"M106 is a mere 24 LY away" - ASSistant professor Paul B. Andersen.

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...

"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.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:52:50 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


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

|
| 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.

OK. I'll explain.

An orbiting star emits 300 light pulses around one orbit. They move away in a
particular direction at c+v, where v varies with time. The actually li one
behind the other but I displace them vertically with orbit phase to demonstrate
their relative movements.

Just after emission, the pulses from 13 successive orbits are graphed as in
http://www.scisite.info/fronts2.jpg
As you can see, each line is a continuation of the previous one.
Imagine the whole lot moving to the right at c.....or rather, the source is
moving to the left at c. E = 0.3 and yaw +60. The diagram on the left shows the
observer position.

After traveling 100 LYs, the fronts look like this, as faster light pulses move
further than the slower ones: http://www.scisite.info/fronts3.jpg

And at 700 LYs: http://www.scisite.info/fronts4.jpg

AT 100LY but with different Yaw and e=0.25 they are as I showed in:
http://www.scisite.info/fronts1.jpg

For yaw = -90, the fromts look like this: http://www.scisite.info/fronts5.jpg

The yellow line represents the observer at a particular instant. It is
actually moving to hte left at about c as well. The number of intersections
between the red and yellow lines is twice the number of images.

This one is particular important because it shows where the maximum possible
time compression occurs. The slope of the red lines is indicative of apparent
brightness. As you can see, almost all the light from half the orbit arrives at
the observer over a very small time. All events in that half orbit are
compressed into a small fraction of on period.
http://www.scisite.info/fronts6.jpg

| | 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.

I know why....you're plain bloody stubborn.

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.

I didn't think you would but the above might help..


| 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.

Like I said above, the pulses are actually aligned one behind the other but to
demonstrate their relative movements, I have drawn their emission phases
vertically. (the positions of the 90 and 270 degree lines should change with
eccenttricity but I omitted that from this version.)


| 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.

I'll educate you yet...

| | 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.

You can forget hte VDoppler shift, It remains constant while the time
compression (ADoppler) increases with distance.

It is quite possible to reduce a month to an apparent three hours by
this scenario, but you already know that.

Maximum possible compression is almost infinite and occurs when orbit
eccentricity is about 0.385 and yaw angle is zero. (periastron nearest
observer.) It can be quite large over a wide range of conditions.

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.



| | 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.

What are you on about? I indicated that.

| 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.

I know what you mean. After all, and very strangely, your program somehow gets
the same answers as mine.



|
| 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?

You can't select a velocity, eccentricity or yaw angle easily. You don't
include a harmonic, the size of which can be adjusted. You don't show observer
position like I do in order to make the viewer's life a little easier. You
don't have a light front demonstration, nor time compression. My program
produces the combined brightness curve of a 'points source' binary pair of
stars. The relative brightnesses and velocities of the pair can be adjusted.
My program shows the true source radial velocity and the type of spectral
shifts that would be observed and wrongly interpreted by astronomers as being
due entirely to conventional VDoppler. It allows ADoppler and VDoppler to be
added in any proportions. It will cater for many orbits in order to show
brightness curves when multiple imagery is present. I can upload a published
brightness curve and fullt manipulate the width, heitght and position of my
generated one to try to match it exactly......Mine gives log and linear
magnitude change.
........shall I go on?


| 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.

Not if they are a team of idiots...



|
| 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.

I don't give a flying ****...


Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:52:50 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
|
| |
| | 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.
|
| OK. I'll explain.
|
| An orbiting star emits 300 light pulses around one orbit. They move away
in a
| particular direction at c+v, where v varies with time. The actually li one
| behind the other but I displace them vertically with orbit phase to
demonstrate
| their relative movements.
|
| Just after emission, the pulses from 13 successive orbits are graphed as
in
| http://www.scisite.info/fronts2.jpg

Your diagram isn't user-friendly. What is the horizontal axis, position,
time or velocity?
What is the vertical axis, is it position, time or velocity?

| As you can see, each line is a continuation of the previous one.

Like a screw thread?

I can draw much better threads than that.
This is a two-start thread for a table leg:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Leg.jpg


| Imagine the whole lot moving to the right at c.....or rather, the source
is
| moving to the left at c.

Why should I do that? Sources don't move left at c.

| E = 0.3 and yaw +60. The diagram on the left shows the
| observer position.

Pathetic.

|
| After traveling 100 LYs, the fronts look like this, as faster light pulses
move
| further than the slower ones: http://www.scisite.info/fronts3.jpg

Your diagram isn't user-friendly. What is the horizontal axis, position,
time or velocity?
What is the vertical axis, is it position, time or velocity?


|
| And at 700 LYs: http://www.scisite.info/fronts4.jpg

Your diagram isn't user-friendly. What is the horizontal axis, position,
time or velocity?
What is the vertical axis, is it position, time or velocity?

But anyway, you can stop there, I get the picture.
Fast light has passed slow light, the yellow line crosses the red
curve at exactly three places, the following car at 60 mph has
caught up and passed the first car at 50 mph 300 miles from
Sydney and little eric can work that out, he's smarter than you.
We are only going as far as Melbourne because the inverse square
law makes one star too faint to see at all if we go any further.
As it is V 1493 Aql is 9th magnitude at its brightest and normally
15th magnitude.

The next red band won't arrive at the yellow line for another
200 years, sources don't move left at c. End of fantasy story.

rest of Wilson fantasy snipped



| | | 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.
|
| I know why....you're plain bloody stubborn.

I can match you word for word, but I at least understand the
enormity of astronomical distances and time scales and I don't
move sources left at c.

|
| 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.
|
| I didn't think you would but the above might help..
|
It's ok if the next cycle is out there in space and on its way here,
but the distance between them is period.c, or as I tried to demonstrate
to a thick irrelevant *******, the 60 mph car that leaves Sydney an
hour late takes 300 miles to catch the 50 mph car which only little
eric can work out, although I doubt that he can. So although the cars
leave one hour apart and pairs of them arrive 300 miles from
Sydney, the 6th car meets the first car on the ocean floor where
I can't see it.
Your red lines should fade to black in just two cycles, they don't
have the brightness to go beyond that. INVERSE SQUARE!



| | 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.
|
| Like I said above, the pulses are actually aligned one behind the other
but to
| demonstrate their relative movements, I have drawn their emission phases
| vertically. (the positions of the 90 and 270 degree lines should change
with
| eccenttricity but I omitted that from this version.)

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.


|
| | 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.
|
| I'll educate you yet...

With teachers like you, who needs priests?



|
| | | 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.
|
| 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
Time axis horizontal, distance vertical, as is conventional.
It's been there since 1993 and still is. Don't tell grandpa how to suck
eggs.

|
| It is quite possible to reduce a month to an apparent three hours by
| this scenario, but you already know that.
|
| Maximum possible compression is almost infinite and occurs when orbit
| eccentricity is about 0.385 and yaw angle is zero. (periastron nearest
| observer.) It can be quite large over a wide range of conditions.

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.

|
| 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.


|
| | | 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.
|
| What are you on about? I indicated that.

You indicated that aether was still around in 1905. That made me puke.
Your understanding of history is both poor and irrelevant.


|
| | 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.
|
| I know what you mean. After all, and very strangely, your program somehow
gets
| the same answers as mine.
|

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.
|
| |
| | 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?
|
| 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.
Eccentricity and yaw are typed in the combo box that
appears when "data" from the menu bar is selected and
couldn't be easier. So too are SemiMajorAxis and Period.

What are the other 49, you lying *******?

| 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 *******?

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.
Distance is typed in the combo box that appears when "Data"
from the menu bar is selected and couldn't be easier.
What are the other 48, you lying *******?

| You
| don't have a light front demonstration, nor time compression.

Time is the horizontal axis. Regular time is at the source (bottom
of screen) and compressed/expanded time is at the observer
(top of screen). Reversed time occurs at any distance beyond
where the rays cross. Your "light front demonstration" is utter
crap.
What are the other 48, you lying *******?


My program
| produces the combined brightness curve of a 'points source' binary pair of
| stars.

Bwhahahahahahaha! There are no close binaries.
What are the other 47, you lying *******?


| The relative brightnesses and velocities of the pair can be adjusted.
Bwhahahahahahaha! There are no close binaries.
What are the other 46, you lying *******?

| My program shows the true source radial velocity and the type of spectral
| shifts that would be observed and wrongly interpreted by astronomers as
being
| due entirely to conventional VDoppler.

My program simulates a spectrum to obtain velocity and is faithful to
Doppler and Rydberg (whom you've never heard of).
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...imSpectrum.bmp
Warning : 24-bit bitmaps are large.
What are the other 46, you lying *******?


| It allows ADoppler and VDoppler to be
| added in any proportions. It will cater for many orbits in order to show
| brightness curves when multiple imagery is present.

Points of light do not display multiple images. I'm not counting
your fantasies as "better than my program".
What are the other 46, you lying *******?

| I can upload a published
| brightness curve and fullt manipulate the width, heitght and position of
my
| generated one to try to match it exactly......Mine gives log and linear
| magnitude change.

I already allow for your imports.
What are the other 46, you lying *******?

| .......shall I go on?

Yes, do go on... no, wait.... close binaries are a fantasy, your
"light front demonstration" is a fantasy, so what are the other
49, you lying *******?


|
| | 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.
|
| Not if they are a team of idiots...
|
|
|
| |
| | 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.
|
| I don't give a flying ****...

Yes you do, you want to be admired for copying my program and
making a pig's ear out of a silk purse, and like all the rest you snip
any valuable help I give you, such as Kepler's equation and why it
works. You are just as stupid as Tusseladd, Tom&Jeery, Phuckwit
Duck and the rest of the morons.

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?
| 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.
|
| OK. I'll explain.
|
| An orbiting star emits 300 light pulses around one orbit. They move away
in a
| particular direction at c+v, where v varies with time. The actually li one
| behind the other but I displace them vertically with orbit phase to
demonstrate
| their relative movements.
|
| Just after emission, the pulses from 13 successive orbits are graphed as
in
| http://www.scisite.info/fronts2.jpg

Your diagram isn't user-friendly. What is the horizontal axis, position,
time or velocity?
What is the vertical axis, is it position, time or velocity?

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

| As you can see, each line is a continuation of the previous one.

Like a screw thread?

I can draw much better threads than that.
This is a two-start thread for a table leg:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Leg.jpg


| Imagine the whole lot moving to the right at c.....or rather, the source
is
| moving to the left at c.

Why should I do that? Sources don't move left at c.

| E = 0.3 and yaw +60. The diagram on the left shows the
| observer position.

Pathetic.

You mean, it's too hard for you...

| After traveling 100 LYs, the fronts look like this, as faster light pulses
move
| further than the slower ones: http://www.scisite.info/fronts3.jpg

Your diagram isn't user-friendly. What is the horizontal axis, position,
time or velocity?
What is the vertical axis, is it position, time or velocity?

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

| And at 700 LYs: http://www.scisite.info/fronts4.jpg

Your diagram isn't user-friendly. What is the horizontal axis, position,
time or velocity?
What is the vertical axis, is it position, time or velocity?

You are too stubborn to use the live program so I have to take snapshots.

But anyway, you can stop there, I get the picture.
Fast light has passed slow light, the yellow line crosses the red
curve at exactly three places, the following car at 60 mph has
caught up and passed the first car at 50 mph 300 miles from
Sydney and little eric can work that out, he's smarter than you.
We are only going as far as Melbourne because the inverse square
law makes one star too faint to see at all if we go any further.
As it is V 1493 Aql is 9th magnitude at its brightest and normally
15th magnitude.

The next red band won't arrive at the yellow line for another
200 years, sources don't move left at c. End of fantasy story.

It is obviously too hard for you. Try again when you sober up.

rest of Wilson fantasy snipped

| I'm not going to run your program, I've already told you why.
|
| I know why....you're plain bloody stubborn.

I can match you word for word, but I at least understand the
enormity of astronomical distances and time scales and I don't
move sources left at c.

Why? Because Einstein said it cannot happen?
I always thought you were realy a believer in his crap.

| 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.
|
| I didn't think you would but the above might help..
|
It's ok if the next cycle is out there in space and on its way here,
but the distance between them is period.c, or as I tried to demonstrate
to a thick irrelevant *******, the 60 mph car that leaves Sydney an
hour late takes 300 miles to catch the 50 mph car which only little
eric can work out, although I doubt that he can. So although the cars
leave one hour apart and pairs of them arrive 300 miles from
Sydney, the 6th car meets the first car on the ocean floor where
I can't see it.
Your red lines should fade to black in just two cycles, they don't
have the brightness to go beyond that. INVERSE SQUARE!

ALL THE BLOODY LINES WILL FADE IN THE SAME AMOUNT.

AFTER TRAVELING FOR 1000 LYs THEY ARE STILL EXACTLY C x ONE PERIOD APART.

| | 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.
|
| Like I said above, the pulses are actually aligned one behind the other
but to
| demonstrate their relative movements, I have drawn their emission phases
| vertically. (the positions of the 90 and 270 degree lines should change
with
| eccenttricity but I omitted that from this version.)

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.



| 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?

Time axis horizontal, distance vertical, as is conventional.
It's been there since 1993 and still is. Don't tell grandpa how to suck
eggs.

|
| It is quite possible to reduce a month to an apparent three hours by
| this scenario, but you already know that.
|
| Maximum possible compression is almost infinite and occurs when orbit
| eccentricity is about 0.385 and yaw angle is zero. (periastron nearest
| observer.) It can be quite large over a wide range of conditions.

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...

| 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.

| | | 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.
|
| 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.

Your understanding of history is both poor and irrelevant.

The aether concept is still around today.
Einstein's SR is just a disguised version of Lorentz's aether theory.
I gather that's why they called it 'special relativity' because it seemed to
accommodate both the relativity principle and an absolute aether, which
Einstein admitted had to exist for his theory to work.

| | 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.
|
| I know what you mean. After all, and very strangely, your program somehow
gets
| the same answers as mine.
|

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.

| | 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?
|
| 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.

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..

Distance is typed in the combo box that appears when "Data"
from the menu bar is selected and couldn't be easier.
What are the other 48, you lying *******?

I don't usually have to type into mine. Plenty of numbers are already available
in the drop down lists.

| You
| don't have a light front demonstration, nor time compression.

Time is the horizontal axis. Regular time is at the source (bottom
of screen) and compressed/expanded time is at the observer
(top of screen). Reversed time occurs at any distance beyond
where the rays cross. Your "light front demonstration" is utter
crap.

Since you are too stubborn to run my program, you will never be able to see how
the fronts change shape as time goes by....pity....

What are the other 48, you lying *******?




My program
| produces the combined brightness curve of a 'points source' binary pair of
| stars.

Bwhahahahahahaha! There are no close binaries.

There is no reason why there shouldn't be.....close enough to remain just a
point source.....

What are the other 47, you lying *******?


| The relative brightnesses and velocities of the pair can be adjusted.
Bwhahahahahahaha! There are no close binaries.

I have already made it clear that I agree, there are no VERY close binary
stars. I have also described what can give an appearance of close binaries.

What are the other 46, you lying *******?

| My program shows the true source radial velocity and the type of spectral
| shifts that would be observed and wrongly interpreted by astronomers as
being
| due entirely to conventional VDoppler.

My program simulates a spectrum to obtain velocity and is faithful to
Doppler and Rydberg (whom you've never heard of).

Totally useless in light of my discovery of ADoppler.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...imSpectrum.bmp
Warning : 24-bit bitmaps are large.
What are the other 46, you lying *******?

44 you lying *******

| It allows ADoppler and VDoppler to be
| added in any proportions. It will cater for many orbits in order to show
| brightness curves when multiple imagery is present.

Points of light do not display multiple images. I'm not counting
your fantasies as "better than my program".
What are the other 46, you lying *******?

41 you lying *******

| I can upload a published
| brightness curve and fullt manipulate the width, heitght and position of
my
| generated one to try to match it exactly......Mine gives log and linear
| magnitude change.

I already allow for your imports.
What are the other 46, you lying *******?

31 you lying *******

| .......shall I go on?

Yes, do go on... no, wait.... close binaries are a fantasy, your
"light front demonstration" is a fantasy, so what are the other
49, you lying *******?

11 you lying *******

| 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.
|
| I don't give a flying ****...

Yes you do, you want to be admired for copying my program and
making a pig's ear out of a silk purse, and like all the rest you snip
any valuable help I give you, such as Kepler's equation and why it
works. You are just as stupid as Tusseladd, Tom&Jeery, Phuckwit
Duck and the rest of the morons.

0

It's already past your plonk time....

Henry Wilson...

On Feb 26, 11:59*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[...]

It's already past your plonk time....

Henry Wilson...

Why is it the only person in the world who agrees with you at all is
Androcles, who you do not respect at all?

"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

| 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.

|
| | 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.

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.

| Time axis horizontal, distance vertical, as is conventional.
| It's been there since 1993 and still is. Don't tell grandpa how to suck
| eggs.
|
| |
| | It is quite possible to reduce a month to an apparent three hours by
| | this scenario, but you already know that.
| |
| | Maximum possible compression is almost infinite and occurs when orbit
| | eccentricity is about 0.385 and yaw angle is zero. (periastron nearest
| | observer.) It can be quite large over a wide range of conditions.
|
| 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.


|
| | | | 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.
| |
| | 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.


| 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.


| | | 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.
| |
| | I know what you mean. After all, and very strangely, your program
somehow
| gets
| | the same answers as mine.
| |
|
| 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.
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.


|
| | | 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?
| |
| | 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.

| 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:
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. 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.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:27:16 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:59*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[...]

It's already past your plonk time....

Henry Wilson...

Why is it the only person in the world who agrees with you at all is
Androcles, who you do not respect at all?

Probably because I'm smarter than everyone else.


Henry Wilson...

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 11:59 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[...]

=====================
[...]
**** off, Gisse, nobody respects you.
Wilson and I are friends and even though he's wrong we can say anything to
each other.
You are just the tord that dropped out of the ass's arse into the gutter.

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:27:16 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse
wrote:
|
| On Feb 26, 11:59 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
| [...]
|
| It's already past your plonk time....
|
| Henry Wilson...
|
| Why is it the only person in the world who agrees with you at all is
| Androcles, who you do not respect at all?
|
| Probably because I'm smarter than everyone else.

Huh! You wish. You use that "plonk" line when you are defeated by logic,
I use it when I'm bored with your drivel.