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

On 2/25/11 12:38 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
The only ansewer I can come up with is that these a genuinely pulsating
stars....but I have found another problem with that theory.

Pulsating stars are not a theory Henri (Ralph), but an
observation. Some stars pulsate.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:51:50 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 2/25/11 12:38 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
The only ansewer I can come up with is that these a genuinely pulsating
stars....but I have found another problem with that theory.

Pulsating stars are not a theory Henri (Ralph), but an
observation. Some stars pulsate.

But how?



Henry Wilson...

On 25/02/2011 07:55, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:51:50 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 2/25/11 12:38 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
The only ansewer I can come up with is that these a genuinely pulsating
stars....but I have found another problem with that theory.

Pulsating stars are not a theory Henri (Ralph), but an
observation. Some stars pulsate.

But how?

Amongst other possibilities are cyclic behaviour involving sunspots,
solar flares or faculae and/or periodic changes of diameter. We have a
nearby star with a tiny cyclical variability of output by about 0.1%
with 11 year Hale period correlated with the sunspot cycle. eg

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes...astronomy.html

Some evidence for other distant super giant stars now available by
direct observation using optical interferometry:

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes...astronomy.html

To some extent it would be more surprising if stars radiated at exactly
the same rate given the complex thermodynamic balance determining the
height of the photosphere in a red giants tenuous outer atmosphere.

It is fun to watch two "Einstein woz wrong" netkooks bat hell out of
each other though. Don't let the observational constraints get in the
way of your wacky theories.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:28:30 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 25/02/2011 07:55, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:51:50 -0600, Sam wrote:

On 2/25/11 12:38 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
The only ansewer I can come up with is that these a genuinely pulsating
stars....but I have found another problem with that theory.

Pulsating stars are not a theory Henri (Ralph), but an
observation. Some stars pulsate.

But how?

Amongst other possibilities are cyclic behaviour involving sunspots,
solar flares or faculae and/or periodic changes of diameter. We have a
nearby star with a tiny cyclical variability of output by about 0.1%
with 11 year Hale period correlated with the sunspot cycle. eg

You're obviously no help.
Does it pulsate evenly like a balloon inflating and deflating or does it wobble
at right angles, dumbell fashion?

I suspect neither.

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes...astronomy.html

Some evidence for other distant super giant stars now available by
direct observation using optical interferometry:

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes...astronomy.html

Do you see a full range of cepheid brightness curves in this picture?
http://www.scisite.info/fig2.jpg

To some extent it would be more surprising if stars radiated at exactly
the same rate given the complex thermodynamic balance determining the
height of the photosphere in a red giants tenuous outer atmosphere.

It is fun to watch two "Einstein woz wrong" netkooks bat hell out of
each other though.

Einstein is obvously wrong. Light speed has to be source dependent like all
speed.

Don't let the observational constraints get in the
way of your wacky theories.

What observations are there that support source independency? None...

The wackiest theory of all is that all light in the universe magically finds a
common speed towards little planet Earth.

Give me one logical or physical argument that could make light speed source
independent and which doesn't require an absolute spatial reference.

Even Einstein later admitted his theory would collapse without an aether. Why
do you hyposrites still worship the stupid *******.



Regards,
Martin Brown


Henry Wilson...

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

Slow light can't be passed by slow light emitted earlier, it
will always arrive one period later. There are EXACTLY
three images in the foldback region of reversal when DT/dt is
negative,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

I have no interest in your chaos, fast light passing slow light
from 10 periods earlier won't ever be seen, the system is 10 times
too far away and that reduces the brightness by the inverse square
law, 1/10^2. Wake up to reality.




|
| | | 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.

There can only be three simultaneous images of that star.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
|
| 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.
|
One image coming forward, one image going backward, one image coming
forward again.

In actual photography the shutter is left open for hours because the light
is so
faint.
http://www.perseus.gr/
That's a blurred image and nothing to do with triple images.


| | 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.

Then that is all there is to 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.
|

Algol's optical period is three days. Don't invent shorter periods or you
get into radio pulsar territory and that is in milliseconds, not days. If
you
want to discuss pulsars then remember they are not visible, they are radio
objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
The observed periods of their pulses range from 1.4 milliseconds to 8.5
seconds. A few pulsars are known to have planets orbiting them, such as PSR
B1257+12. Werner Becker of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial
Physics said in 2006, "The theory of how pulsars emit their radiation is
still in its infancy, even after nearly forty years of work."

What is bloody obvious is that emission theory has to be taken into account
and it'll take another 100 years to do that, when Gisse and the present
set of naysaying idiots are all dead.



| 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.
|
Einstein had a lot to do with it, but Goodricke jumping to a conclusion
without thinking it through is far worse. Einstein believed Goodricke,
but that's only because Einstein was an egocentric idiot who wanted
recognition of his own theory... rather like you, actually.



|
| |
| | 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.
|
99.99999% probably. I've filled in the transition stages.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rnicus/A2C.gif



|
| | 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...

So is my cooking. I like it but you won't.
Your ego isn't unique, and neither is your stupidity. All programs and all
data are merely strings of ones and zeros copied between storage media
and RAM, and if you do that differently and non-standard to everyone else
then everyone else will laugh at you or ignore you. I'm tired of laughing
at your pathetic attempts at code, a joke is no longer funny when I've
heard it before, now I ignore it.

| and so are all the functions in it. I can use the ones I
| write in any program...which I do.

Nobody cares. Your code is unique and you do nothing to improve it.
You don't listen to me, constructive criticism offends your ego and makes
you defensive.

|
| 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.
|
A leopard doesn't change its spots. You've always insisted on doing it
your unique way instead of adhering to accepted engineering and
mathematical standards.

Try thinking in reverse order. If I have an ellipse that obeys Kepler's
second law then I can easily enclose it with a circle.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/orbit36.JPG

A planet going around the ellipse will meet a planet going around the
circle at two places, 0 and pi ( or 0 and 180).
We know the planet going around the ellipse obeys Kepler's law because
we said so and we want it to, never mind why, and the planet going around
the circle obeys Kepler's second law because it has constant speed. It takes
the same time to go from 0 to 90 as it does from 90 to 180.
So there is a relationship between an angle around the circle and an
angle around the ellipse, centred on the focus.
That relationship is Kepler's equation (never mind why),
and 45 degrees = A - e.sin(45 degrees) whatever the unknown angle A
is in degrees, and e.sin(45) has to be converted to degrees too. Better
to forget degrees and work solely in radians.

It is also pi/2 = B - e.sin(pi/2) whatever the unknown angle B is.
Since sin(pi/2) = 1,
pi/2 = B-e, where e is the eccentricity, so B = pi/2 + e.

So we should be able to compute A, B and C from pi/4, pi/2 and 3pi/4,
but we run into a small difficulty.
M (the general angle around the circle) = E (the general angle around
the focus) plus e.sin(E). We know M, but we don't know E.
Rearranging,
E = M + e.sin(E) but when I change E on the left I have to change E
on the right as well, and that changes E on the left again.
That means iteration until the E on the left equals the E on the right,
but it is deadly accurate, Wilson, whereas your extrapolation is a
crock of **** that leads to the infamous Ace of Spades Wilson
Wobbly Worbit and a ****in' joke, as I and others have told you
repeatedly.


|
| | 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?

I quit writing code years ago when it ceased to be a challenge and became
a chore. I broke my own rule when a programmed a spreadsheet, and that
does more than your program does, it plots a velocity loop.
It contains code that would boggle your tiny mind.
Example:
=IF(O2+PI()/Data!E52*PI(),O2+PI()/Data!E5, O2+PI()/Data!E5-2*PI())
There is no way to include comments in a spreadsheet, and there are about
3000 similar statements on page "Ellipse Calculation". You can see them if
you unprotect the sheet.
I only wrote it because I saw it as a challenge.


| You can't even import a published curve into yours for exact comparison .

When Newton was investigating motion he watched his pendula swinging
and made notes about their period and length and mass. Then he reduced
the data to laws.
I know the law of the cepheids, the law of the recurrent novae, the law of
the eclipsing variables. You know it too, it is Kepler's orbit, barycentre
and c+v. Plain old Galilean relativity. The work is done, I don't need to
check every star Tom&Jerry or Tusseladd comes up with to make exact
comparisons.
I'll leave that to my pet chimp whom I trained in 2000 to work with ellipses
and has since told me all about his lucky white h-aether, his uni****ation,
his ADoppler and any other crank theories he wants to believe in and
expects me to swallow. Pity he can't understand Kepler's equation, it
would make his life much easier - and mine.
I adhere to the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

'Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats.' - Howard Aiken

"Those that talk about faith the most have the weakest hold on it." --
Michael Connelly, "The Closers."


|
| | 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.

So can King Tusseladd, he can create free energy. He doesn't know what
he's doing either. I can guarantee that if we looked at his code the
reflection
would be an obvious kludge. He knows it too, that's why he won't let
anyone see it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...usselwaves.JPG
He can't call that a typo.
What I don't understand is why he thinks anyone would buy into it. Perhaps
he's happy impressing Goose and Tom&Jeery.


|
| 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.
|
The answer is zero. They all stop when they get to Melbourne and
I didn't ask what time separated them.
The real point is even though 50 mph isn't much less than 60 mph
it still takes 300 miles and 5 hours for the second car to reach the first.
60 * 5 = 300
50 * (5+1) = 300

The third car never passes anything, the fourth leaves 3 hours later
and needs 900 miles and 15 hours to reach the first

60 * 15 = 900
50 * (15 + 3) = 900

Your "10 multiple images" idea falls flat on its face, you'll run
out of Australia before the 10th car can reach the first. That's why
it is relevant and why I won't bother with your irrelevant code, but
I will consider a second car passing the first at 300 miles.

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:51:50 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:
|
| On 2/25/11 12:38 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
| The only ansewer I can come up with is that these a genuinely pulsating
| stars....but I have found another problem with that theory.
|
| Pulsating stars are not a theory Henri (Ralph), but an
| observation. Some stars pulsate.
|
| But how?

Bent pencils in water are not a theory Henri (Ralph), but an
observation. Some pencils are bent (but I've never seen one).

Why are you encouraging that thick *******? He's far too stupid
to bother with.

On Feb 25, 3:19*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:28:30 +0000, Martin Brown



wrote:
On 25/02/2011 07:55, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:51:50 -0600, Sam *wrote:

On 2/25/11 12:38 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
The only ansewer I can come up with is that these a genuinely pulsating
stars....but I have found another problem with that theory.

* *Pulsating stars are not a theory Henri (Ralph), but an
* *observation. Some stars pulsate.

But how?

Amongst other possibilities are cyclic behaviour involving sunspots,
solar flares or faculae and/or periodic changes of diameter. We have a
nearby star with a tiny cyclical variability of output by about 0.1%
with 11 year Hale period correlated with the sunspot cycle. eg

You're obviously no help.
Does it pulsate evenly like a balloon inflating and deflating or does it wobble
at right angles, dumbell fashion?

I suspect neither.

What you suspect is irrelevant because you don't know any of the
theory. Pulsating stars have oscillation modes that are visible if you
had the intellectual curiosity to do a literature search.


http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes...astronomy.html

Some evidence for other distant super giant stars now available by
direct observation using optical interferometry:

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes...astronomy.html

Do you see a full range of cepheid brightness curves in this picture?http://www.scisite.info/fig2.jpg

One can't help but wonder how a star by itself has eccentricity. Or
what your picture is supposed to mean when you don't label the axes
you use. Or explain context.

You certainly do operate in your own private little world. Not even
Androcles knows what the **** you are going on about.


To some extent it would be more surprising if stars radiated at exactly
the same rate given the complex thermodynamic balance determining the
height of the photosphere in a red giants tenuous outer atmosphere.

It is fun to watch two "Einstein woz wrong" netkooks bat hell out of
each other though.

Einstein is obvously wrong. Light speed has to be source dependent like all
speed.

It isn't source dependent in Maxwell's equations. You believe in
those, right?

Nor is it source dependent in observation.


Don't let the observational constraints get in the
way of your wacky theories.

What observations are there that support source independency? None...

There are plenty. You just refuse to accept them.

I tire of giving references to you which you won't even read.


The wackiest theory of all is that all light in the universe magically finds a
common speed towards little planet Earth.

Nice try Ralph, but that's not what SR says. The speed of light is a
constant EVERYWHERE not just on Earth.


Give me one logical or physical argument that could make light speed source
independent and which doesn't require an absolute spatial reference.

Ah, put the goal posts outside the field so you know nobody can ever
reach them.

You know nobody will be able to give you an argument that will change
your mind since you have spent an entire, recorded, decade saying that
you won't change your mind.

Seriously - you've been doing this since 2000, Ralph. Who do you think
is going to convince you at this point?


Even Einstein later admitted his theory would collapse without an aether. Why
do you hyposrites still worship the stupid *******.

Nobody worships him you goddamn lunatic. You have no sense of
proportion.




Regards,
Martin Brown

Henry Wilson...

That isn't your ****ing name.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:13:27 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


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

Slow light can't be passed by slow light emitted earlier, it
will always arrive one period later. There are EXACTLY
three images in the foldback region of reversal when DT/dt is
negative,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

I have no interest in your chaos, fast light passing slow light
from 10 periods earlier won't ever be seen, the system is 10 times
too far away and that reduces the brightness by the inverse square
law, 1/10^2. Wake up to reality.

Both the fast and the slow light is reduced by about the same amount.

Here is a graph showing how the wavefronts emitted during successive orbits
move relatively.

http://www.scisite.info/fronts1.jpg

Each line represents the light emitted during one orbit. the top of one line is
a continuation of the bottom of the previous one. It is all moving to the
right. The yellow line simulates the position of an observer. Moving it to the
left indicates what he will see.

There are five image of the same star for the parameter values selected here.
Where the yellow line cuts the fronts, the slope is representative of the
apparent brightness of that image.

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

There can only be three simultaneous images of that star.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Without light speed unification there can be many. When you can run my program
you will be able to see why.

| 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.
|
One image coming forward, one image going backward, one image coming
forward again.

Go back to my wavefront picture. As the yellow line move left, it suddenly hits
a new curve that is vertical that point. 'vertical' means appearing 'very
bright'.

In actual photography the shutter is left open for hours because the light
is so
faint.
http://www.perseus.gr/
That's a blurred image and nothing to do with triple images.

Individual stars in any galaxy could have multiple images. But one wouldn't
expect more than one image of any whole galaxy. Some of jte lines that are
visible in distant galaxies could be time motion studies of one particular
object that just happened to be moving in the right kind of orbit.


| 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.

Then that is all there is to it.

No it isn't. How does a planet orbit a star every three hours, as here.
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photomet...X-20100828.htm

I think this might be a case of time compression although a small pulsating
star could possibly have this kind of period.

| 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.
|

Algol's optical period is three days. Don't invent shorter periods or you
get into radio pulsar territory and that is in milliseconds, not days. If
you
want to discuss pulsars then remember they are not visible, they are radio
objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
The observed periods of their pulses range from 1.4 milliseconds to 8.5
seconds. A few pulsars are known to have planets orbiting them, such as PSR
B1257+12. Werner Becker of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial
Physics said in 2006, "The theory of how pulsars emit their radiation is
still in its infancy, even after nearly forty years of work."

What is bloody obvious is that emission theory has to be taken into account
and it'll take another 100 years to do that, when Gisse and the present
set of naysaying idiots are all dead.

It's certainly hard to convinced the diehards no matter how obvious the
argument.

| When you
| see the light curve of a double star with "up to four multiples" our alternative is.

| 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.
|
Einstein had a lot to do with it, but Goodricke jumping to a conclusion
without thinking it through is far worse. Einstein believed Goodricke,
but that's only because Einstein was an egocentric idiot who wanted
recognition of his own theory... rather like you, actually.

My theory still has gaps but is coming along very well thank you.

| | 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.
|
99.99999% probably. I've filled in the transition stages.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rnicus/A2C.gif

Why didn't you go the full 360 degrees?


| "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...

So is my cooking. I like it but you won't.
Your ego isn't unique, and neither is your stupidity. All programs and all
data are merely strings of ones and zeros copied between storage media
and RAM, and if you do that differently and non-standard to everyone else
then everyone else will laugh at you or ignore you. I'm tired of laughing
at your pathetic attempts at code, a joke is no longer funny when I've
heard it before, now I ignore it.

It's the result that counts...not how it is produced. Obviously there are many
ways to write a program that will perform a particular task.
My program performs about fifty more than yours does.

| and so are all the functions in it. I can use the ones I
| write in any program...which I do.

Nobody cares. Your code is unique and you do nothing to improve it.
You don't listen to me, constructive criticism offends your ego and makes
you defensive.

My code is concise and works very quickly. What more can one ask for?

| 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.
|
A leopard doesn't change its spots. You've always insisted on doing it
your unique way instead of adhering to accepted engineering and
mathematical standards.

In the latest version. you can now choose where to save the ellipse orbit
details. I haven't quite finished it yet.

Try thinking in reverse order. If I have an ellipse that obeys Kepler's
second law then I can easily enclose it with a circle.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/orbit36.JPG

A planet going around the ellipse will meet a planet going around the
circle at two places, 0 and pi ( or 0 and 180).
We know the planet going around the ellipse obeys Kepler's law because
we said so and we want it to, never mind why, and the planet going around
the circle obeys Kepler's second law because it has constant speed. It takes
the same time to go from 0 to 90 as it does from 90 to 180.
So there is a relationship between an angle around the circle and an
angle around the ellipse, centred on the focus.
That relationship is Kepler's equation (never mind why),
and 45 degrees = A - e.sin(45 degrees) whatever the unknown angle A
is in degrees, and e.sin(45) has to be converted to degrees too. Better
to forget degrees and work solely in radians.

It is also pi/2 = B - e.sin(pi/2) whatever the unknown angle B is.
Since sin(pi/2) = 1,
pi/2 = B-e, where e is the eccentricity, so B = pi/2 + e.

So we should be able to compute A, B and C from pi/4, pi/2 and 3pi/4,
but we run into a small difficulty.
M (the general angle around the circle) = E (the general angle around
the focus) plus e.sin(E). We know M, but we don't know E.
Rearranging,
E = M + e.sin(E) but when I change E on the left I have to change E
on the right as well, and that changes E on the left again.
That means iteration until the E on the left equals the E on the right,
but it is deadly accurate, Wilson, whereas your extrapolation is a
crock of **** that leads to the infamous Ace of Spades Wilson
Wobbly Worbit and a ****in' joke, as I and others have told you
repeatedly.

I wont try to explain. I would have more chance of explaining to little eric..
My direct Newtonian method is better and faster than yours.
End of story


| Well why can't you write programs that do as much as mine does?

I quit writing code years ago when it ceased to be a challenge and became
a chore. I broke my own rule when a programmed a spreadsheet, and that
does more than your program does, it plots a velocity loop.
It contains code that would boggle your tiny mind.
Example:
=IF(O2+PI()/Data!E52*PI(),O2+PI()/Data!E5, O2+PI()/Data!E5-2*PI())
There is no way to include comments in a spreadsheet, and there are about
3000 similar statements on page "Ellipse Calculation". You can see them if
you unprotect the sheet.
I only wrote it because I saw it as a challenge.

I write my programs to see the results.

| You can't even import a published curve into yours for exact comparison .

When Newton was investigating motion he watched his pendula swinging
and made notes about their period and length and mass. Then he reduced
the data to laws.
I know the law of the cepheids, the law of the recurrent novae, the law of
the eclipsing variables. You know it too, it is Kepler's orbit, barycentre
and c+v. Plain old Galilean relativity. The work is done, I don't need to
check every star Tom&Jerry or Tusseladd comes up with to make exact
comparisons.
I'll leave that to my pet chimp whom I trained in 2000 to work with ellipses
and has since told me all about his lucky white h-aether, his uni****ation,
his ADoppler and any other crank theories he wants to believe in and
expects me to swallow. Pity he can't understand Kepler's equation, it
would make his life much easier - and mine.
I adhere to the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

'Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats.' - Howard Aiken

"Those that talk about faith the most have the weakest hold on it." --
Michael Connelly, "The Closers."


|
| | 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.

So can King Tusseladd, he can create free energy. He doesn't know what
he's doing either. I can guarantee that if we looked at his code the
reflection
would be an obvious kludge. He knows it too, that's why he won't let
anyone see it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...usselwaves.JPG
He can't call that a typo.
What I don't understand is why he thinks anyone would buy into it. Perhaps
he's happy impressing Goose and Tom&Jeery.


|
| 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.
|
The answer is zero. They all stop when they get to Melbourne and
I didn't ask what time separated them.
The real point is even though 50 mph isn't much less than 60 mph
it still takes 300 miles and 5 hours for the second car to reach the first.
60 * 5 = 300
50 * (5+1) = 300

The third car never passes anything, the fourth leaves 3 hours later
and needs 900 miles and 15 hours to reach the first

60 * 15 = 900
50 * (15 + 3) = 900

Your "10 multiple images" idea falls flat on its face, you'll run
out of Australia before the 10th car can reach the first. That's why
it is relevant and why I won't bother with your irrelevant code, but
I will consider a second car passing the first at 300 miles.

It will pass a lot more slow ones if they exist.


Henry Wilson...

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:26:54 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 25, 3:19*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:


What you suspect is irrelevant because you don't know any of the
theory. Pulsating stars have oscillation modes that are visible if you
had the intellectual curiosity to do a literature search.

poor little eric...wrong attitude entirely..
....no wonder he failed...

Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:13:27 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | 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.
| |
|
| Slow light can't be passed by slow light emitted earlier, it
| will always arrive one period later. There are EXACTLY
| three images in the foldback region of reversal when DT/dt is
| negative,
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
|
| I have no interest in your chaos, fast light passing slow light
| from 10 periods earlier won't ever be seen, the system is 10 times
| too far away and that reduces the brightness by the inverse square
| law, 1/10^2. Wake up to reality.
|
| Both the fast and the slow light is reduced by about the same amount.
|
| Here is a graph showing how the wavefronts emitted during successive
orbits
| move relatively.
|
| http://www.scisite.info/fronts1.jpg
|
| Each line represents the light emitted during one orbit. the top of one
line is
| a continuation of the bottom of the previous one. It is all moving to the
| right. The yellow line simulates the position of an observer. Moving it to
the
| left indicates what he will see.
|
| There are five image of the same star for the parameter values selected
here.
| Where the yellow line cuts the fronts, the slope is representative of the
| apparent brightness of that image.

Your diagram isn't user-friendly. What is the horizontal axis,
position, time or velocity? What's an outer star?
If the vertical axis is time so that "degrees around orbit"
matches the hands of a clock, 90 degrees around clock face
= 15 minutes, then we move down or up the yellow line and never
see more than one red dot at a time. But you say the yellow line is
position, so I really have no idea what you are trying to communicate.
You seem to be saying it is 12:00 o'clock, 12:30 and 1:00 o'clock
simultaneously.


|
| |
| | I am only talking about one star.
| | There can be many images of that star.
|
| There can only be three simultaneous images of that star.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
|
| Without light speed unification there can be many. When you can run my
program
| you will be able to see why.

I'm not going to run your program, I've already told you why.
As for your yellow line being position, why is the ****ing star getting
closer to the yellow line? Or are there a string of identical stars out in
space? The red lines seem to start from ever closer positions
simultaneously. I just don't get what you are on about.




|
| | 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.
| |
| One image coming forward, one image going backward, one image coming
| forward again.
|
| Go back to my wavefront picture. As the yellow line move left, it suddenly
hits
| a new curve that is vertical that point. 'vertical' means appearing 'very
| bright'.

Vertical means degrees around orbit (outer star)
You have a family of vertical sine waves from a family of stars,
all with a vertical time axis, AFAICT.


|
| In actual photography the shutter is left open for hours because the
light
| is so
| faint.
| http://www.perseus.gr/
| That's a blurred image and nothing to do with triple images.
|
| Individual stars in any galaxy could have multiple images. But one
wouldn't
| expect more than one image of any whole galaxy. Some of jte lines that are
| visible in distant galaxies could be time motion studies of one particular
| object that just happened to be moving in the right kind of orbit.
|
I can only assume senile dementia has gripped you by the balls.


|
| | 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.
|
| Then that is all there is to it.
|
| No it isn't. How does a planet orbit a star every three hours, as here.
| http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photomet...X-20100828.htm
|
| I think this might be a case of time compression although a small
pulsating
| star could possibly have this kind of period.
|
Imagine that Earth is glowing and the Sun is dark. The Moon alone
causes the Earth to exhibit the cepheid effect, with a period of a month.
But the Earth-Moon system is orbiting the Sun, and sometimes it is
coming toward the distant observer, sometimes away. When it is
approaching, blue Doppler shift exaggerated by time compression
increases the frequency of the cepheid effect due to distance.

It is quite possible to reduce a month to an apparent three hours by
this scenario, but you already know that.
In the case of Sirius A and B, I have no problem with Sirius B
having planets. After all, Jupiter and Saturn have moons and if
Jupiter were larger it would become a star. We rely entirely on
our own solar system for a model, but by keeping an open mind
we can easily imagine other configurations, other systems where
the big planets are close to the primary or glow by themselves as
Sirius B does, and never have to resort to the speculation of intrinsic
variability. It doesn't make it impossible, but it does mean we can
explain the effect rationally. Some prezzies under the Xmas tree
COULD have been put there by Santa, but the bicycle is too large
to fit down the chimney, so maybe someone else put it there.

What AA is trying to say with his two charts, both of which have the same
parameters of date and magnitude, eludes me.


| | 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.
| |
|
| Algol's optical period is three days. Don't invent shorter periods or you
| get into radio pulsar territory and that is in milliseconds, not days. If
| you
| want to discuss pulsars then remember they are not visible, they are
radio
| objects.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
| The observed periods of their pulses range from 1.4 milliseconds to 8.5
| seconds. A few pulsars are known to have planets orbiting them, such as
PSR
| B1257+12. Werner Becker of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial
| Physics said in 2006, "The theory of how pulsars emit their radiation is
| still in its infancy, even after nearly forty years of work."
|
| What is bloody obvious is that emission theory has to be taken into
account
| and it'll take another 100 years to do that, when Gisse and the present
| set of naysaying idiots are all dead.
|
| It's certainly hard to convinced the diehards no matter how obvious the
| argument.

**** the Neanderthal diehards. They have always hindered true science,
always jeering, always taking the ****. Mirth is their only aim, they have
no logic and they lie. I like a laugh too, but I can't abide liars.

|
| | When you
| | see the light curve of a double star with "up to four multiples" our
alternative is.
|
| | 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.
| |
| Einstein had a lot to do with it, but Goodricke jumping to a conclusion
| without thinking it through is far worse. Einstein believed Goodricke,
| but that's only because Einstein was an egocentric idiot who wanted
| recognition of his own theory... rather like you, actually.
|
| My theory still has gaps but is coming along very well thank you.

Yeah, well, leave out the history lesson and stick to facts; MMX was
published in 1887, 18 years before Einstein's 1905 drivel. I stopped
reading when you made me puke.


|
| | | 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.
| |
| 99.99999% probably. I've filled in the transition stages.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rnicus/A2C.gif
|
| Why didn't you go the full 360 degrees?

Because I only wanted to show that Algol is just another cepheid with
periapsis aligned with our line of sight. Oh wait, I said that already.


|
|
| | "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...
|
| So is my cooking. I like it but you won't.
| Your ego isn't unique, and neither is your stupidity. All programs and
all
| data are merely strings of ones and zeros copied between storage media
| and RAM, and if you do that differently and non-standard to everyone else
| then everyone else will laugh at you or ignore you. I'm tired of
laughing
| at your pathetic attempts at code, a joke is no longer funny when I've
| heard it before, now I ignore it.
|
| It's the result that counts...not how it is produced. Obviously there are
many
| ways to write a program that will perform a particular task.
| My program performs about fifty more than yours does.

One is it takes in other people's curves.
What are the other 49?



|
| | and so are all the functions in it. I can use the ones I
| | write in any program...which I do.
|
| Nobody cares. Your code is unique and you do nothing to improve it.
| You don't listen to me, constructive criticism offends your ego and makes
| you defensive.
|
| My code is concise and works very quickly. What more can one ask for?
|
You are being defensive. Your code is unique; it sucks, and you do nothing
to improve it. You don't listen to me, constructive criticism offends your
ego
and makes you defensive.
You don't even have revision numbers. If you'd ever worked with a team
you'd know the value of them.




| | 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.
| |
| A leopard doesn't change its spots. You've always insisted on doing it
| your unique way instead of adhering to accepted engineering and
| mathematical standards.
|
| In the latest version. you can now choose where to save the ellipse orbit
| details. I haven't quite finished it yet.
|
| Try thinking in reverse order. If I have an ellipse that obeys Kepler's
| second law then I can easily enclose it with a circle.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/orbit36.JPG
|
| A planet going around the ellipse will meet a planet going around the
| circle at two places, 0 and pi ( or 0 and 180).
| We know the planet going around the ellipse obeys Kepler's law because
| we said so and we want it to, never mind why, and the planet going around
| the circle obeys Kepler's second law because it has constant speed. It
takes
| the same time to go from 0 to 90 as it does from 90 to 180.
| So there is a relationship between an angle around the circle and an
| angle around the ellipse, centred on the focus.
| That relationship is Kepler's equation (never mind why),
| and 45 degrees = A - e.sin(45 degrees) whatever the unknown angle A
| is in degrees, and e.sin(45) has to be converted to degrees too. Better
| to forget degrees and work solely in radians.
|
| It is also pi/2 = B - e.sin(pi/2) whatever the unknown angle B is.
| Since sin(pi/2) = 1,
| pi/2 = B-e, where e is the eccentricity, so B = pi/2 + e.
|
| So we should be able to compute A, B and C from pi/4, pi/2 and 3pi/4,
| but we run into a small difficulty.
| M (the general angle around the circle) = E (the general angle around
| the focus) plus e.sin(E). We know M, but we don't know E.
| Rearranging,
| E = M + e.sin(E) but when I change E on the left I have to change E
| on the right as well, and that changes E on the left again.
| That means iteration until the E on the left equals the E on the right,
| but it is deadly accurate, Wilson, whereas your extrapolation is a
| crock of **** that leads to the infamous Ace of Spades Wilson
| Wobbly Worbit and a ****in' joke, as I and others have told you
| repeatedly.
|
| I wont try to explain. I would have more chance of explaining to little
eric..
| My direct Newtonian method is better and faster than yours.
| End of story
|
Agreed. Your code sucks, the infamous Ace of Spades in Wilson's
Wobbly Worbits with a gazillion points is faster and a ****in' joke,
and that's end of story. Little Eric can praise you if he understands it
so quit asking me to look at your program, I'm not going to. You've
been told.