Perihelion of Mercury question - sci.physics.relativity

Message from discussion Perihelion of Mercury question

Henri Wilson

View profile

More options Jan 3 2007, 5:41 am

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

From: HW@....(Henri Wilson)

Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:41:06 GMT

Local: Wed, Jan 3 2007 5:41 am

Subject: Re: Perihelion of Mercury question

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:33:13 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmas...@hogwarts.physics_h>
wrote:

>Of course it is.. sheesh.

>|
>| >| The second image is a lot brighter than the first, giving the IMPRESSION of a
>| >| much faster expansion rate than the real one.
>| >
>| >It doesn't give me that impression, I understand the photographs
>| >are taken 28 years apart.
>| >"The smaller Crab was recorded as a photographic image made in 1973 using the Kitt Peak National Observatory 4-meter telescope in 1973. The expanded Crab was made this year" (2001)
>| >
>| >
>| >| If you hold hte mouse pointer on one particular feature you will see very
>| >| little expansion.
>| >
>| >I see an ENORMOUS expansion.
>| >I even see two stars moving:
>| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Crab.gif
>| >
>| >Ok, so the images are not the same intensity, but this
>| >is exactly how variables are found.
>|
>| In the second one, many outlying bright spots appear. If you look closely, tyou
>| will see they are largely present in the first but are very dim. The result is
>| an impression of a high rate of expansion when in fact it is not all that great
>| at all.

>It IS great at all, you drunken moron. Those outlying bright spots
>are fixed stars.

Oh for christ's sake do you htik I dopn't know what the fixewd starslook like.

I'm refering to texture features of the crab. Some are very dim in the first
photo.
Hold your mouse arrow on them and you will see that most hardly move.

> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Crab.gif

Why did you speed the bloody thing up?

>Message rating: 3 bottles.

You wouldn't expect the middle ones to move in the photos becasue they are
coming towards us.
Even you should be able to woirk that out.

So...subtract 3 bottles.

>| >
>| >Yes, you are.
>| >Never owned a telescope and suddenly you become
>| >an authority on astronomy.
>|
>| Well, I get the same results as you..

>No you don't, you've never programmed a velocity curve
>and you get a distance of 0.3 LY.

Oh?
Have a look at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurmatch.jpg

The brightness curve matches RT Aur almost perfectly.

the blue curve shows the radial velocities at the source.
The red curve is the velocity curve we should see.
The phase difference is only about 50 degrees, not 90 as Jeery the crank
claims.
if you draw the right curve through the points shown on the RT Aur velocty
graph, you will see the brightness curve leads the velocity curve by not much
less than 50....and the author admits it is very approximate.

Jeery is crushed yet again...

Reply to author Forward