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

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:02:44 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:11:44 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| | Your diagram isn't user-friendly. What is the horizontal axis,
| | position, time or velocity? What's an outer star?

| The program includes instructions that explain everything.
| You are too stubborn to use the live program so I have to take snapshots.

So you won't tell me. No need to read on. snip

You will be able to use the program soon. I have almost rearranged it so you
can store the required files on any drive, even a flash memory if you are
paranoid about them harming your computer.

| Quite simply, your distance scale is unrealistic. Here is an actual
| photograph
| of multiple images of the same star:
| http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970228.html
| It's the red one on the left, an inch across and half an inch down.
| No, not that one, it's the one next to it, just 3 light years futher
away.
|
| What the hell are you talking about. There are no 'red ones' in that
picture.

Ok, I'll explain.
You are looking at a photograph of a galaxy.
A galaxy is made of stars.
In that galaxy ALL the stars are red.
More multiple images of stars appear with distance than without it.
That galaxy is very distant, it is 125,000,000 ly away.
At that distance, anything that moves has multiple images.
I'm pointing you to just one of them, the red star on the left, in amongst
the millions of others just like it that make up the galaxy.
No, goofy, not that one, the one next to it that is 125,000,003 ly away.

See Spot Run.
"Spot runs fast", said Jane.
"Spot runs fast", said Dick.
"Spot runs fast", said Wilson.

See Red Star.
"Star is tiny", said Jane.
"Star is dim", said Dick.
"Where is Spot?", said Wilson.
"Wilson is dim", said Jane.
"Very dim", said Dick.

.....Silly old pom..

But you unwittingly raise an interesting question that I'm sure little eric
will pounce on...

If the galaxy is moving sideways at high speeed and light from all its orbiting
(red) stars is moving at different speeds relative to us, why don't we see a
long trail instead of a clear image of the whole galaxy?

(I know the answer)

| | You can forget hte VDoppler shift, It remains constant while the time
| | compression (ADoppler) increases with distance.
|
| Yes, I know, so call it "AWilson".
| This is the ultimate time compression:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Nova.GIF
|
| What the hell is that? Wires supporting something?

It's one of these, which is way beyond your capabilities:
http://golfranger.co.uk/images/distance_time.gif
The only difference is a second, third, fourth and so on
object leaves at a later time (regular intervals) and travel
with increasing speed so that they meet at the top and
all arrive together.

Nah! You're kiddin'. It's a device for trapping alien spaceships.

A better explanation can be found here, under "Expections",
and what caused little eric to drop out of college.
http://golfranger.co.uk/speed.html

We know Ozzies are upside down and rotated 180 degrees, you
must be Chinese as your distance/time graph is sideways and rotated
90 degrees.

"Wilson is dim", said Jane.
"Very dim", said Dick.

"Andro cannot explain anything sensibly," said the whole world.


| Distance: 60,000 parsecs
| Period: 100 years
| Eccentricity: 0.88 (too big for your Ace of Spades model)
| Yaw: 165 degrees
|
| Don't tell grandpa how to suck eggs.
|
| No...but I can try to teach him some science...

Then you'd better start with conventional pommie distance/time graphs
that we engineers don't rotate 90 degrees like you Chinese physicists.
It's a wonder you can write left-to-right and top-to-bottom.
http://golfranger.co.uk/images/distance_time.gif


|
| | Even for a circular orbit, the front line is almost vertical for about
1/4
| of
| | the orbit period...indicating an average compression of maybe 300 over
| quite a
| | long period of time.
| |
| Yes, time compression can be large.
|
| You can see exactly how large if you run my program. It give an actual
figure.

You can see exactly how large if you can read a ****in' computer-generated
distance/time graph without rotating it. Run my program, I haven't changed
it in 18 years.

Well it's high time you did.

| | 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.
| |
| | What are you on about? I indicated that.
|
| You indicated that aether was still around in 1905. That made me puke..
|
| Why? Of course it was. Lorentz's 'contractions' explained the MMX null
result
| and everyone was pretty happy about it.

Michelson wasn't happy about it, so not everyone was happy about it,
pretty or otherwise.

OK, just for you I've rewritten the introduction. I accept now that the whole
paper must be fool and chimp proof.

| Your understanding of history is both poor and irrelevant.
|
| The aether concept is still around today.

So 1905 has no significance whatsoever and your reference to
it makes me puke. Your understanding of history is both poor
and irrelevant. I would have added that the literary quality of your
essay is that of a twelve-year-old, but I didn't want to be unkind.
Now you force me to by harping on it. I could only read two
paragraphs without an airline paper puke bag.

OK, just for you I've rewritten the introduction. I accept now that the whole
paper must be fool and chimp proof.



| My program was written eight years before yours and I am the first person
| to relate emission theory to actual stellar data. Newton stood upon the
| shoulders of giants and saw further than any man before him. I stand on
| Newton's shoulders, resting a computer on his head and I have seen Algol.
| I am Androcles, Newton is MY lion. You may copy my work, but do not
| imagine I will copy yours. Your understanding of history is both poor and
| irrelevant.
|
| I had come to the same conclusion, independently...just as Ritz and
Sekerin
| had.

Only after I persuaded you to use elliptical orbits. The temptation to use
circles is just too great for the lazy little erics and Tom&Jeerys of this
world.

One usually learns to crawl before one walks.

Drunken pommie engineers often revert to crawling.

When they get the wrong result they give up and blame the theory instead of
their own incompetence.
Still, I did teach you some physics, even if you are too stupid and stubborn
to learn M = E - e.sin(E) and don't know to use it.
This page:
http://www.jgiesen.de/kepler/kepler.html
even has some iterative code you could copy and paste.

I don't want to use an equation that is a function of angle.
I need one that operates on equal time intervals.
I found a very easy and accurate way to do just that.

I'll bet YOUR program doesn't calculate and save acceleration values and angles
around the orbit, at points separated equally in time. That information is
required for the expression Da/c^2, ,,,,ideal for deriving brightness curves
very quickly.


| | You can't select a velocity, eccentricity or yaw angle easily.
|
| Velocity is a computed variable, nobody can select it.
| Mean speed is simply SemiMajorAxis * 2pi /period.
|
| || You don't include a harmonic, the size of which can be adjusted.
|
| I don't include fudge factors to get the result I want, true.
| What are the other 48, you cheating *******?
|
| Many cepheid curves feature what appears to be a harmonic. Its phase
| relationship with the fundamental does not appear to be the same in all
cases.
| It is reasonable to assume that the phasing is related to the density
gradients
| and thickness of the outer gaseous layers.
|
| However I suspect that the 'harmonic' is really a chaotic anomaly, or
something
| entirely different.... like an egg-shaped star.

All the more reason not to run your program, it contains your fantasies.

How do YOU explain what looks like a harmonic?

| You don't show observer
| | position like I do in order to make the viewer's life a little easier.
|
| Observer position is called "distance", you ****ing moron.
|
| Angular position in relation to the orbit.......showing yaw angle..

I show yaw, pitch and roll like this:

You don't pitch or roll, Yaw and eccentricity tell you eveything you want to
know
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Androcube.gif
Your pathetic little 2D circle with a line poking out of it doesn't make
any viewer's life easier.

It's not a circle, it's an ellipse.

If you run MY program there is an animation of
the star and planet at the start of each computation, as seen from the
observer.
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 two million, six hundred and thirty-five
thousand, seven hundred and fifty-five more than yours does.
It is "**** off, I'm bored with you" time.

Christ! I need a drink after trying to educate you and your chimp.


Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:02:44 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:11:44 -0000, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | | Your diagram isn't user-friendly. What is the horizontal axis,
| | | position, time or velocity? What's an outer star?
|
| | The program includes instructions that explain everything.
| | You are too stubborn to use the live program so I have to take
snapshots.
|
| So you won't tell me. No need to read on. snip
|
| You will be able to use the program soon. I have almost rearranged it so
you
| can store the required files on any drive, even a flash memory if you are
| paranoid about them harming your computer.

No, I won't be using it at all, it isn't user friendly and you won't tell
me what an outer star is, so it doesn't even get to the d/l stage.



|
| | Quite simply, your distance scale is unrealistic. Here is an actual
| | photograph
| | of multiple images of the same star:
| | http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970228.html
| | It's the red one on the left, an inch across and half an inch down.
| | No, not that one, it's the one next to it, just 3 light years futher
| away.
| |
| | What the hell are you talking about. There are no 'red ones' in that
| picture.
|
| Ok, I'll explain.
| You are looking at a photograph of a galaxy.
| A galaxy is made of stars.
| In that galaxy ALL the stars are red.
| More multiple images of stars appear with distance than without it.
| That galaxy is very distant, it is 125,000,000 ly away.
| At that distance, anything that moves has multiple images.
| I'm pointing you to just one of them, the red star on the left, in
amongst
| the millions of others just like it that make up the galaxy.
| No, goofy, not that one, the one next to it that is 125,000,003 ly away.
|
| See Spot Run.
| "Spot runs fast", said Jane.
| "Spot runs fast", said Dick.
| "Spot runs fast", said Wilson.
|
| See Red Star.
| "Star is tiny", said Jane.
| "Star is dim", said Dick.
| "Where is Spot?", said Wilson.
| "Wilson is dim", said Jane.
| "Very dim", said Dick.
|
| ....Silly old pom..
|
| But you unwittingly raise an interesting question that I'm sure little
eric
| will pounce on...
|
| If the galaxy is moving sideways at high speeed and light from all its
orbiting
| (red) stars is moving at different speeds relative to us, why don't we see
a
| long trail instead of a clear image of the whole galaxy?
|
| (I know the answer)
|
Ask me when I'm sober, this coffee is powerful stuff.
"Where is Spot?", said Wilson.
"Wilson is dim", said Jane.
"Very dim", said Dick.





| | | You can forget hte VDoppler shift, It remains constant while the
time
| | | compression (ADoppler) increases with distance.
| |
| | Yes, I know, so call it "AWilson".
| | This is the ultimate time compression:
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Nova.GIF
| |
| | What the hell is that? Wires supporting something?
|
| It's one of these, which is way beyond your capabilities:
| http://golfranger.co.uk/images/distance_time.gif
| The only difference is a second, third, fourth and so on
| object leaves at a later time (regular intervals) and travel
| with increasing speed so that they meet at the top and
| all arrive together.
|
| Nah! You're kiddin'. It's a device for trapping alien spaceships.
|
| A better explanation can be found here, under "Expections",
| and what caused little eric to drop out of college.
| http://golfranger.co.uk/speed.html
|
| We know Ozzies are upside down and rotated 180 degrees, you
| must be Chinese as your distance/time graph is sideways and rotated
| 90 degrees.
|
| "Wilson is dim", said Jane.
| "Very dim", said Dick.
|
| "Andro cannot explain anything sensibly," said the whole world.

Well, see, the whole world is divided into two groups. One group
draws the time axis horizontally for things like distance/time graphs
and cepheid luminosity and velocity/time graphs and other things
that belong to the real world, and the other group that Wilson belongs
to draw the time axis vertically for spacetime diagrams and light cones
and twins getting younger by visiting distant stars at 0.866c in the
fantasy world.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...winParadox.htm

A vertical time axis makes a theoretical fantasy physicist instantly
recognisable and distinct from the rest of the world.
"Fantastic", said Jane.
"Very dim", said Dick.
"Where is Spot?", said Wilson, still on page one.


| | Distance: 60,000 parsecs
| | Period: 100 years
| | Eccentricity: 0.88 (too big for your Ace of Spades model)
| | Yaw: 165 degrees
| |
| | Don't tell grandpa how to suck eggs.
| |
| | No...but I can try to teach him some science...
|
| Then you'd better start with conventional pommie distance/time graphs
| that we engineers don't rotate 90 degrees like you Chinese physicists.
| It's a wonder you can write left-to-right and top-to-bottom.
| http://golfranger.co.uk/images/distance_time.gif
|
|
| |
| | | Even for a circular orbit, the front line is almost vertical for
about
| 1/4
| | of
| | | the orbit period...indicating an average compression of maybe 300
over
| | quite a
| | | long period of time.
| | |
| | Yes, time compression can be large.
| |
| | You can see exactly how large if you run my program. It give an actual
| figure.
|
| You can see exactly how large if you can read a ****in'
computer-generated
| distance/time graph without rotating it. Run my program, I haven't
changed
| it in 18 years.
|
| Well it's high time you did.

I wrote a new one on a spreadsheet. It took me a 5 hours. Yours isn't
finished yet and has taken 11 years. I can write programs 24*365.25*11/5 =
19285.2 times faster than you because I'm 19285.2 times smarter than 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.
| | |
| | | What are you on about? I indicated that.
| |
| | You indicated that aether was still around in 1905. That made me
puke..
| |
| | Why? Of course it was. Lorentz's 'contractions' explained the MMX null
| result
| | and everyone was pretty happy about it.
|
| Michelson wasn't happy about it, so not everyone was happy about it,
| pretty or otherwise.
|
| OK, just for you I've rewritten the introduction. I accept now that the
whole
| paper must be fool and chimp proof.
|
| | Your understanding of history is both poor and irrelevant.
| |
| | The aether concept is still around today.
|
| So 1905 has no significance whatsoever and your reference to
| it makes me puke. Your understanding of history is both poor
| and irrelevant. I would have added that the literary quality of your
| essay is that of a twelve-year-old, but I didn't want to be unkind.
| Now you force me to by harping on it. I could only read two
| paragraphs without an airline paper puke bag.
|
| OK, just for you I've rewritten the introduction. I accept now that the
whole
| paper must be fool and chimp proof.
|
|
|
| | My program was written eight years before yours and I am the first
person
| | to relate emission theory to actual stellar data. Newton stood upon
the
| | shoulders of giants and saw further than any man before him. I stand
on
| | Newton's shoulders, resting a computer on his head and I have seen
Algol.
| | I am Androcles, Newton is MY lion. You may copy my work, but do not
| | imagine I will copy yours. Your understanding of history is both poor
and
| | irrelevant.
| |
| | I had come to the same conclusion, independently...just as Ritz and
| Sekerin
| | had.
|
| Only after I persuaded you to use elliptical orbits. The temptation to
use
| circles is just too great for the lazy little erics and Tom&Jeerys of
this
| world.
|
| One usually learns to crawl before one walks.
|
| Drunken pommie engineers often revert to crawling.
|

Yeah, well, having completed 18 holes and an hour or two at
the 19th hole while you are still teeing off on the second...
"Fantastic", said Jane.
"Hic!", said Dick.
"Where is Spot?", said Wilson.


| When they get the wrong result they give up and blame the theory instead
of
| their own incompetence.
| Still, I did teach you some physics, even if you are too stupid and
stubborn
| to learn M = E - e.sin(E) and don't know to use it.
| This page:
| http://www.jgiesen.de/kepler/kepler.html
| even has some iterative code you could copy and paste.
|
| I don't want to use an equation that is a function of angle.
| I need one that operates on equal time intervals.
| I found a very easy and accurate way to do just that.
|
| I'll bet YOUR program doesn't calculate and save acceleration values and
angles
| around the orbit, at points separated equally in time. That information is
| required for the expression Da/c^2, ,,,,ideal for deriving brightness
curves
| very quickly.
|
You welch on bets, you still owe me three cases of Glenlivet from the last
one and now you've lost this one.
A planet that goes around a circle with constant velocity meets one that
goes
around a Keplerian ellipse at two places, 0 and pi. If it has constant
velocity
then it has to go through equal angles in equal times. If it goes through
equal angles then it sweeps equal areas. Kepler's equation relates the angle
around the ellipse to the angle around the circle. Your "don't want to" is
childish stubborn stupidity, but then, I'm 19285.2 times smarter than you.

|
| | | You can't select a velocity, eccentricity or yaw angle easily.
| |
| | Velocity is a computed variable, nobody can select it.
| | Mean speed is simply SemiMajorAxis * 2pi /period.
| |
| | || You don't include a harmonic, the size of which can be adjusted.
| |
| | I don't include fudge factors to get the result I want, true.
| | What are the other 48, you cheating *******?
| |
| | Many cepheid curves feature what appears to be a harmonic. Its phase
| | relationship with the fundamental does not appear to be the same in all
| cases.
| | It is reasonable to assume that the phasing is related to the density
| gradients
| | and thickness of the outer gaseous layers.
| |
| | However I suspect that the 'harmonic' is really a chaotic anomaly, or
| something
| | entirely different.... like an egg-shaped star.
|
| All the more reason not to run your program, it contains your fantasies.
|
| How do YOU explain what looks like a harmonic?

Another planet, of course.
"Is this Wembley?", asked Jane.
"Nah, ish Thurshday", replied Dick.
"Sho am I, lesh have another drink and then find Shpot", said Wilson.

|
| | You don't show observer
| | | position like I do in order to make the viewer's life a little
easier.
| |
| | Observer position is called "distance", you ****ing moron.
| |
| | Angular position in relation to the orbit.......showing yaw angle..
|
| I show yaw, pitch and roll like this:
|
| You don't pitch or roll, Yaw and eccentricity tell you eveything you want
to
| know
"Sho am I, lesh have another drink and then find Shpot", said Wilson.



| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Androcube.gif
| Your pathetic little 2D circle with a line poking out of it doesn't make
| any viewer's life easier.
|
| It's not a circle, it's an ellipse.

Yawn

|
| If you run MY program there is an animation of
| the star and planet at the start of each computation, as seen from the
| observer.
| 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 two million, six hundred and thirty-five
| thousand, seven hundred and fifty-five more than yours does.
| It is "**** off, I'm bored with you" time.
|
| Christ! I need a drink after trying to educate you and your chimp.


"Fantashtic", said Jane.
"Hic!", said Dick.
"Where ish Shpot?", said Wilson, still on page one.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:53:28 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


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

| So you won't tell me. No need to read on. snip
|
| You will be able to use the program soon. I have almost rearranged it so
you
| can store the required files on any drive, even a flash memory if you are
| paranoid about them harming your computer.

No, I won't be using it at all, it isn't user friendly and you won't tell
me what an outer star is, so it doesn't even get to the d/l stage.

If a pair of stars is in mutual orbit, the smaller star is the 'outer' one. Its
orbit velocity should be less than that of the inner one...but if its velocity
is set at 1 the program still works.


| Ok, I'll explain.
| You are looking at a photograph of a galaxy.
| A galaxy is made of stars.

|
| But you unwittingly raise an interesting question that I'm sure little
eric
| will pounce on...
|
| If the galaxy is moving sideways at high speeed and light from all its
orbiting
| (red) stars is moving at different speeds relative to us, why don't we see
a
| long trail instead of a clear image of the whole galaxy?
|
| (I know the answer)
|
Ask me when I'm sober, this coffee is powerful stuff.
"Where is Spot?", said Wilson.
"Wilson is dim", said Jane.
"Very dim", said Dick.

"Andro's chimp must be asleep today?, said Jane.
"probably worn out from opening all the glenlivet bottles", said Dick.


| It's one of these, which is way beyond your capabilities:
| http://golfranger.co.uk/images/distance_time.gif
| The only difference is a second, third, fourth and so on
| object leaves at a later time (regular intervals) and travel
| with increasing speed so that they meet at the top and
| all arrive together.
|
| Nah! You're kiddin'. It's a device for trapping alien spaceships.
|

| "Wilson is dim", said Jane.
| "Very dim", said Dick.
|
| "Andro cannot explain anything sensibly," said the whole world.

Well, see, the whole world is divided into two groups. One group
draws the time axis horizontally for things like distance/time graphs
and cepheid luminosity and velocity/time graphs and other things
that belong to the real world, and the other group that Wilson belongs
to draw the time axis vertically for spacetime diagrams and light cones
and twins getting younger by visiting distant stars at 0.866c in the
fantasy world.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...winParadox.htm

A vertical time axis makes a theoretical fantasy physicist instantly
recognisable and distinct from the rest of the world.
"Fantastic", said Jane.
"Very dim", said Dick.
"Where is Spot?", said Wilson, still on page one.

Fiucking old dope! The vertical axis is ORBIT PHASE, not time. The program use
REAL time. When you run it, the lines change shape as you watch....but you're
too stubborn to do that...

I have spent another whole day making it chimp proof just for you...but it
isn't on the website yet.

actual
| figure.
|
| You can see exactly how large if you can read a ****in'
computer-generated
| distance/time graph without rotating it. Run my program, I haven't
changed
| it in 18 years.
|
| Well it's high time you did.

I wrote a new one on a spreadsheet. It took me a 5 hours. Yours isn't
finished yet and has taken 11 years. I can write programs 24*365.25*11/5 =
19285.2 times faster than you because I'm 19285.2 times smarter than you.

the difference is that mine work.



| their own incompetence.
| Still, I did teach you some physics, even if you are too stupid and
stubborn
| to learn M = E - e.sin(E) and don't know to use it.
| This page:
| http://www.jgiesen.de/kepler/kepler.html
| even has some iterative code you could copy and paste.
|
| I don't want to use an equation that is a function of angle.
| I need one that operates on equal time intervals.
| I found a very easy and accurate way to do just that.
|
| I'll bet YOUR program doesn't calculate and save acceleration values and
angles
| around the orbit, at points separated equally in time. That information is
| required for the expression Da/c^2, ,,,,ideal for deriving brightness
curves
| very quickly.
|
You welch on bets, you still owe me three cases of Glenlivet from the last
one and now you've lost this one.
A planet that goes around a circle with constant velocity meets one that
goes
around a Keplerian ellipse at two places, 0 and pi. If it has constant
velocity
then it has to go through equal angles in equal times. If it goes through
equal angles then it sweeps equal areas.

BWAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHA! Wait till Tusseladd sees that one.

Kepler's equation relates the angle
around the ellipse to the angle around the circle. Your "don't want to" is
childish stubborn stupidity, but then, I'm 19285.2 times smarter than you.

My method is better and faster. No doubt about it.


| All the more reason not to run your program, it contains your fantasies.
|
| How do YOU explain what looks like a harmonic?

Another planet, of course.

Nah. Wont accept that answer. 0/10...go and stand in the corner for an hour.

"Is this Wembley?", asked Jane.
"Nah, ish Thurshday", replied Dick.
"Sho am I, lesh have another drink and then find Shpot", said Wilson.

.....silly old pom



|
| If you run MY program there is an animation of
| the star and planet at the start of each computation, as seen from the
| observer.
| 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 two million, six hundred and thirty-five
| thousand, seven hundred and fifty-five more than yours does.
| It is "**** off, I'm bored with you" time.
|
| Christ! I need a drink after trying to educate you and your chimp.


"Fantashtic", said Jane.
"Hic!", said Dick.
"Where ish Shpot?", said Wilson, still on page one.

provisional plonk

Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:53:28 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
|
| | So you won't tell me. No need to read on. snip
| |
| | You will be able to use the program soon. I have almost rearranged it
so
| you
| | can store the required files on any drive, even a flash memory if you
are
| | paranoid about them harming your computer.
|
| No, I won't be using it at all, it isn't user friendly and you won't
tell
| me what an outer star is, so it doesn't even get to the d/l stage.
|
| If a pair of stars is in mutual orbit, the smaller star is the 'outer'
one. Its
| orbit velocity should be less than that of the inner one...but if its
velocity
| is set at 1 the program still works.
|
Thank you... that was like pulling ****ing teeth.


|
| | Ok, I'll explain.
| | You are looking at a photograph of a galaxy.
| | A galaxy is made of stars.
|
| |
| | But you unwittingly raise an interesting question that I'm sure little
| eric
| | will pounce on...
| |
| | If the galaxy is moving sideways at high speeed and light from all its
| orbiting
| | (red) stars is moving at different speeds relative to us, why don't we
see
| a
| | long trail instead of a clear image of the whole galaxy?
| |
| | (I know the answer)
| |
| Ask me when I'm sober, this coffee is powerful stuff.
| "Where is Spot?", said Wilson.
| "Wilson is dim", said Jane.
| "Very dim", said Dick.
|
| "Andro's chimp must be asleep today?, said Jane.
| "probably worn out from opening all the glenlivet bottles", said Dick.

Sheesh... 6:30 in the morning, putting on the TV to get the latest news
on Libya, sipping nice hot coffee, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed after
a good night's sleep, opening mail, and Wilson says
"Why don't we see what I think we ought to see but don't see, I know
the answer".
After I'd cleaned the coffee off my keyboard and wiped my desk
down, caused by spluttering laughter, I made a fresh cup of coffee.
It's your pink elephant that you don't see, Wilson, why should I or
anyone else care why you don't see it?


|
| | It's one of these, which is way beyond your capabilities:
| | http://golfranger.co.uk/images/distance_time.gif
| | The only difference is a second, third, fourth and so on
| | object leaves at a later time (regular intervals) and travel
| | with increasing speed so that they meet at the top and
| | all arrive together.
| |
| | Nah! You're kiddin'. It's a device for trapping alien spaceships.
| |
|
| | "Wilson is dim", said Jane.
| | "Very dim", said Dick.
| |
| | "Andro cannot explain anything sensibly," said the whole world.
|
| Well, see, the whole world is divided into two groups. One group
| draws the time axis horizontally for things like distance/time graphs
| and cepheid luminosity and velocity/time graphs and other things
| that belong to the real world, and the other group that Wilson belongs
| to draw the time axis vertically for spacetime diagrams and light cones
| and twins getting younger by visiting distant stars at 0.866c in the
| fantasy world.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...winParadox.htm
|
| A vertical time axis makes a theoretical fantasy physicist instantly
| recognisable and distinct from the rest of the world.
| "Fantastic", said Jane.
| "Very dim", said Dick.
| "Where is Spot?", said Wilson, still on page one.
|
| Fiucking old dope! The vertical axis is ORBIT PHASE, not time.

The number 73 runs from King's Cross along Oxford Street to Victoria
and back to King's Cross every orbit.
http://tinyurl.com/5tg7gpz
I was on one last Tuesday, I'd had my check up at the hospital
and did some shopping in Oxford St.
There'll be another bus along in a quarter phase if you missed
that one, they run four buses on that orbit.
Eh? No, sorry, a phase is not time, ask Wilson how long you'll
have to wait for the next one.


| The program use
| REAL time.

Ah...that explains a lot. All the more reason not to d/l it then.
You must be modelling Jupiter which will complete its orbit
in another year, its period is 12 years and you've been writing
the program for 11 years, real time. No wonder you said it will
be ready soon. Watching grass grow in real time is more fun.

| When you run it, the lines change shape as you watch....but you're
| too stubborn to do that...

I won't live long enough to see a change, "The program use REAL
time." I suppose I could watch paint drying instead.

|
| I have spent another whole day making it chimp proof just for you...but it
| isn't on the website yet.
|
Never mind, it'll only be another year for Jupiter to complete one
orbit, REAL time. You've still got 364 days to go.




| actual
| | figure.
| |
| | You can see exactly how large if you can read a ****in'
| computer-generated
| | distance/time graph without rotating it. Run my program, I haven't
| changed
| | it in 18 years.
| |
| | Well it's high time you did.
|
| I wrote a new one on a spreadsheet. It took me a 5 hours. Yours isn't
| finished yet and has taken 11 years. I can write programs 24*365.25*11/5
=
| 19285.2 times faster than you because I'm 19285.2 times smarter than you.
|
| the difference is that mine work.
|
Yeah, in REAL time. Grass grows faster than you write code,
This is Feb 27th, I'll be seeing the lawnmowers out before you
you are ready to put it on your web site, and even then it'll have
more bugs than the grass.


|
| | their own incompetence.
| | Still, I did teach you some physics, even if you are too stupid and
| stubborn
| | to learn M = E - e.sin(E) and don't know to use it.
| | This page:
| | http://www.jgiesen.de/kepler/kepler.html
| | even has some iterative code you could copy and paste.
| |
| | I don't want to use an equation that is a function of angle.
| | I need one that operates on equal time intervals.
| | I found a very easy and accurate way to do just that.
| |
| | I'll bet YOUR program doesn't calculate and save acceleration values
and
| angles
| | around the orbit, at points separated equally in time. That information
is
| | required for the expression Da/c^2, ,,,,ideal for deriving brightness
| curves
| | very quickly.
| |
| You welch on bets, you still owe me three cases of Glenlivet from the
last
| one and now you've lost this one.
| A planet that goes around a circle with constant velocity meets one that
| goes
| around a Keplerian ellipse at two places, 0 and pi. If it has constant
| velocity
| then it has to go through equal angles in equal times. If it goes through
| equal angles then it sweeps equal areas.
|
| BWAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHA! Wait till Tusseladd sees that one.

He won't look at this thread, it has his name in the title where I quoted
him verbatim to his enormous embarrassment. Hilarious, yes?
When you pop your clogs and get to heaven I hope the angels have
plenty of red to knock you out, because Kepler is waiting with a baseball
bat and he's got all eternity to knock some sense into your idiot skull.

|
| Kepler's equation relates the angle
| around the ellipse to the angle around the circle. Your "don't want to"
is
| childish stubborn stupidity, but then, I'm 19285.2 times smarter than
you.
|
| My method is better and faster. No doubt about it.
|
"The program use REAL time." -- Wilson.


Added to my list under:
"Then we have to provide figures for distance and orbit velocity, figures
which are hopefully obtainable from Wilson's arse" --Wilson, reference


Hope springs eternal

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.


Go, wondrous creature! mount where science guides,
Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides;
Instruct the planets in what orbs to run,
Correct old time, and regulate the sun;
Go, soar with Plato to th' empyreal sphere,
To the first good, first perfect, and first fair;
Or tread the mazy round his followers trod,
And quitting sense call imitating God;
As Eastern priests in giddy circles run,
And turn their heads to imitate the sun.
Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule-
Then drop into thyself, and be a fool!


-- Alexander Pope, 1734


|
| | All the more reason not to run your program, it contains your
fantasies.
| |
| | How do YOU explain what looks like a harmonic?
|
| Another planet, of course.
|
| Nah. Wont accept that answer. 0/10...go and stand in the corner for an
hour.
|

I found a £2 coin in the corner and bought an icecream for a reward
for my fabled, fabulous and famous common sense and insight. The
only drawback is I have a tooth that is sensitive to the cold.


| "Is this Wembley?", asked Jane.
| "Nah, ish Thurshday", replied Dick.
| "Sho am I, lesh have another drink and then find Shpot", said Wilson.
|
| ....silly old pom
|
|
|
| |
| | If you run MY program there is an animation of
| | the star and planet at the start of each computation, as seen from the
| | observer.
| | 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 two million, six hundred and thirty-five
| | thousand, seven hundred and fifty-five more than yours does.
| | It is "**** off, I'm bored with you" time.
| |
| | Christ! I need a drink after trying to educate you and your chimp.
|
|
| "Fantashtic", said Jane.
| "Hic!", said Dick.
| "Where ish Shpot?", said Wilson, still on page one.
|
| provisional plonk
|
You'll be back, begging me to find more bugs in your REAL time program.

On Feb 27, 2:07*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[....]

provisional plonk

Henry Wilson...

Interesting how that's your only supporter, Ralph.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 2:07 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[....]
=============
[....] is longer than [...], is it a typo?

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:11:40 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


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

| Ask me when I'm sober, this coffee is powerful stuff.
| "Where is Spot?", said Wilson.
| "Wilson is dim", said Jane.
| "Very dim", said Dick.
|
| "Andro's chimp must be asleep today?, said Jane.
| "probably worn out from opening all the glenlivet bottles", said Dick.

Sheesh... 6:30 in the morning, putting on the TV to get the latest news
on Libya, sipping nice hot coffee, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed after
a good night's sleep, opening mail, and Wilson says
"Why don't we see what I think we ought to see but don't see, I know
the answer".
After I'd cleaned the coffee off my keyboard and wiped my desk
down, caused by spluttering laughter, I made a fresh cup of coffee.
It's your pink elephant that you don't see, Wilson, why should I or
anyone else care why you don't see it?

I take that to mean you cannot answer the question.

CONSIDER A GALAXY 50,000 LYS ACROSS AND 100,000,000 LYS AWAY.

IF ITS LIGHT IS MOVING TOWARDS US AT (C+V) SPEEDS RANGING FROM 0.999c TO 1.001c
AND THE GALAXY IS MOVING SIDEWAYS AT 0.0005c THEN IN 100,000,000 YEARS, THE
OBSERVED SLOWER LIGHT AND FASTER LIGHT WILL HAVE BEEN EMITTED FROM POINTS X LYS
APART.
THE SLOWER LIGHT TAKES 100,100,000 years to get here. The faster takes
99,900,000. The difference is 200,000 years. ....FOUR GALAXY DIAMETERS.

PLEASE ASK THE CHIMP TO EXPLAIN WHY WE DON'T SEE A BLURRED IMAGE WITH A LONG
TAIL (LIKE MIRA'S)?


| A vertical time axis makes a theoretical fantasy physicist instantly
| recognisable and distinct from the rest of the world.
| "Fantastic", said Jane.
| "Very dim", said Dick.
| "Where is Spot?", said Wilson, still on page one.
|
| Fiucking old dope! The vertical axis is ORBIT PHASE, not time.

The number 73 runs from King's Cross along Oxford Street to Victoria
and back to King's Cross every orbit.
http://tinyurl.com/5tg7gpz
I was on one last Tuesday, I'd had my check up at the hospital
and did some shopping in Oxford St.
There'll be another bus along in a quarter phase if you missed
that one, they run four buses on that orbit.
Eh? No, sorry, a phase is not time, ask Wilson how long you'll
have to wait for the next one.

Phase is angle not time.

| The program use
| REAL time.

Ah...that explains a lot. All the more reason not to d/l it then.
You must be modelling Jupiter which will complete its orbit
in another year, its period is 12 years and you've been writing
the program for 11 years, real time. No wonder you said it will
be ready soon. Watching grass grow in real time is more fun.

ignored

| When you run it, the lines change shape as you watch....but you're
| too stubborn to do that...

I won't live long enough to see a change, "The program use REAL
time." I suppose I could watch paint drying instead.

ignored

| I have spent another whole day making it chimp proof just for you...but it
| isn't on the website yet.
|
Never mind, it'll only be another year for Jupiter to complete one
orbit, REAL time. You've still got 364 days to go.

ignored

| I wrote a new one on a spreadsheet. It took me a 5 hours. Yours isn't
| finished yet and has taken 11 years. I can write programs 24*365.25*11/5
=
| 19285.2 times faster than you because I'm 19285.2 times smarter than you.
|
| the difference is that mine work.
|
Yeah, in REAL time. Grass grows faster than you write code,
This is Feb 27th, I'll be seeing the lawnmowers out before you
you are ready to put it on your web site, and even then it'll have
more bugs than the grass.

ignored

| one and now you've lost this one.
| A planet that goes around a circle with constant velocity meets one that
| goes
| around a Keplerian ellipse at two places, 0 and pi. If it has constant
| velocity
| then it has to go through equal angles in equal times. If it goes through
| equal angles then it sweeps equal areas.
|
| BWAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHA! Wait till Tusseladd sees that one.

He won't look at this thread, it has his name in the title where I quoted
him verbatim to his enormous embarrassment. Hilarious, yes?
When you pop your clogs and get to heaven I hope the angels have
plenty of red to knock you out, because Kepler is waiting with a baseball
bat and he's got all eternity to knock some sense into your idiot skull.

If your program uses the above principle then I cannot fathom how it produces
the right curves.
THE RADIUS VECTOR OF AN ELLIPSE DOES NOT GO THROUGH EQUAL ANGLES IN EQUAL
TIMES.

| Kepler's equation relates the angle
| around the ellipse to the angle around the circle. Your "don't want to"
is
| childish stubborn stupidity, but then, I'm 19285.2 times smarter than
you.
|
| My method is better and faster. No doubt about it.
|
"The program use REAL time." -- Wilson.


Added to my list under:
"Then we have to provide figures for distance and orbit velocity, figures
which are hopefully obtainable from Wilson's arse" --Wilson, reference


Hope springs eternal

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.


Go, wondrous creature! mount where science guides,
Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides;
Instruct the planets in what orbs to run,
Correct old time, and regulate the sun;
Go, soar with Plato to th' empyreal sphere,
To the first good, first perfect, and first fair;
Or tread the mazy round his followers trod,
And quitting sense call imitating God;
As Eastern priests in giddy circles run,
And turn their heads to imitate the sun.
Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule-
Then drop into thyself, and be a fool!


-- Alexander Pope, 1734

ignored

|
| Nah. Wont accept that answer. 0/10...go and stand in the corner for an
hour.
|

I found a £2 coin in the corner and bought an icecream for a reward
for my fabled, fabulous and famous common sense and insight. The
only drawback is I have a tooth that is sensitive to the cold.

...well borrow one from the chimp..



Henry Wilson...

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:32:27 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 2:07 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[....]
=============
[....] is longer than [...], is it a typo?

little eric was too stupid to see your blatant error...

Henry Wilson...

On Feb 27, 1:33*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:32:27 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 2:07 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[....]
=============
[....] is longer than [...], is it a typo?

little eric was too stupid to see your blatant error...

Henry Wilson...

Henry, there is no dark matter. Galxies expand over time with the
universe. Foms in expand with it.
I call it galactic evolution of cosmology universal expansion. The
original outer stars were much more innward and much faster.
That fastness doesn't change when the galaxy expands. There is no need
for dark matter and it
can be shown that it has never been observed directly when it should
have if it is most of the universe.
There is no prefered scale. In the solar system with enough time we
will be backed by observation.

Mitch Raemsch

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:44:23 -0800 (PST), The future of science
wrote:

On Feb 27, 1:33*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:32:27 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 2:07 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[....]
=============
[....] is longer than [...], is it a typo?

little eric was too stupid to see your blatant error...

Henry Wilson...

Henry, there is no dark matter.

I never claimed there was.

Galxies expand over time with the
universe. Foms in expand with it.
I call it galactic evolution of cosmology universal expansion. The
original outer stars were much more innward and much faster.
That fastness doesn't change when the galaxy expands. There is no need
for dark matter and it
can be shown that it has never been observed directly when it should
have if it is most of the universe.
There is no prefered scale. In the solar system with enough time we
will be backed by observation.

Mitch Raemsch


Henry Wilson...