Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 03 May 2006 10:21:52 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Tue, 02 May 2006 11:02:56 GMT, "Hexenmeister"

| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| |
| | | | It wont crash now. Eccentricity will not go above 0.9.
| | | |
| | | | Where is the black text on dark blue?
| | |
| | | Oh. for ****'s sake... are you blind?
| | |
| | | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/worb****.PNG
| | |
| | | See the box above where it says "Points per orbit" , where the data
| | | can be changed?
| | | See the box above where it says "Eccentricity (max 0.9)" (white on
| red),
| | | where the data can be changed?
| | | I can't ****ing read the boxes!
| | |
| | | ****!
| | |
| | | I guess I will have to change all my combo boxes to black and white.
| | | I have already done that with command buttons.. ..makes a pretty
dull
| | | interface.
| | |
| | | ...
| | |
| | | OK. I have now made them all black and white with bold type.
| | | I suppose I'll have to go through all my other programs and do the
| same.
| |
| | Yep.. but you can use dark blue on white, dark blue on yellow, yellow
on
| | dark blue,
| | white on red, red on white if you want to be pretty.
| | Just don't use light on light or dark on dark.
| |
| | I will try to use the latest VBasic version in future. It is very
| different
| | from previous versions however.
| |
| |
| | | |
| | | | By using Kepler's equation you have great difficulty in
calculating
| | | positions
| | | | and velocities for equal TIME intervals around the orbit.
| | | | My method simplifies that.
| | |
| | | Bull****, computers never have difficulty, wabos do.
| | | Here it is in two lines of code that you cannot simplify:
| | | double Kepler(double M)
| | |
| | | { double E, R=0, epsilon = 0.00001; // accuracy chosen
| | |
| | | if (M0){ M=-M; sign = -1;} else sign = 1;
| | |
| | | do {E=R;R = M - eccentricity*sin(E);}while (fabs(R-E) epsilon);
| return E
| | *
| | | sign; }
| | |
| | | M is the angle around a circle (in equal time intervals)
| | | E is the angle around the ellipse (in equal time intervals)
| | | What I should have done (too late now) is make epsilon an inverse
| | | function of eccentricity, but I didn't think of it 18-20 years
ago.
| | | Where you get this stupid idea from that KEPLER didn't use equal
time
| | | intervals is beyond all understanding, he ****ing discovered
korbits,
| | | not worbits.
| | | Everyone else can do it except Wabo Wilson.
| | | http://home.cvc.org/science/kepler.htm
| | | http://tinyurl.com/jrduh
| | | http://alpha.fesg.tu-muenchen.de/die...erEllipse.html
| | | http://kepler.nasa.gov/johannes/images/ELLIPSE.GIF
| | |
| | | There was a small error in my code that caused about a 1% error in
| highly
| | | eccentric ellipses. It made no noticeable difference to my
brightness
| | curves.
| |
| | I don't understand your brightness curves.
| | 6 orbits, increasing distance. Nested curves? What's that?
| | The period shouldn't change, the curves should overlap, not shrink.
| | I imagine you have a boundary problem.
| |
| | OK sorry. I deleted something I shouldn't have. It meant the red button
| had to
| | be clicked every time the number of orbits was changed. Now fixed.
| | 2 or 3 orbits is ample for most runs.
| |
| | 50+ orbits is reserved for brightness curves after multiple images are
| formed.
| |
| |
| | I'd reproduce to compare to mine but I got a subscript out of range
| again.
| | Why does it say period 2 years in the curve window and period 0 years
| | on the main screen?
| | It crashed when I set it to period= 1. I can't live with your
continual
| | crashes.
| |
| | OK All is fixed now.
| |
| | I tried everything to make it crash and it will not.
| |
| | | have managed to fix that. My ellipses are now as good as one can
get.
| | |
| | | My method of producing them is very efficient and makes later
| programing
| | much
| | | easier and faster.
| | |
| | | Here are the basics:
| | |
| | | If pointindex = 20000 Then pointnumber = 3.2
| | | If pointindex = 33000 Then pointnumber = 5
| | | If pointindex = 60000 Then pointnumber = 9.2
| | |
| | | Erase velocity, Vangle
| | | p = 0: pmax = 0
| | | xstart = pointnumber * (1 - ecc) ^ (5 / 3) 'empirically
| determined
| | to
| | | give the about the right number of points
| | | G = xstart / (1 + ecc) / (10 ^ 6) 'ditto
| | | elipsize = 750 / xstart * ((1 - ecc) ^ (2 / 3)) 'empirically
| adjusts
| | print
| | | size
| | | Ystart = 0
| | | Xtemp = -xstart: Ytemp = 0
| | | radsq = (Xtemp ^ 2) + (Ytemp ^ 2)
| | | Radvector = (radsq) ^ 0.5 'length of radius vector
| | | vellx = 0
| | | velly = 0.001
| | | Force = G / radsq '(Radvector ^ 2)
| | | DrawWidth = 1
| | | While Ytemp = 0 'determines apastron
| | | p = p + 1
| | | If p Mod 4 = 0 Then
| | | PSet (2000 + (elipsize * Xtemp), 1500 + (Ytemp * elipsize)),
RGB(255,
| 255,
| | | 255) 'draw ellipse
| | | PSet (2000 + (elipsize * Xtemp), 1500 - (Ytemp * elipsize)),
RGB(255,
| 255,
| | | 255)
| | | End If
| | | velocity(p) = ((vellx ^ 2) + (velly ^ 2)) ^ 0.5 'ACTUAL
| PERIPHERAL
| | | VELOCITY
| | | If vellx 0 Then
| | | x = (velly / vellx)
| | | Vangle(p) = (pi / 2) - Atn(x) 'last reading at pmax
| |
| |
| | There's the problem.
| |
| | You compute angle from position, everyone else computes position
| | from angle. It is still based on equal times.
| |
| | Your position wanders off because of accumulated rounding error
| | and short STRAIGHT lines.
| |
| | With 20000 points the accuracy is good enough. I start at the aphelion
and
| end
| | at the peri. The test is whether or not the angle at the peri is pi or
| not.
| | With 20000 points it is within 0.01%. I have printed out the figures.
With
| | 60000 points it is even more accurate.
| | This is perfectly OK for hte production of brighness curves.
| |
| |
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...sonVKepler.PNG
| |
| | Each point depends on knowing the previous point exactly. Small error
| | accumulate
| | and the obit will precess. Then you get the wrong angle as well, and
an
| | eccentricity that wasn't asked for.
| |
| | Like I said, I have rigorously checked the end angle and it is very
close
| to
| | pi, as it should be. I admit there was a small error in my method
| before....but
| | it made little or no difference.
| |
| |
| | By doing it Kepler's way the problem is avoided, each point is
| | based on known angle, not the previous point.
| | http://kepler.nasa.gov/johannes/images/ELLIPSE.GIF
| |
| | It's pretty obvious, really, if you tried to compute say just 4 points
| you'd
| | be miles off, whereas computing by known angle is still exact.
| |
| | Well mine is now very acurate. Not much point in changing it now.
| |
| |
| | Velocity toward the observer is simply v = dz/dt and dz is the
| | z-difference between two points; dt is of course constant and equal
| | to period/(number of points).
| | Why you **** around with it can hardly be called efficient, I'll take
| | Kepler-Newton and geometry over Wilson any day.
| | But.. you are a stubborn old goat who won't listen and won't learn.
| | About 20 lines of code is enough.
| |
| | dt = period/points
| | angle= 2*pi/points
| | M = 0
| | Minor = Major * sqrt(1-ecc^2)
| |
| | ' loop for one orbit
| | For count = 0 to points
| | E = Kepler(M)
| | x = Major * cos(E) 'comment -- exact
| | y = Minor * sin(E) 'comment -- approx
| | z = 0 'comment (x,y,z) point now found
| | M = M + angle
| | 'comment -- do other stuff like
attitude
| and
| | brightness array
| | Next
| |
| | That's all there is to it, really.
| |
| | It's no good like that. Your divisions are of equal angle, not equal
time.
|
|
| WRONG! Equal angles around a circle which have equal areas,
| and equal AREAS around an ellipse. It's very good like that, try it.
|
| Kepler's second law states that the radius vector sweeps out equal areas
in
| equal times.

Yes, so?


| Unfortunately for you, the path of the object is not always normal to the
| radius vector. ...nowhere near it...

Of course not. Why is that unfortunate for me?



| You are hopelessly wrong. So is your method.

So say you, but you don't understand basic trig. Tell it to Newton.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KeplersEquation.html

"Let M be the mean anomaly (a parameterization of time) and E the eccentric
anomaly (a parameterization of polar angle) of a body orbiting on an ellipse
with eccentricity e, then

M = E-e.sin(E)"

Everyone else is wrong except Wino Wilson. Have it your way, moron.

|
| I've given you the code, copy and paste it into a new program,
| fix the syntax for Vbasic and run it. 30 minutes is all you need.
|
|
| |
| | You still have to add the x and y components vectorily to get the
| peripheral
| | angle.
|
| Who cares? I only want line of sight.
|
| double Kepler(double M)
|
| {
| double E, R=0, epsilon = 0.00001; // accuracy chosen
| if (M0){ M=-M; sign = -1;} else sign = 1;
| do {E=R;R = M - eccentricity*sin(E);}while (fabs(R-E) epsilon);
| return E * sign;
| }
|
| Orbit()
| dt = period/points
| angle= 2*pi/points
| M = 0
| Minor = Major * sqrt(1-ecc^2)
|
| For count = 0 to points
| E = Kepler(M)
| x = Major * cos(E) 'comment -- exact
| y = Minor * sin(E) 'comment -- approx
| z = 0 'comment (x,y,z) point now found
| M = M + angle
| 'comment -- do other stuff like attitude
and
| brightness array
| Next
|
| 19 lines of code.
|
| |
| | My method produces arrays containing both velocity and 'velocity
angle',
| for
| | equal time intervals around the orbit.
| | For those I can get the velocity component towards an observer for any
| value of
| | the yaw angle. It's pretty complicated but it works.
| |
| | If you run my program with 'scan on' you will see the range of
brightness
| | curves for the full 360 yaw angles. It takes about ten seconds on my
| computer.
|
|
| That LONG? Sheesh.
| |
| | | Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
| |
| |
| | Appropriate code reduction is efficient, fast and painless to debug.
| |
| | It is about as streamlined as I can make it now.
| | Please try again. I don't think you will have any problems this time.
|
| I did. Overflow when I tried to program an 18 day cepheid at 3,000,000 ly
| in NGC 206 and hit yellow.
|
|
| You're ****ing determined to find something wrong with it, aren't you..

I don't give a ****. I'm telling you it's ****ing useless, what you do about
it is
up to you, I can't use it and I'm done ****ing around with it.
Into the wastebin it goes.

Androcles

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 03 May 2006 10:23:10 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| news | | On Tue, 02 May 2006 14:53:51 GMT, "Hexenmeister"

| | wrote:
|
| | | Basically agreed...except I say there is more than one wavelength in
an
| | | individual photon.
| |
| |
| | Bull****. You got bumps in space now? There are NO wavelengths
| | in an individual photon, just as there are no wavelengths to my car.
| |
| | I prefer my 'serated bullet' model.
|
| LOL!
| Physics is based in Weinstein's preferences.
| Ok, Henri Weinstein, have some more Shiraz.
|
| ..actually it's cabinet sauvignon tonight....
|
|
| | The serations are nodes of standing waves resulting from intrinsic
| | oscillations.
|
| Yeah, sure. Bright green flying elephants use the hollows as watering
holes.
| I prefer my 'Shiraz watering hole' model, 45 hollows, one for each year
| you were a physicist. I'm glad I'm an engineer.
|
| There wouldn't be any ****ing engineers if physicists hadn't shown them
the
| way..

Have some more of that cabernet plonk, it might induce sanity. Physicists
are not mathematicians, they are ****ing dreamers. It always gets left to
an engineer to build it -- even that bottle in your hand was produced on a
machine designed by an engineer, glass blowers went out of business yonks
ago.
The physicist who thought of the wheel wanted it small and square to go
over the bumps and keep the cart level, but the engineer that invented it
had more ****ing sense, built it bigger and round with a pneumatic tyre.
Like your wrongram, really... 2000 light years and it's ****ed. You can't
reinvent Kepler's equation so you say it's wrong; you make a con-grammer,
you sure are no pro-grammer.


|
| Androcles.
|
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
|

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:42:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

The double slit experiment can't be done in vacuum,
so the many spectrometers in HST and other satellites don't work.

Manmade vacuums don't even come close to Wilson Thresholds.

The Hubble Space Telescope floats in a "manmade vacuum"?????
Oh, come on!

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:42:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:
|
| The double slit experiment can't be done in vacuum,
| so the many spectrometers in HST and other satellites don't work.
|
| Manmade vacuums don't even come close to Wilson Thresholds.
|
| The Hubble Space Telescope floats in a "manmade vacuum"?????
| Oh, come on!


Now see, that's where you show promise.
You thought of a situation where the bluff was so obvious that
Wilson can have no comeback (save a sneer), and you relied on
indisputable empirical data.

If you could keep that up I'd be right there with you, it's when you
repeat what you've been told that I doubt your abilities.
I'd far rather you thought.

Wilson invented his threshold when he forgot to include pitch in his
program, it only has yaw, no roll either but roll was of no importance,
and although he is right about ballistic light his worbits are all edge-on.
Hence empirical data has to be answered by "thresholds", which is pure
unadulterated nonsense.

In that respect Einstein is no different to Wilson who accepted
the word of John Goodricke and invented excuses to promote his
pet theory.

" let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity
of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school."
-- Einstein.

Assume????? Appealing to schoolchildren?????
Oh, come on!
It's absolute psychological garbage. Einstein would be ripped to
shreds by a newsgroup, let alone by Newton, if we were hearing him
for the first time.

"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." -- Einstein.

What eclipse? Einstein is of course referring to Algol and the Goodricke
Assumption, but the Goodricke Assumption fails to take into account
the velocity of light being added to the velocity of it's source. Hence
the Aether Assumption.

Then along come Michelson and blows the aether out of existence,
Einstein seizes his chance and it's downhill all the way now,
assumption piled on assumption, Dark Matter, Black Holes,
Expanding Universe, Big Bang, all the attendant trivia as charlatans
attempt to "prove" their assumptions and be famous.
Error accumulates error.
Oh, come on!
(Notice no naughty words :-)
Androcles.

On Wed, 03 May 2006 12:06:12 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Wed, 03 May 2006 10:21:52 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:


| | That's all there is to it, really.
| |
| | It's no good like that. Your divisions are of equal angle, not equal
time.
|
|
| WRONG! Equal angles around a circle which have equal areas,
| and equal AREAS around an ellipse. It's very good like that, try it.
|
| Kepler's second law states that the radius vector sweeps out equal areas
in
| equal times.

Yes, so?


| Unfortunately for you, the path of the object is not always normal to the
| radius vector. ...nowhere near it...

Of course not. Why is that unfortunate for me?



| You are hopelessly wrong. So is your method.

So say you, but you don't understand basic trig. Tell it to Newton.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KeplersEquation.html

"Let M be the mean anomaly (a parameterization of time) and E the eccentric
anomaly (a parameterization of polar angle) of a body orbiting on an ellipse
with eccentricity e, then

M = E-e.sin(E)"

Everyone else is wrong except Wino Wilson. Have it your way, moron.

I can't see how you get instantaneous velocity and direction from that.....for
equal time intervals around the orbit.


| | It is about as streamlined as I can make it now.
| | Please try again. I don't think you will have any problems this time.
|
| I did. Overflow when I tried to program an 18 day cepheid at 3,000,000 ly
| in NGC 206 and hit yellow.
|
|
| You're ****ing determined to find something wrong with it, aren't you..

I don't give a ****. I'm telling you it's ****ing useless, what you do about
it is
up to you, I can't use it and I'm done ****ing around with it.
Into the wastebin it goes.

Geez! Talk about grumpy old men....

How much money comes out of an ATM when you type in "androcles" instead of
$100?

Why don't you ask your ****ing bank to include minus figures so you can
increase your account by withdrawing money?

Androcles



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:00:56 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Wed, 03 May 2006 10:23:10 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| news | | On Tue, 02 May 2006 14:53:51 GMT, "Hexenmeister"

| | wrote:
|
| | | Basically agreed...except I say there is more than one wavelength in
an
| | | individual photon.
| |
| |
| | Bull****. You got bumps in space now? There are NO wavelengths
| | in an individual photon, just as there are no wavelengths to my car.
| |
| | I prefer my 'serated bullet' model.
|
| LOL!
| Physics is based in Weinstein's preferences.
| Ok, Henri Weinstein, have some more Shiraz.
|
| ..actually it's cabinet sauvignon tonight....
|
|
| | The serations are nodes of standing waves resulting from intrinsic
| | oscillations.
|
| Yeah, sure. Bright green flying elephants use the hollows as watering
holes.
| I prefer my 'Shiraz watering hole' model, 45 hollows, one for each year
| you were a physicist. I'm glad I'm an engineer.
|
| There wouldn't be any ****ing engineers if physicists hadn't shown them
the
| way..

Have some more of that cabernet plonk, it might induce sanity. Physicists
are not mathematicians, they are ****ing dreamers. It always gets left to
an engineer to build it -- even that bottle in your hand was produced on a
machine designed by an engineer, glass blowers went out of business yonks
ago.
The physicist who thought of the wheel wanted it small and square to go
over the bumps and keep the cart level, but the engineer that invented it
had more ****ing sense, built it bigger and round with a pneumatic tyre.
Like your wrongram, really... 2000 light years and it's ****ed. You can't
reinvent Kepler's equation so you say it's wrong; you make a con-grammer,
you sure are no pro-grammer.

that's why my programs work, eh?



|
| Androcles.
|
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
|



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

On Wed, 03 May 2006 21:48:42 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
wrote:


"Jerry" wrote in message
roups.com...

| The double slit experiment can't be done in vacuum,
| so the many spectrometers in HST and other satellites don't work.
|
| Manmade vacuums don't even come close to Wilson Thresholds.
|
| The Hubble Space Telescope floats in a "manmade vacuum"?????
| Oh, come on!


Now see, that's where you show promise.
You thought of a situation where the bluff was so obvious that
Wilson can have no comeback (save a sneer), and you relied on
indisputable empirical data.

What 'bluff'?

I already made it clear that 'density' includes not only matter but 'fields'
and god knows what else.

The HST has fields around it. ...which renders that near space above the Wilson
Threshold.

I doubt if any space in our whole solar system lies below the threshold.


If you could keep that up I'd be right there with you, it's when you
repeat what you've been told that I doubt your abilities.
I'd far rather you thought.

Wilson invented his threshold when he forgot to include pitch in his
program, it only has yaw, no roll either but roll was of no importance,
and although he is right about ballistic light his worbits are all edge-on.
Hence empirical data has to be answered by "thresholds", which is pure
unadulterated nonsense.

Pitch is included you idiot. You are becoming as bad as Tusselad...

In that respect Einstein is no different to Wilson who accepted
the word of John Goodricke and invented excuses to promote his
pet theory.

" let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity
of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school."
-- Einstein.

Assume????? Appealing to schoolchildren?????
Oh, come on!
It's absolute psychological garbage. Einstein would be ripped to
shreds by a newsgroup, let alone by Newton, if we were hearing him
for the first time.

"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." -- Einstein.

What eclipse? Einstein is of course referring to Algol and the Goodricke
Assumption, but the Goodricke Assumption fails to take into account
the velocity of light being added to the velocity of it's source. Hence
the Aether Assumption.

Then along come Michelson and blows the aether out of existence,
Einstein seizes his chance and it's downhill all the way now,
assumption piled on assumption, Dark Matter, Black Holes,
Expanding Universe, Big Bang, all the attendant trivia as charlatans
attempt to "prove" their assumptions and be famous.
Error accumulates error.
Oh, come on!
(Notice no naughty words :-)
Androcles.



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| Pitch is included you idiot. You are becoming as bad as Tusselad...

"Don't worry about 3,000,000 ly, use 100 ly instead."
**** off, I was talking to Jerry, not a wine-crazed lunatic.
Androcles

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 03 May 2006 12:06:12 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Wed, 03 May 2006 10:21:52 GMT, "Hexenmeister"

| | wrote:
|
|
| | | That's all there is to it, really.
| | |
| | | It's no good like that. Your divisions are of equal angle, not equal
| time.
| |
| |
| | WRONG! Equal angles around a circle which have equal areas,
| | and equal AREAS around an ellipse. It's very good like that, try it.
| |
| | Kepler's second law states that the radius vector sweeps out equal
areas
| in
| | equal times.
|
| Yes, so?
|
|
| | Unfortunately for you, the path of the object is not always normal to
the
| | radius vector. ...nowhere near it...
|
| Of course not. Why is that unfortunate for me?
|
|
|
| | You are hopelessly wrong. So is your method.
|
| So say you, but you don't understand basic trig. Tell it to Newton.
|
| http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KeplersEquation.html
|
| "Let M be the mean anomaly (a parameterization of time) and E the
eccentric
| anomaly (a parameterization of polar angle) of a body orbiting on an
ellipse
| with eccentricity e, then
|
| M = E-e.sin(E)"
|
| Everyone else is wrong except Wino Wilson. Have it your way, moron.
|
| I can't see how you get instantaneous velocity and direction from
that.....for
| equal time intervals around the orbit.

"I can't see..."
"I removed pitch, I didn't use it. Forget 3000000, use 100 instead."
"Wilson Threshold."

Senile old ****. Quit wasting everyone else's time. **** off.
Androcles.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...

| that's why my programs work, eh?

"Forget 3000000, use 100 instead."
**** off.

Androcles.