Perihelion of Mercury question

Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

No, in the 1909 Duncan data that Johnson used, maximum velocity
LAGS maximum brightness by approximately 20 degrees.

And if you check the more recent data in Bappu and Raghavan, 1969
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B
you'll see the peaks almost coincide.

Jerry

On 28 Dec 2006 13:27:34 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

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.

yes, you did this just now, didn't you Jerry?

Therefore, BRIGHTEST IS AT THE TOP.

Of course.
That's what I told you.


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.

Of course, That's what I told you.

Silly old Henri...

Why, for pointing out your massive blunder?
Or for pointing out that the velocity curve lags the brightness curve by about
40 degrees?

Jerry

You are completely out of your depth here Jerry. Better stick to your martial
arts..

On 28 Dec 2006 13:30:23 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

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.

Yes you changed that after I told you..

Therefore, BRIGHTEST IS AT THE TOP.

I told you that.
The brightness peak leads the max velocity TOWARDS EARTH by about 40 degrees.

I assume you know what a 'phase angle' is.


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.

That's what I told you Jerry...

I have been saying it all along.


Silly old Henri...

From someone who hasn't the courage to admit she has made a major blunder,
that's probably a compliment.


Jerry

On 28 Dec 2006 13:29:12 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

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.

Your blue figures are obviously a recent addition.

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...

You blundered. Admit it...

Jerry

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 13:27:34 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

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.

yes, you did this just now, didn't you Jerry?

Therefore, BRIGHTEST IS AT THE TOP.

Of course.
That's what I told you.


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.

Of course, That's what I told you.

Silly old Henri...

Why, for pointing out your massive blunder?
Or for pointing out that the velocity curve lags the brightness curve by about
40 degrees?

Jerry

You are completely out of your depth here Jerry. Better stick to your martial
arts..

You are dishonestly trying to mold history to fit your imaginings.

In your previous message
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3271735c04f0a5
you wrote:
"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. [my emphasis] You will notice that the curve doesn't
even fit the points. Rather it was drawn to suit your standard huff-
puff theory."

Your statements are DOCUMENTED PERMANENTLY IN USENET.

In reality, looking at Johnson's plot of Duncan's 1909 data, the
maximum velocity towards the Earth occurs maybe 20 degrees AFTER the
brightness peak.

If we look at the more recent data in Fig 1 of the following:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B
we see the maximum velocity towards the Earth occurs at approximately
phase 0.04, which is about 14 degrees AFTER the brightness peak.

So the classic 1909 data of Duncan, and the 1969 data of Bappu and
Raghavan, are completely consistent with each other and with my
previous statements.

Jerry

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 13:30:23 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

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.

Yes you changed that after I told you..

Therefore, BRIGHTEST IS AT THE TOP.

I told you that.
The brightness peak leads the max velocity TOWARDS EARTH by about 40 degrees.

I assume you know what a 'phase angle' is.


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.

That's what I told you Jerry...

I have been saying it all along.


Silly old Henri...

From someone who hasn't the courage to admit she has made a major blunder,
that's probably a compliment.

You are dishonestly trying to mold history to fit your imaginings.

In your previous message
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3271735c04f0a5
you wrote:
"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. [my emphasis] You will notice that the curve doesn't
even fit the points. Rather it was drawn to suit your standard huff-
puff theory."

Your statements are DOCUMENTED PERMANENTLY IN USENET.

In reality, looking at Johnson's plot of Duncan's 1909 data, the
maximum velocity towards the Earth occurs maybe 20 degrees AFTER the
brightness peak.

If we look at the more recent data in Fig 1 of the following:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B
we see the maximum velocity towards the Earth occurs at approximately
phase 0.04, which is about 14 degrees AFTER the brightness peak.

So the classic 1909 data of Duncan, and the 1969 data of Bappu and
Raghavan, are completely consistent with each other and with my
previous statements.

Jerry

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 13:29:12 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

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.

Your blue figures are obviously a recent addition.

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...

You blundered. Admit it...

You are dishonestly trying to mold history to fit your imaginings.

In your previous message
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3271735c04f0a5
you wrote:
"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. [my emphasis] You will notice that the curve doesn't
even fit the points. Rather it was drawn to suit your standard huff-
puff theory."

Your statements are DOCUMENTED PERMANENTLY IN USENET.

In reality, looking at Johnson's plot of Duncan's 1909 data, the
maximum velocity towards the Earth occurs maybe 20 degrees AFTER the
brightness peak.

If we look at the more recent data in Fig 1 of the following:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B
we see the maximum velocity towards the Earth occurs at approximately
phase 0.04, which is about 14 degrees AFTER the brightness peak.

So the classic 1909 data of Duncan, and the 1969 data of Bappu and
Raghavan, are completely consistent with each other and with my
previous statements.

Jerry