|
 |
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity
From: HW@....(Henri Wilson)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:55:19 GMT
Local: Tues, Jul 10 2007 1:55 am
Subject: Re: Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:51:15 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
wrote: >On Jul 9, 4:04 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: snip rubbish again. >> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:39:02 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >On Jul 9, 12:42 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> snip rubbish >I obviously hit you rather hard. >> >> Well these curves are obviously more than coincidence. ...it could be taken as supporting evidence, yes. >> >>http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg >> >Sure. You fit flute sounds with equal facility: >> What is wrong with that, please? >You claim that your ability to match Cepheid curves proves >Likewise, you claim that your ability to match eclipsing However many binaries obviously DO eclipse. >Logically, your ability to match flute music proves that No I can't match flute sounds. They are a combination of sine wave harmonics. >flute sounds have their origin in V+v effects, where V >is the velocity of sound in air. But if a flautist was playing a steady note while riding on a carousel, I could >> >http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/CE3K-0.wav Silly girl.. >> >I've saved your fit, by the way. Anytime you want to claim >> That isn't a cepheid. The curve slopes the wrong way. >Of course not. Your program matched a flute. >> >> You and your colleagues are the ones playing for time by ...not much physics there.... >> >> making ME waste so much of it trying to get some sense >> >> across to YOU. >> >No, I think most of us here who chat with you are just >> that's a total waste of time. Don't you have anyhting better >Well, to start with, I've just finished a first "skim-through" >> >> What you are referring to as REAL VELOCITY DATA is >> >Then do the trivial reverse computation from computed >> Hahahahohohohawhawhaw! >Big deal. You can't do the fit, and you cover up by laughing. OBSERVED doppler shifts are pretty meaningless. They are largely Willusory. >> >When was the last time that you looked at REAL luminosity They are...except where VDoppler dominates. ...eg., in contact binaries and >> >versus observed Doppler shift data, rather than that >> >classroom illustration that you cite all the time? >> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B >> >Please provide a simultaneous match to luminosity >> You really haven't a clue. The observed doppler shift is a >Pathetic. You haven't the foggiest idea how to explain the pulsars.... >> There is only one way to produce a source velocity curve for The BaTh, dear lady, provides the only known way to make some sense out of the >> most stars and that is to use the velocity, eccentricity and >> yaw values I have to feed in to match their brightness curves. >> the BaTh wins. It is the only way to find out what is really >Sorry. Given that you now admit that you don't know how to fit Willusion. >> >> The true source velocity curves can only be obtained by I hate to see mature astronomers grovelling around in the darkness after >> >> matching brightness curves accurately. Even then all I >> >> can produce is the product (velocity x >> >> extinction distance x cos(pitch)) >> >Surely you can determine what the observed Doppler shift >> If I find the velocity x cos(pitch) is say, 0.0001c, >> This is definitely far too hard for you now. >Explain the -observed- Doppler shifts: Einstein switched of their lights. >Jerry The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||