPSIDE DOWN.

Silly old Henri...

Silly old Jerry.
Doesn't know how star magnitude is presented.

Maximum brightness occurs at the top of the brightness curve. It LEADS the
maximum velocity TOWARDS Earth by about 40-60 degrees (using the real best fit
curve, not the doctored one as drawn)

I think you are totally out of your depth here Jerry.

Of course not.
Look at my blue magnitude annotations on the side.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...Luminosity.gif
I wrote 5.0 at the top.
I wrote 5.5 in the middle.
Therefore, BRIGHTEST IS AT THE TOP.

Look at Johnsons velocity notations.
40 km/s away from the Earth at the top.
5 km/s away from the Earth at the bottom.
Therefore, GREATEST RADIAL GROWTH RATE IS AT THE BOTTOM.

Jerry

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 15:02:51 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 00:24:59 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Sorcerer wrote:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/RTAurVel.GIF (Chicago)

http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...Luminosity.gif

The velocity curve lags the brightness curve by about 45 degrees.
That's what the BaTh predicts.


You know perfectly well that you goofed.

You should know by now that you have made an absolute fool of yourself.

Seeing as you completely misinterpreted the velocity curve, thinking
that the TOP of the velocity curve represented maximum velocity
towards Earth rather than the BOTTOM of the velocity curve, your BaTh
prediction looks pretty awful now, doesn't it?

Seeing you have totally misinterpreted the BRIGHTNESS curve, your whole
credibiltiy looks pretty awful doesn't it.
Mind you, it always did.

Who's misinterpreting?

Look at my blue magnitude annotations on the side.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...Luminosity.gif
I wrote 5.0 at the top.
I wrote 5.5 in the middle.
Therefore, BRIGHTEST IS AT THE TOP.

Check Johnson's comments.
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
"If a horizontal line is drawn across the velocity graph about
halfway up (at around +21.6 km/sec) then the portion of the velocity
graph that is below that line represents movement relatively toward
us, and the portion above that line represents movement relatively
away from us."
Therefore, GREATEST RADIAL GROWTH RATE IS AT THE BOTTOM.

Silly old Henri...

Jerry

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:47:38 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
| On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 05:54:54 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:
|



Did you notice the stupid **** failed to answer my question and
then asks if *I* give up? What a bigot!

In 1979, Pope John Paul II set up a committee to study the Galileo case, and five years later, its findings were made public. But it wasn't until 1992 that the Vatican finally admitted that Galileo had been right.
http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...h/galileo.html

That's exactly the same mentality as the ****head, so don't expect any
capitulation from it for 328 years.

Now it's studying for a medical degree, Blood Letting 101.

Huff puff stars just happen to have Keplerian velocity curves
by accident,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KepVel.gif

She has the brightness graph upside down.

Who has what upside down?

Look at my blue magnitude annotations on the side.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...Luminosity.gif
I wrote 5.0 at the top.
I wrote 5.5 in the middle.
Therefore, BRIGHTEST IS AT THE TOP.

Check Johnson's comments.
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
"If a horizontal line is drawn across the velocity graph about
halfway up (at around +21.6 km/sec) then the portion of the velocity
graph that is below that line represents movement relatively toward
us, and the portion above that line represents movement relatively
away from us."
Therefore, GREATEST RADIAL GROWTH RATE IS AT THE BOTTOM.

Silly old Henri...

Jerry