"Mi06 is a mere 24 LY away" - ASSistant professor Paul B. Andersen.

On Feb 23, 12:48*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:04:24 -0000, "Androcles"



wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
news | On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:17:25 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| Oh dear... M106 is closer than most stars. ASS. Prof. Andersen,
| the Colonel Gadhafi of Norwegian Astronomy, is looking through
| the wrong end of his telescope.
| *http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Andersen.JPG
|
| Hahahhaha!
| Methinks he will probably disappear under a pile of Aquavit bottles for a
few
| weeks before re-emerging with a dose of psychological amnesia.
|
| I have now published the official version of Modern BaTh. You will be
pleased
| to see that I gave you an acknowledgment.
|
|www.scisite.info/Ballistic_theory.odt
|
I dunno what to do with open document text formats.
I get a zip file then "The Compressed (zipped) Folder is invalid or
corrupted."

.odt is the main file system used by SUN's Open Office, which is suppoed to be
fully compatible with Windows but apparently is not. If I try saving it in
.rtf, it reverts to .odt

I will save it in .doc form as well so people have a choice.
.

Why not make it a pdf, which is the *ACTUAL STANDARD* among scientists
for document distribution?


If you want to acknowledge me then I am the first person ever to link
emission theory to ACTUAL stellar data. I first noticed cepheids fit, but
that
was easy, they are only lopsided sinusoids. But Algol didn't fit until I
aligned
its major axis with the line of sight, and that was my Eureka moment.
Sekerin made no reference to Algol and his sketches, while valid, are for
circular orbits.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sekerin.htm

He probably thought as I did at first ...that the large dip was some kind of
mathematical error. I tried for days to find a computer error before I finally
realised it was actually true.

Have you modelled V 1493 Aql yet? It's been quiet from 12 years now,
only 188 +/- 100 years to go before it repeats again and proves me right..
Your work is incomplete without it.

I have included a match with V2362 Cyg, which is similar to 1493 Aql but even
better. The latter is mentioned in the text.

http://www.scisite.info/fig10.jpg

How is it a match when you don't include those pesky little details
like...say...labels of axes?

What epheremis data did you use, and how much does it disagree with
reality?




Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:04:24 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| news | | On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:17:25 -0000, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
|
| |
| | Oh dear... M106 is closer than most stars. ASS. Prof. Andersen,
| | the Colonel Gadhafi of Norwegian Astronomy, is looking through
| | the wrong end of his telescope.
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Andersen.JPG
| |
| | Hahahhaha!
| | Methinks he will probably disappear under a pile of Aquavit bottles for
a
| few
| | weeks before re-emerging with a dose of psychological amnesia.
| |
| | I have now published the official version of Modern BaTh. You will be
| pleased
| | to see that I gave you an acknowledgment.
| |
| | www.scisite.info/Ballistic_theory.odt
| |
| I dunno what to do with open document text formats.
| I get a zip file then "The Compressed (zipped) Folder is invalid or
| corrupted."
|
| .odt is the main file system used by SUN's Open Office, which is suppoed
to be
| fully compatible with Windows but apparently is not. If I try saving it in
| .rtf, it reverts to .odt
|
| I will save it in .doc form as well so people have a choice.
| .

Plain text will do, all this ****ing about with bull**** formatting is for
wannabe programmers that are merely accountants who say "debit" and
"credit" for + and -, then want high salaries for drawing up a simple
list that they call a balance sheet.
Scientists are not advertising publishers, a stone tablet has more lasting
information than a papyrus scroll and far more than a compact disc that
can't be read at all without a lot of specialised equipment.



| If you want to acknowledge me then I am the first person ever to link
| emission theory to ACTUAL stellar data. I first noticed cepheids fit, but
| that
| was easy, they are only lopsided sinusoids. But Algol didn't fit until I
| aligned
| its major axis with the line of sight, and that was my Eureka moment.
| Sekerin made no reference to Algol and his sketches, while valid, are for
| circular orbits.
| http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
|
| He probably thought as I did at first ...that the large dip was some kind
of
| mathematical error. I tried for days to find a computer error before I
finally
| realised it was actually true.
|
| Have you modelled V 1493 Aql yet? It's been quiet from 12 years now,
| only 188 +/- 100 years to go before it repeats again and proves me right.
| Your work is incomplete without it.
|
| I have included a match with V2362 Cyg, which is similar to 1493 Aql but
even
| better. The latter is mentioned in the text.
|
| http://www.scisite.info/fig10.jpg
|
AHA! Much better.

I'm sure you realise that the astronomers saw the first peak a day or even a
week before they started measuring it, so it is actually missing in their
plot.

Now... if you very carefully move further away (increase the distance) you
should be able to merge those two peaks into one. Go too far and they
pass each other.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...s/Distance.gif
Each frame of the gif is further away, all other parameters are the same.

Remember that the gap between them is just a couple of months or so, but
the time to the next recurrence can be a couple of hundred years, more time
than we've had decent telescopes to see the previous one.

Tweak the yaw angle to the ellipse to raise one peak and lower the other,
and
you get this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...cus/period.gif
I highlighted the yellow frame and paused it to demonstrate the curve of
V 1493 Aql.

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:04:24 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| news | | On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:17:25 -0000, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:29:14 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
| |
| | | wrote:
| | | But you are probably referring to this pictu
| | |
| | | http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
| | |
| | | The blue image is X-rays, not "blue light".
| | | You can see that IR (red) and optical (gold)
| | | appear to come from the same arms.
| | | The "anomalous arms" are mainly X-ray and radio (purple) emission.
| | | The reasonable explanation is obviously that it's a very different
| | | mechanism behind the emission of X-rays + radio and IR + visible
| light.
| | | The x-rays and radio don't come from stars at all.
| | |
| | | M106 is a mere 24 LY away.
| | |
| | | Oh dear! The Milky Way will never be the same again!
| | |
| | | The rotation period of a galaxy is in the order of
| | | hundreds of millions of years.
| | | That should suffice to illustrate the idiocy of
| | | Androcles' claim.
| | |
| | | I'm sure he will be laughing so much at your latest blunder that he
| wont
| | even
| | | notice.
| | |
| |
| | Oh dear... M106 is closer than most stars. ASS. Prof. Andersen,
| | the Colonel Gadhafi of Norwegian Astronomy, is looking through
| | the wrong end of his telescope.
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Andersen.JPG
| |
| | Hahahhaha!
| | Methinks he will probably disappear under a pile of Aquavit bottles for
a
| few
| | weeks before re-emerging with a dose of psychological amnesia.
| |
| | I have now published the official version of Modern BaTh. You will be
| pleased
| | to see that I gave you an acknowledgment.
| |
| | www.scisite.info/Ballistic_theory.odt
| |
| I dunno what to do with open document text formats.
| I get a zip file then "The Compressed (zipped) Folder is invalid or
| corrupted."
|
| If you want to acknowledge me then I am the first person ever to link
| emission theory to ACTUAL stellar data. I first noticed cepheids fit, but
| that
| was easy, they are only lopsided sinusoids. But Algol didn't fit until I
| aligned
| its major axis with the line of sight, and that was my Eureka moment.
| Sekerin made no reference to Algol and his sketches, while valid, are for
| circular orbits.
| http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
|
| Have you modelled V 1493 Aql yet? It's been quiet from 12 years now,
| only 188 +/- 100 years to go before it repeats again and proves me right.
| Your work is incomplete without it.
|
| My paper is now in .html format.....much better.
|
| www.scisite.info/was_einstein_wrong.html
|
| Henry Wilson...

Not a good title, Clifford Will used "Was Einstein Right?"
years ago and of course it produced a plethora of responses.
http://tinyurl.com/67tou6u
I'll read it when I've had a drink and want a laugh.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:53:24 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .

|
| .odt is the main file system used by SUN's Open Office, which is suppoed
to be
| fully compatible with Windows but apparently is not. If I try saving it in
| .rtf, it reverts to .odt
|
| I will save it in .doc form as well so people have a choice.
| .

Plain text will do, all this ****ing about with bull**** formatting is for

It has come up well in html.


| He probably thought as I did at first ...that the large dip was some kind
of
| mathematical error. I tried for days to find a computer error before I
finally
| realised it was actually true.
|
| Have you modelled V 1493 Aql yet? It's been quiet from 12 years now,
| only 188 +/- 100 years to go before it repeats again and proves me right.
| Your work is incomplete without it.
|
| I have included a match with V2362 Cyg, which is similar to 1493 Aql but
even
| better. The latter is mentioned in the text.
|
| http://www.scisite.info/fig10.jpg
|
AHA! Much better.

I'm sure you realise that the astronomers saw the first peak a day or even a
week before they started measuring it, so it is actually missing in their
plot.

Now... if you very carefully move further away (increase the distance) you
should be able to merge those two peaks into one. Go too far and they
pass each other.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...s/Distance.gif
Each frame of the gif is further away, all other parameters are the same.

The double peak starts at the critical point where double imagery begins. The
peaks separate until they cross over again as a third image appears.. and and
so on. I also inserted some randomicity to simulate molecular source speeds
with the result that the peaks are smoothed and the brightness and velocity
curves could easily be mistaken for Tusseladd's fairytale short period
eclipsing binaries.
If you want to investigate brightness cuves with multiple images present you
have to use a large number of orbits.

You can see how the double peak changes with yaw and distance instantly with my
latest program version. V1495 Aql is not easy to match because of hte curve in
the lower rise. I suspect it is the observer's mistake and the curve should be
more like V2362 Cyg.

www.scisite.info/bright2011.exe

It will set up a folder on your c drive called 'ellipsefiles' and will write 78
files, each containing numerical values for velocity, acceleration and their
angles at 300 equally spaced (timewise) points around the orbit.
The program reads the appropriate file for the selected eccentricity value.
Brightness curves are then produced almost instantly with the acceleration
method.

Remember that the gap between them is just a couple of months or so, but
the time to the next recurrence can be a couple of hundred years, more time
than we've had decent telescopes to see the previous one.

Tweak the yaw angle to the ellipse to raise one peak and lower the other,
and
you get this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...cus/period.gif
I highlighted the yellow frame and paused it to demonstrate the curve of
V 1493 Aql.

Yep. I've done all that.


Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:53:24 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
|
| |
| | .odt is the main file system used by SUN's Open Office, which is
suppoed
| to be
| | fully compatible with Windows but apparently is not. If I try saving it
in
| | .rtf, it reverts to .odt
| |
| | I will save it in .doc form as well so people have a choice.
| | .
|
| Plain text will do, all this ****ing about with bull**** formatting is
for
|
| It has come up well in html.
|
|
| | He probably thought as I did at first ...that the large dip was some
kind
| of
| | mathematical error. I tried for days to find a computer error before I
| finally
| | realised it was actually true.
| |
| | Have you modelled V 1493 Aql yet? It's been quiet from 12 years now,
| | only 188 +/- 100 years to go before it repeats again and proves me
right.
| | Your work is incomplete without it.
| |
| | I have included a match with V2362 Cyg, which is similar to 1493 Aql
but
| even
| | better. The latter is mentioned in the text.
| |
| | http://www.scisite.info/fig10.jpg
| |
| AHA! Much better.
|
| I'm sure you realise that the astronomers saw the first peak a day or
even a
| week before they started measuring it, so it is actually missing in their
| plot.
|
| Now... if you very carefully move further away (increase the distance)
you
| should be able to merge those two peaks into one. Go too far and they
| pass each other.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...s/Distance.gif
| Each frame of the gif is further away, all other parameters are the same.
|
| The double peak starts at the critical point where double imagery begins.

Sure, except that a point of light is no image at all, it's just a point of
light that suddenly gets brighter, then winks out again. The curve between
the two peaks is when we see retrograde motion, but it's motion is along
the line of sight. The velocity is a loop that goes backwards in time.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...l.velocity.JPG
You need a sort-by-time algorithm in any program that plots it, because at
the time of arrival there are three separate velocities.
Pity the poor bloody astronomer trying to make sense of it, he's got
three spectral line shifts in one spectrogram and it is moving night after
night. He'll mutter about spectral line splitting, take an average thinking
he's only got one velocity or another star, talk about the Zeeman effect
and make a complete hash of it. Emission theory throws him completely.



The
| peaks separate until they cross over again as a third image appears.. and
and
| so on. I also inserted some randomicity to simulate molecular source
speeds
| with the result that the peaks are smoothed and the brightness and
velocity
| curves could easily be mistaken for Tusseladd's fairytale short period
| eclipsing binaries.

You don't need that, all it does is broaden the spectral line and add
confusion.
http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/images/d5/sunb.jpg
As you can see, some lines are very broad and hopeless for finding velocity
from Doppler shift. For the Sun we don't need to, but for a
distant star the spectrum will be weak anyway.


| If you want to investigate brightness cuves with multiple images present
you
| have to use a large number of orbits.
|
Don't be silly, you only need one orbit.


| You can see how the double peak changes with yaw and distance instantly
with my
| latest program version. V1495 Aql is not easy to match because of hte
curve in
| the lower rise. I suspect it is the observer's mistake and the curve
should be
| more like V2362 Cyg.
|
| www.scisite.info/bright2011.exe
|
| It will set up a folder on your c drive called 'ellipsefiles' and will
write 78
| files, each containing numerical values for velocity, acceleration and
their
| angles at 300 equally spaced (timewise) points around the orbit.
| The program reads the appropriate file for the selected eccentricity
value.
| Brightness curves are then produced almost instantly with the acceleration
| method.
|

No it won't, NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D:
or it goes nowhere. I don't run your bug-ridden programs anymore,
I've had enough experience of them by now to leave them alone.
If you can't do in VBASIC what I can do on a simple spreadsheet
with one orbit and a hundred points there is something seriously
wrong with your math skills. I'm willing to help you but you are too
obstinate to learn and too quick to pick an argument.



| Remember that the gap between them is just a couple of months or so, but
| the time to the next recurrence can be a couple of hundred years, more
time
| than we've had decent telescopes to see the previous one.
|
| Tweak the yaw angle to the ellipse to raise one peak and lower the other,
| and
| you get this:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...cus/period.gif
| I highlighted the yellow frame and paused it to demonstrate the curve of
| V 1493 Aql.
|
| Yep. I've done all that.
|
|
| Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:01:12 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:53:24 -0000, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
|
| | I'm sure you realise that the astronomers saw the first peak a day or
| even a
| | week before they started measuring it, so it is actually missing in
their
| | plot.
| |
| | Now... if you very carefully move further away (increase the distance)
| you
| | should be able to merge those two peaks into one. Go too far and they
| | pass each other.
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...s/Distance.gif
| | Each frame of the gif is further away, all other parameters are the
same.
| |
| | The double peak starts at the critical point where double imagery
begins.
|
| Sure, except that a point of light is no image at all, it's just a point
of
| light that suddenly gets brighter, then winks out again. The curve
between
| the two peaks is when we see retrograde motion, but it's motion is along
| the line of sight. The velocity is a loop that goes backwards in time.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...l.velocity.JPG
| You need a sort-by-time algorithm in any program that plots it, because
at
| the time of arrival there are three separate velocities.
|
| There can be more than three depending on hte multiplicity of images.
yawn
Prove it.



|
| Pity the poor bloody astronomer trying to make sense of it, he's got
| three spectral line shifts in one spectrogram and it is moving night
after
| night. He'll mutter about spectral line splitting, take an average
thinking
| he's only got one velocity or another star, talk about the Zeeman effect
| and make a complete hash of it. Emission theory throws him completely.
|
| As I said in my thesis, astronomers are trying to put together the space
jigsaw
| with pieces that don't fit together.
|
| The
| | peaks separate until they cross over again as a third image appears..
and
| and
| | so on. I also inserted some randomicity to simulate molecular source
| speeds
| | with the result that the peaks are smoothed and the brightness and
| velocity
| | curves could easily be mistaken for Tusseladd's fairytale short period
| | eclipsing binaries.
|
| You don't need that, all it does is broaden the spectral line and add
| confusion.
| http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/images/d5/sunb.jpg
| As you can see, some lines are very broad and hopeless for finding
velocity
| from Doppler shift. For the Sun we don't need to, but for a
| distant star the spectrum will be weak anyway.
|
| ....so they use statistics to come up with a very unlikely velocity
curve...
|
| | If you want to investigate brightness cuves with multiple images
present
| you
| | have to use a large number of orbits.
| |
| Don't be silly, you only need one orbit.
|
| You only need velocity/acceleration details of one orbit.....but you have
to
| add the light from other orbits to get a decent curve.
|
| Fast light from one orbit might catch up with slow light from ten orbits
ahead.
|
1) That wouldn't give a distinct and recognisable luminosity curve.
2) the spectrum would be a blur (nebulous).
3) Astronomers would ignore it as uninteresting.

Astronomers are like kids at a fireworks show, they are only interested in
rapid change. Then again, who wants to look at a point of light that does
nothing else but sit there?



| | You can see how the double peak changes with yaw and distance instantly
| with my
| | latest program version. V1495 Aql is not easy to match because of hte
| curve in
| | the lower rise. I suspect it is the observer's mistake and the curve
| should be
| | more like V2362 Cyg.
| |
| | www.scisite.info/bright2011.exe
| |
| | It will set up a folder on your c drive called 'ellipsefiles' and will
| write 78
| | files, each containing numerical values for velocity, acceleration and
| their
| | angles at 300 equally spaced (timewise) points around the orbit.
| | The program reads the appropriate file for the selected eccentricity
| value.
| | Brightness curves are then produced almost instantly with the
acceleration
| | method.
| |
|
| No it won't, NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D:
| or it goes nowhere. I don't run your bug-ridden programs anymore,
| I've had enough experience of them by now to leave them alone.
|
| There are now no bugs.
|
That's what you say every time.


| If you can't do in VBASIC what I can do on a simple spreadsheet
| with one orbit and a hundred points there is something seriously
| wrong with your math skills.
|
| There is nothing wrong with VBasic. It's ideal for this kind of exercise.
| If you are too scared to run it that is your problem.

There is plenty wrong with your use of it. You've had 11 years to write
simple utility routines for reading and writing files that you can
copy/paste
into any of your other programs that let the user decide source and
destination.

NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D: or it goes nowhere.

|
| set up your own folder on your c drive if you wish. as lonf as it's called
| "ellipsefiles" the progran will write the details to it. You can inspect
them
| with a word processor.
|

You just don't get it, do you? My C: drive is write protected.
NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D: or it goes nowhere.

| I'm willing to help you but you are too
| obstinate to learn and too quick to pick an argument.
|
| You're the one who is arguing.
| If you don't want to take advantage of a most sophisticated program then
that
| is not my problem.
|
No thanks, I can write code better than yours on a spreadsheet.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

If you don't want to take advantage of a far simpler program that uses
Kepler's equation, a mere 100 points, and plots foldback velocity curves as
well as luminosity curves then that is not my problem. Hype yourself up all
you want to; you should be a politician and run for office, you are good at
it.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:00:02 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:01:12 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:

of
| light that suddenly gets brighter, then winks out again. The curve
between
| the two peaks is when we see retrograde motion, but it's motion is along
| the line of sight. The velocity is a loop that goes backwards in time.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...l.velocity.JPG
| You need a sort-by-time algorithm in any program that plots it, because
at
| the time of arrival there are three separate velocities.
|
| There can be more than three depending on hte multiplicity of images.
yawn
Prove it.

I have. But you can't run my program. I will change it so that you can put the
files on your bloody D drive or anywhere else.


| You don't need that, all it does is broaden the spectral line and add
| confusion.
| http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/images/d5/sunb.jpg
| As you can see, some lines are very broad and hopeless for finding
velocity
| from Doppler shift. For the Sun we don't need to, but for a
| distant star the spectrum will be weak anyway.
|
| ....so they use statistics to come up with a very unlikely velocity
curve...
|
| | If you want to investigate brightness cuves with multiple images
present
| you
| | have to use a large number of orbits.
| |
| Don't be silly, you only need one orbit.
|
| You only need velocity/acceleration details of one orbit.....but you have
to
| add the light from other orbits to get a decent curve.
|
| Fast light from one orbit might catch up with slow light from ten orbits
ahead.
|
1) That wouldn't give a distinct and recognisable luminosity curve.

Not true at least up to four multiples. A pair of stars will suddenly appear in
a bright flash whilst another pair will fade away to nothing. Since the star is
a point source, its brigthness will still appear to fluctuate periodically and
several distinct spectra will be seen. Depending on yaw and eccentricity, it
could easily be mistaken for a short period eclipsing binary, which neither you
nor I believe exists.

2) the spectrum would be a blur (nebulous).

It usually is. Astronomers try to make sense out of it with statistical
methods.

3) Astronomers would ignore it as uninteresting.

....or completely misinterpret it.

Astronomers are like kids at a fireworks show, they are only interested in
rapid change. Then again, who wants to look at a point of light that does
nothing else but sit there?

That's why they concentrate on Cepheids and what they think are eclipsing
stars.


|
| No it won't, NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D:
| or it goes nowhere. I don't run your bug-ridden programs anymore,
| I've had enough experience of them by now to leave them alone.
|
| There are now no bugs.
|
That's what you say every time.

I don't have any trouble using it.

| If you can't do in VBASIC what I can do on a simple spreadsheet
| with one orbit and a hundred points there is something seriously
| wrong with your math skills.
|
| There is nothing wrong with VBasic. It's ideal for this kind of exercise.
| If you are too scared to run it that is your problem.

There is plenty wrong with your use of it. You've had 11 years to write
simple utility routines for reading and writing files that you can
copy/paste
into any of your other programs that let the user decide source and
destination.

The program writes all the necessary files in about twenty seconds. It only has
to be done once.
That is faster and easier than copying and pasting.


NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D: or it goes nowhere.

I shall make the necessary alterations just for you.

| set up your own folder on your c drive if you wish. as lonf as it's called
| "ellipsefiles" the progran will write the details to it. You can inspect
them
| with a word processor.
|

You just don't get it, do you? My C: drive is write protected.
NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D: or it goes nowhere.

I shall make the necessary alterations just for you.

| I'm willing to help you but you are too
| obstinate to learn and too quick to pick an argument.
|
| You're the one who is arguing.
| If you don't want to take advantage of a most sophisticated program then
that
| is not my problem.
|
No thanks, I can write code better than yours on a spreadsheet.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

That's just a toy compared to mine. You need double precision numbers for a
start. Mine includes time compression and multiple imagery formation.

If you don't want to take advantage of a far simpler program that uses
Kepler's equation, a mere 100 points, and plots foldback velocity curves as
well as luminosity curves then that is not my problem. Hype yourself up all
you want to; you should be a politician and run for office, you are good at
it.

You program is not user friendly. It might work sometimes but it has no
instructions and no clear way of operating it or understanding what it conveys.

The product (D x Vmax x 1/P) can actually be replaced by one single factor.


Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:00:02 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:01:12 -0000, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
|
| of
| | light that suddenly gets brighter, then winks out again. The curve
| between
| | the two peaks is when we see retrograde motion, but it's motion is
along
| | the line of sight. The velocity is a loop that goes backwards in time.
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...l.velocity.JPG
| | You need a sort-by-time algorithm in any program that plots it,
because
| at
| | the time of arrival there are three separate velocities.
| |
| | There can be more than three depending on hte multiplicity of images.
| yawn
| Prove it.
|
| I have. But you can't run my program. I will change it so that you can put
the
| files on your bloody D drive or anywhere else.
|
Fast light can pass slow light emitted earlier but it can never pass
fast light emitted earlier, it will always arrive one period later.



|
| | You don't need that, all it does is broaden the spectral line and add
| | confusion.
| | http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/images/d5/sunb.jpg
| | As you can see, some lines are very broad and hopeless for finding
| velocity
| | from Doppler shift. For the Sun we don't need to, but for a
| | distant star the spectrum will be weak anyway.
| |
| | ....so they use statistics to come up with a very unlikely velocity
| curve...
| |
| | | If you want to investigate brightness cuves with multiple images
| present
| | you
| | | have to use a large number of orbits.
| | |
| | Don't be silly, you only need one orbit.
| |
| | You only need velocity/acceleration details of one orbit.....but you
have
| to
| | add the light from other orbits to get a decent curve.
| |
| | Fast light from one orbit might catch up with slow light from ten
orbits
| ahead.
| |
| 1) That wouldn't give a distinct and recognisable luminosity curve.
|
| Not true at least up to four multiples. A pair of stars will suddenly
appear in
| a bright flash whilst another pair will fade away to nothing.

Fast light cannot catch up with fast light, it can only catch up with slow
light emitted earlier.
You're assuming the existence of twin stars, both of the same size and
velocity, both emitting light, and that you can predict what their light
curve will look like. This is of no interest to man or beast, the objective
is to model the light curves we do see and explain them as simply as
possible. It is enough to have one star and a host of planets to alter
its radial speed without complicating it further with a second star.




| Since the star is
| a point source, its brigthness will still appear to fluctuate periodically
and
| several distinct spectra will be seen.

Three INdistinct spectra will be seen, not "several".


| Depending on yaw and eccentricity, it
| could easily be mistaken for a short period eclipsing binary, which
neither you
| nor I believe exists.

Let's talk about Sirius, which does exist. It is only eight light years
away,
and it is not short period, it is 50 years. But we can still discuss it as
it is
seen from hundreds, perhaps thousands of light years away. Both Sirius
A and Sirius B are light emitters.
Because they have very different masses they have different velocities.
At some distance dA the slow light, c-vA, from A will be passed by
the fast light c+vA, from A, and at some other distance dB the slow light
from B will be passed by the fast light from B. But it is not possible
for any observer to be at distance dA and distance dB unless A and
B are identical twins. So even if A and B were close enough to have a
very short period, you still won't have a light curve that you can interpret
as coming from two stars when the same curve can come from one
star with two planets. Identical twins is pushing the needle of my
bull**** meter into the red zone and hard up against the end stop.
You are putting the cart before the horse. The data is out there,
the model that produces it is a star and a planet or two. When you
see the light curve of a double star with "up to four multiples" then
I'll be interested, but I'm not going to look for one, or look for black
holes just because some idiot thinks they should be there, or look
for crocks of gold at the ends of rainbows just because some idiot
thinks they should be there. That way lies insanity.

|
| 2) the spectrum would be a blur (nebulous).
|
| It usually is. Astronomers try to make sense out of it with statistical
| methods.
|
| 3) Astronomers would ignore it as uninteresting.
|
| ...or completely misinterpret it.
|
There are millions of stars. Only those that change in brightness
interest anyone and we both know the common cause of that.
Regular orbits with one planet producing regular changes in luminosity
or irregular orbits with more than one planet, producing irregular
luminosity. The data itself is unreliable, subjective and doubtful.
Distances are unknown, every crank has his own theory or latches
on to the first one that comes along, such as Goodricke's "dark
companion" to Algol.



| Astronomers are like kids at a fireworks show, they are only interested
in
| rapid change. Then again, who wants to look at a point of light that
does
| nothing else but sit there?
|
| That's why they concentrate on Cepheids and what they think are eclipsing
| stars.
|
Exactly. But Algol is just another cepheid with periapsis aligned with
our line of sight.

|
| |
| | No it won't, NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D:
| | or it goes nowhere. I don't run your bug-ridden programs anymore,
| | I've had enough experience of them by now to leave them alone.
| |
| | There are now no bugs.
| |
| That's what you say every time.
|
| I don't have any trouble using it.

I always have trouble using it.

|
| | If you can't do in VBASIC what I can do on a simple spreadsheet
| | with one orbit and a hundred points there is something seriously
| | wrong with your math skills.
| |
| | There is nothing wrong with VBasic. It's ideal for this kind of
exercise.
| | If you are too scared to run it that is your problem.
|
| There is plenty wrong with your use of it. You've had 11 years to write
| simple utility routines for reading and writing files that you can
| copy/paste
| into any of your other programs that let the user decide source and
| destination.
|
| The program writes all the necessary files in about twenty seconds. It
only has
| to be done once.
| That is faster and easier than copying and pasting.
|

You just don't get it. Professionals write code extremely well, ONCE, and
then re-use it in all the programs that need the same function. We need to
write some data and read some data. That's what Windows Notepad does,
that's what Windows Paint does, that's what Excel does, and in every case
it is the user that decides what the name of the data file will be and where
it
will be stored.
When you go to File/Save, up pops a window and you enter the name of
the file you are saving, even if it is "untitled.bmp" or "untitled.txt" or
"untitled.xls" It is the same ****ing code for ALL Windows programs,
it only has to be written once. It makes programming simple. If I want
to save something I'll just call a library routine to do it for me. Do you
know what a dll is? You've got loads on your computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic-link_library
My first dll was a deck of cards. No matter what card game you play
you need a deck, so write one deck of cards for all card games. I
wrote several card games, but I only wrote one deck of cards.
When two different games are played in separate windows the deck
exists in RAM for both of them, all they need is a copy. If I built
the deck into the game there would be two copies in RAM, taking
up more room. That's the advantage of a dll. Doing the job properly
makes life easy. That philosophy is how I became a Quality Assurance
and Software Engineering Manager.


|
| NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D: or it goes
nowhere.
|
| I shall make the necessary alterations just for you.
|
Don't bother, I've given up with you. You are far too stubborn, lazy
and pigheaded to take my advice, even though I've had a lifetime's
experience in software engineering. You know it all.



| | set up your own folder on your c drive if you wish. as lonf as it's
called
| | "ellipsefiles" the progran will write the details to it. You can
inspect
| them
| | with a word processor.
| |
|
| You just don't get it, do you? My C: drive is write protected.
| NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D: or it goes
nowhere.
|
| I shall make the necessary alterations just for you.
|
| | I'm willing to help you but you are too
| | obstinate to learn and too quick to pick an argument.
| |
| | You're the one who is arguing.
| | If you don't want to take advantage of a most sophisticated program
then
| that
| | is not my problem.
| |
| No thanks, I can write code better than yours on a spreadsheet.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls
|
| That's just a toy compared to mine. You need double precision numbers for
a
| start. Mine includes time compression and multiple imagery formation.
|
You are far too stubborn, lazy and pigheaded to take my advice, even though
I've had a lifetime's experience in software engineering. You know it all.

| If you don't want to take advantage of a far simpler program that uses
| Kepler's equation, a mere 100 points, and plots foldback velocity curves
as
| well as luminosity curves then that is not my problem. Hype yourself up
all
| you want to; you should be a politician and run for office, you are good
at
| it.
|
| You program is not user friendly. It might work sometimes but it has no
| instructions and no clear way of operating it or understanding what it
conveys.

True, but I never really thought anyone would be intelligent enough to
seriously take any interest. Certainly Goose, Phuckwit Duck, Tusseladd
and Tom&Jeery are too stupid to even look, let alone ask a question.
Like you, they are egocentric and know it all. Their stupidity is only too
apparent, they think education is believing what they are taught and
never questioning it. You at least can make fair sensible criticism even
if you go overboard with your own crazy theories.


|
| The product (D x Vmax x 1/P) can actually be replaced by one single
factor.

A car leave Sydney for Melbourne at 50 mph. One hour later another car
leaves Sydney for Melbourne, but at 60 mph. One hour after that a third
car leaves Sydney at 50 mph.
At Melbourne, 400 miles from Sydney, an observer sees the second car
arrive first, the first car arrive second and the third car arrive third.
What is the distance between cars at Melbourne?

On Feb 24, 5:08*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in messagenews:5ghdm6dteho6pm9lh307a4e48t7rt4kk0c@4ax .com...
| On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:00:02 -0000, "Androcles"| wrote:

|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:01:12 -0000, "Androcles"| | wrote:

|
| of
| | light that suddenly gets brighter, then winks out again. The curve
| between
| | the two peaks is when we see retrograde motion, but it's motion is
along
| | the line of sight. The velocity is a loop that goes backwards in time.
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...l.velocity.JPG
| | You need a sort-by-time algorithm in any program that plots it,
because
| at
| | the time of arrival there are three separate velocities.
| |
| | There can be more than three depending on hte multiplicity of images..
| yawn
| Prove it.
|
| I have. But you can't run my program. I will change it so that you can put
the
| files on your bloody D drive or anywhere else.
|
Fast light can pass slow light emitted earlier but it can never pass
fast light emitted earlier, it will always arrive one period later.

|
| | You don't need that, all it does is broaden the spectral line and add
| | confusion.
| | *http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/images/d5/sunb.jpg
| | As you can see, some lines are very broad and hopeless for finding
| velocity
| | from Doppler shift. For the Sun we don't need to, but for a
| | distant star the spectrum will be weak anyway.
| |
| | ....so they use statistics to come up with a very unlikely velocity
| curve...
| |
| | | If you want to investigate brightness cuves with multiple images
| present
| | you
| | | have to use a large number of orbits.
| | |
| | Don't be silly, you only need one orbit.
| |
| | You only need velocity/acceleration details of one orbit.....but you
have
| to
| | add the light from other orbits to get a decent curve.
| |
| | Fast light from one orbit might catch up with slow light from ten
orbits
| ahead.
| |
| 1) That wouldn't give a distinct and recognisable luminosity curve.
|
| Not true at least up to four multiples. A pair of stars will suddenly
appear in
| a bright flash whilst another pair will fade away to nothing.

Fast light cannot catch up with fast light, it can only catch up with slow
light emitted earlier.
You're assuming the existence of twin stars, both of the same size and
velocity, both emitting light, and that you can predict what their light
curve will look like. This is of no interest to man or beast, the objective
is to model the light curves we do see and explain them as simply as
possible. It is enough to have one star and a host of planets to alter
its radial speed without complicating it further with a second star.

| Since the star is
| a point source, its brigthness will still appear to fluctuate periodically
and
| several distinct spectra will be seen.

Three INdistinct spectra will be seen, not "several".

| Depending on yaw and eccentricity, it
| could easily be mistaken for a short period eclipsing binary, which
neither you
| nor I believe exists.

Let's talk about Sirius, which does exist. It is only eight light years
away,
and it is not short period, it is 50 years. But we can still discuss it as
it is
seen from hundreds, perhaps thousands of light years away. Both Sirius
A and Sirius B are light emitters.
Because they have very different masses they have different velocities.
At some distance dA the slow light, c-vA, from A will be passed by
the fast light c+vA, from A, and at some other distance dB the slow light
from B will be passed by the fast light from B. But it is not possible
for any observer to be at distance dA and distance dB unless A and
B are identical twins. So even if A and B were close enough to have a
very short period, you still won't have a light curve that you can interpret
as coming from two stars when the same curve can come from one
star with two planets. Identical twins is pushing the needle of my
bull**** meter into the red zone and hard up against the end stop.
You are putting the cart before the horse. The data is out there,
the model that produces it is a star and a planet or two. *When you
see the light curve of a double star with "up to four multiples" then
I'll be interested, but I'm not going to look for one, or look for black
holes just because some idiot thinks they should be there, or look
for crocks of gold at the ends of rainbows just because some idiot
thinks they should be there. That way lies insanity.

|
| 2) the spectrum would be a blur (nebulous).
|
| It usually is. Astronomers try to make sense out of it with statistical
| methods.
|
| 3) Astronomers would ignore it as uninteresting.
|
| ...or completely misinterpret it.
|
There are millions of stars. Only those that change in brightness
interest anyone and we both know the common cause of that.
Regular orbits with one planet producing regular changes in luminosity
or irregular orbits with more than one planet, producing irregular
luminosity. The data itself is unreliable, subjective and doubtful.
Distances are unknown, every crank has his own theory or latches
on to the first one that comes along, such as Goodricke's "dark
companion" to Algol.

| Astronomers are like kids at a fireworks show, they are only interested
in
| rapid change. *Then again, who wants to look at a point of light that
does
| nothing else but sit there?
|
| That's why they concentrate on Cepheids and what they think are eclipsing
| stars.
|
Exactly. But Algol is just another cepheid with periapsis aligned with
our line of sight.

|
| |
| | No it won't, NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D:
| | or it goes nowhere. I don't run your bug-ridden programs anymore,
| | I've had enough experience of them by now to leave them alone.
| |
| | There are now no bugs.
| |
| That's what you say every time.
|
| I don't have any trouble using it.

I always have trouble using it.

|
| | If you can't do in VBASIC what I can do on a simple spreadsheet
| | with one orbit and a hundred points there is something seriously
| | wrong with your math skills.
| |
| | There is nothing wrong with VBasic. It's ideal for this kind of
exercise.
| | If you are too scared to run it that is your problem.
|
| There is plenty wrong with your use of it. You've had 11 years to write
| simple utility routines for reading and writing files that you can
| copy/paste
| into any of your other programs that let the user decide source and
| destination.
|
| The program writes all the necessary files in about twenty seconds. It
only has
| to be done once.
| That is faster and easier than copying and pasting.
|

You just don't get it. Professionals write code extremely well, ONCE, and
then re-use it in all the programs that need the same function. We need to
write some data and read some data. That's what Windows Notepad does,
that's what Windows Paint does, that's what Excel does, and in every case
it is the user that decides what the name of the data file will be and where
it
will be stored.
When you go to File/Save, up pops a window and you enter the name of
the file you are saving, even if it is "untitled.bmp" or "untitled.txt" or
"untitled.xls" It is the same ****ing code for ALL Windows programs,
it only has to be written once. It makes programming simple. If I want
to save something I'll just call a library routine to do it for me. Do you
know what a dll is? You've got loads on your computer.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic-link_library
My first dll was a deck of cards. No matter what card game you play
you need a deck, so write one deck of cards for all card games. I
wrote several card games, but I only wrote one deck of cards.
When two different games are played in separate windows the deck
exists in RAM for both of them, *all they need is a copy. If I built
the deck into the game there would be two copies in RAM, taking
up more room. That's the advantage of a dll. Doing the job properly
makes life easy. That philosophy is how I became a Quality Assurance
and Software Engineering Manager.

|
| NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D: or it goes
nowhere.
|
| I shall make the necessary alterations just for you.
|
Don't bother, I've given up with you. You are far too stubborn, lazy
and pigheaded to take my advice, even though I've had a lifetime's
experience in software engineering. You know it all.

| | set up your own folder on your c drive if you wish. as lonf as it's
called
| | "ellipsefiles" the progran *will write the details to it. You can
inspect
| them
| | with a word processor.
| |
|
| You just don't get it, do you? My C: drive is write protected.
| NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D: or it goes
nowhere.
|
| I shall make the necessary alterations just for you.
|
| | I'm willing to help you but you are too
| | obstinate to learn and too quick to pick an argument.
| |
| | You're the one who is arguing.
| | If you don't want to take advantage of a most sophisticated program
then
| that
| | is not my problem.
| |
| No thanks, I can write code better than yours on a spreadsheet.
| *http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls
|
| That's just a toy compared to mine. You need double precision numbers for
a
| start. Mine includes time compression and multiple imagery formation.
|
You are far too stubborn, lazy and pigheaded to take my advice, even though
I've had a lifetime's experience in software engineering. You know it all..

| If you don't want to take advantage of a far simpler program that uses
| Kepler's equation, a mere 100 points, and plots foldback velocity curves
as
| well as luminosity curves then that is not my problem. Hype yourself up
all
| you want to; you should be a politician and run for office, you are good
at
| it.
|
| You program is not user friendly. It might work sometimes but it has no
| instructions and no clear way of operating it or understanding what it
conveys.

True, but I never really thought anyone would be intelligent enough to
seriously take any interest. Certainly Goose, Phuckwit Duck, Tusseladd
and Tom&Jeery are too stupid to even look, let alone ask a question.
Like you, they are egocentric and know it all. Their stupidity is only too
apparent, they think education is believing what they are taught and
never questioning it. You at least can make fair sensible criticism even
if you go overboard with your own crazy theories.

|
| The product (D x Vmax x 1/P) can actually be replaced by one single
factor.

A car leave Sydney for Melbourne at 50 mph. One hour later another car
leaves Sydney for Melbourne, but at 60 mph. One hour after that a third
car leaves Sydney at 50 mph.
At Melbourne, 400 *miles from Sydney, an observer sees the second car
arrive first, the first car arrive second and the third car arrive third.
What is the distance between cars at Melbourne?

Why are you important for naming a planet?
I don't think so.

Mitch Raemsch

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 01:08:35 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .

| | There can be more than three depending on hte multiplicity of images.
| yawn
| Prove it.
|
| I have. But you can't run my program. I will change it so that you can put
the
| files on your bloody D drive or anywhere else.
|
Fast light can pass slow light emitted earlier but it can never pass
fast light emitted earlier, it will always arrive one period later.

Correct...but it can overtake the slow light from many orbits.


| | add the light from other orbits to get a decent curve.
| |
| | Fast light from one orbit might catch up with slow light from ten
orbits
| ahead.
| |
| 1) That wouldn't give a distinct and recognisable luminosity curve.
|
| Not true at least up to four multiples. A pair of stars will suddenly
appear in
| a bright flash whilst another pair will fade away to nothing.

Fast light cannot catch up with fast light, it can only catch up with slow
light emitted earlier.
You're assuming the existence of twin stars, both of the same size and
velocity, both emitting light, and that you can predict what their light
curve will look like. This is of no interest to man or beast, the objective
is to model the light curves we do see and explain them as simply as
possible. It is enough to have one star and a host of planets to alter
its radial speed without complicating it further with a second star.

I am only talking about one star.
There can be many images of that star.

When a new image of that star appears, it seems to move in opposite directions
with different velocities. Of course that is not noticed for a point source but
the velocities are.

| Since the star is
| a point source, its brigthness will still appear to fluctuate periodically
and
| several distinct spectra will be seen.

Three INdistinct spectra will be seen, not "several".


| Depending on yaw and eccentricity, it
| could easily be mistaken for a short period eclipsing binary, which
neither you
| nor I believe exists.

Let's talk about Sirius, which does exist. It is only eight light years
away,
and it is not short period, it is 50 years. But we can still discuss it as
it is
seen from hundreds, perhaps thousands of light years away. Both Sirius
A and Sirius B are light emitters.
Because they have very different masses they have different velocities.
At some distance dA the slow light, c-vA, from A will be passed by
the fast light c+vA, from A, and at some other distance dB the slow light
from B will be passed by the fast light from B. But it is not possible
for any observer to be at distance dA and distance dB unless A and
B are identical twins. So even if A and B were close enough to have a
very short period, you still won't have a light curve that you can interpret
as coming from two stars when the same curve can come from one
star with two planets. Identical twins is pushing the needle of my
bull**** meter into the red zone and hard up against the end stop.
You are putting the cart before the horse. The data is out there,
the model that produces it is a star and a planet or two.

I agree. Most brightness curves wwe see can be explained by one star with a
planet of two orbiting it.

However, you cannot explain periods of a day or less in this way.

The only ansewer I can come up with is that these a genuinely pulsating
stars....but I have found another problem with that theory.

When you
see the light curve of a double star with "up to four multiples" then
I'll be interested, but I'm not going to look for one, or look for black
holes just because some idiot thinks they should be there, or look
for crocks of gold at the ends of rainbows just because some idiot
thinks they should be there. That way lies insanity.

|
| 2) the spectrum would be a blur (nebulous).
|
| It usually is. Astronomers try to make sense out of it with statistical
| methods.
|
| 3) Astronomers would ignore it as uninteresting.
|
| ...or completely misinterpret it.
|
There are millions of stars. Only those that change in brightness
interest anyone and we both know the common cause of that.
Regular orbits with one planet producing regular changes in luminosity
or irregular orbits with more than one planet, producing irregular
luminosity. The data itself is unreliable, subjective and doubtful.
Distances are unknown, every crank has his own theory or latches
on to the first one that comes along, such as Goodricke's "dark
companion" to Algol.

Astronomy is experiencing its darkest hour, largely because of Einstein.


|
| That's why they concentrate on Cepheids and what they think are eclipsing
| stars.
|
Exactly. But Algol is just another cepheid with periapsis aligned with
our line of sight.

Probably.


| That's what you say every time.
|
| I don't have any trouble using it.

I always have trouble using it.

well I'm modifying it just for you. You can now choose where you put the orbit
files.

| | If you can't do in VBASIC what I can do on a simple spreadsheet
| | with one orbit and a hundred points there is something seriously
| | wrong with your math skills.
| |
| | There is nothing wrong with VBasic. It's ideal for this kind of
exercise.
| | If you are too scared to run it that is your problem.
|
| There is plenty wrong with your use of it. You've had 11 years to write
| simple utility routines for reading and writing files that you can
| copy/paste
| into any of your other programs that let the user decide source and
| destination.
|
| The program writes all the necessary files in about twenty seconds. It
only has
| to be done once.
| That is faster and easier than copying and pasting.
|

You just don't get it. Professionals write code extremely well, ONCE, and
then re-use it in all the programs that need the same function. We need to
write some data and read some data. That's what Windows Notepad does,
that's what Windows Paint does, that's what Excel does, and in every case
it is the user that decides what the name of the data file will be and where
it
will be stored.
When you go to File/Save, up pops a window and you enter the name of
the file you are saving, even if it is "untitled.bmp" or "untitled.txt" or
"untitled.xls" It is the same ****ing code for ALL Windows programs,
it only has to be written once. It makes programming simple. If I want
to save something I'll just call a library routine to do it for me. Do you
know what a dll is? You've got loads on your computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic-link_library

My code is unique...and so are all the functions in it. I can use the ones I
write in any program...which I do.

My first dll was a deck of cards. No matter what card game you play
you need a deck, so write one deck of cards for all card games. I
wrote several card games, but I only wrote one deck of cards.
When two different games are played in separate windows the deck
exists in RAM for both of them, all they need is a copy. If I built
the deck into the game there would be two copies in RAM, taking
up more room. That's the advantage of a dll. Doing the job properly
makes life easy. That philosophy is how I became a Quality Assurance
and Software Engineering Manager.


|
| NOTHING writes to my C: drive, all **** goes to drive D: or it goes
nowhere.
|
| I shall make the necessary alterations just for you.
|
Don't bother, I've given up with you. You are far too stubborn, lazy
and pigheaded to take my advice, even though I've had a lifetime's
experience in software engineering. You know it all.

Gawd! That's a pity. I just spent all day making it simpler for everyone.


| No thanks, I can write code better than yours on a spreadsheet.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls
|
| That's just a toy compared to mine. You need double precision numbers for
a
| start. Mine includes time compression and multiple imagery formation.
|
You are far too stubborn, lazy and pigheaded to take my advice, even though
I've had a lifetime's experience in software engineering. You know it all.

Well why can't you write programs that do as much as mine does?
You can't even import a published curve into yours for exact comparison .


| you want to; you should be a politician and run for office, you are good
at
| it.
|
| You program is not user friendly. It might work sometimes but it has no
| instructions and no clear way of operating it or understanding what it
conveys.

True, but I never really thought anyone would be intelligent enough to
seriously take any interest. Certainly Goose, Phuckwit Duck, Tusseladd
and Tom&Jeery are too stupid to even look, let alone ask a question.

I gather Jeery can actually write programs but he hasn't a clue what they do or
mean.

Like you, they are egocentric and know it all. Their stupidity is only too
apparent, they think education is believing what they are taught and
never questioning it. You at least can make fair sensible criticism even
if you go overboard with your own crazy theories.


| The product (D x Vmax x 1/P) can actually be replaced by one single
factor.

A car leave Sydney for Melbourne at 50 mph. One hour later another car
leaves Sydney for Melbourne, but at 60 mph. One hour after that a third
car leaves Sydney at 50 mph.
At Melbourne, 400 miles from Sydney, an observer sees the second car
arrive first, the first car arrive second and the third car arrive third.
What is the distance between cars at Melbourne?

irrelevant....little eric can work that out.



Henry Wilson...