Perihelion of Mercury question
David
mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
calculations are independent of these two variables?
Thanks,
Dave Seppala
Sorcerer
Igor
All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts. And all
of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
planets.
Sorcerer
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1166473505....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| David wrote:
| > I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
| > mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
| > What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
| > velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
| > calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
| > calculations are independent of these two variables?
| > Thanks,
| > Dave Seppala
|
| All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts.
Liar.
And all
| of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
| to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
| and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
| the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
| Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
| shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
| planets.
Show us your data, stupid liar.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote:
>
> "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1166473505....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | David wrote:
> | > I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
> | > mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
> | > What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
> | > velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
> | > calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
> | > calculations are independent of these two variables?
> | > Thanks,
> | > Dave Seppala
> |
> | All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts.
>
> Liar.
>
Standard newtonian deviations due to n-body problem, plus in the case of
the nearer ones - a GR based effect - for Mercury the total effect is
551 arc secs per century.
>
> And all
> | of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
> | to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
> | and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
> | the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
> | Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
> | shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
> | planets.
>
>
> Show us your data, stupid liar.
You really love exposing your stupidity for the world to see.
--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics/msg/f9488b70976a3a4b?&hl=en
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Koobee Wublee
> The Schwarschild metric of General
> Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
> shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
> planets.
There are two interpretations to geodesics in spacetime.
Under the postulate of geodesics following the path of maximum
accumulated spacetime, the predicted Mercury's orbital anomaly with
the Schwarzschild metric shows only 1/2 of 43" /century needed. All
calculations shows the radial position as a function of the angle being
** r(H) = R / (1 + e cos(H / D))
Where
** H = Angular displacement
** e = Eccentricity
** D = sqrt(1 + 3 U)
** U = G M / c^2 / R0
** R0 = R^2 / (1 - e^2)
For (1 >> 3 U), everything revolution shows only (3 U / 2) of advance.
You need to get to (3 U) per revolution to have a case.
Under the postulate of geodesics following the path of minimum
accumulated time, there is no predicted anomaly to Mercury's orbit.
However, the Euler-Lagrange equation with respect to the radial
position shows anti-gravitation at radial speed exceeding (c^2 (1 - 2
U)^2 / 3).
On the other hand, Gerber's model of gravity does predict correctly
on Mercury's perihelion advance by the following amount per
revolution.
** 3 U
Reference:
Equation (Gerber)
Koobee Wublee
I just received a note from yours truly three month ago to inform me
that for low perturbations the (3 m u^2) term in the equation (GR) from
the reference above can be expanded under the concept of State Space
averaging to attain the desired advance for Mercury. However, there is
still an issue that will render the project of GR embarrassing. At
this moment, the world is not ready to accept what the issue this is.
Under the concept of GR, it achieves the photon deflection and
Mercury's orbital anomaly through the two different postulates of
geodesics mentioned above. To the faithful, it becomes a job well
done. To true scholars, it becomes an embarrassment unworthy among the
professionals.
For those who cannot appreciate the subtlety in time traveling, what I
meant above is that I looked up on my notes from three months ago.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just received a note from yours truly three month ago to inform me
> that for low perturbations the (3 m u^2) term in the equation (GR) from
> the reference above can be expanded under the concept of State Space
> averaging to attain the desired advance for Mercury. However, there is
> still an issue that will render the project of GR embarrassing. At
> this moment, the world is not ready to accept what the issue this is.
I.E it doesn't exist.
Tom Roberts
> All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts. And all
> of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
> to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
> and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
> the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
> Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
> shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
> planets.
Well, sort of. There are perihelion shifts for at least Mercury, Venus,
Earth, and Icarus that are unexplained by Newtonian mechanics but are
well modeled by GR. Mercury's is by far the largest. Weinberg
(_Gravitation_and_Cosmology_, p198) has a table. That's a rather old
textbook and surely better values are known now, and perhaps additional
objects....
David wrote:
> What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
> velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
> calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
> calculations are independent of these two variables?
The computations use GR, in which both of those variables are absent.
[_Changes_ in gravitation propagate at c, but that is not
in any reasonable sense the "velocity of gravitational
effects", because gravity does not propagate.]
Tom Roberts
bill.m...@gmail.com
Sorcerer wrote:
> "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1166473505....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | David wrote:
> | > I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
> | > mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
> | > What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
> | > velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
> | > calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
> | > calculations are independent of these two variables?
> | > Thanks,
> | > Dave Seppala
> |
> | All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts.
>
> Liar.
Why do you accuse him of being a liar when he states a well known fact.
See these orbital elements from JPL's web site. Note the perihelion of
Saturn, Neptune and Pluto are retarding rather than advancing. Of
course all of the Keplerian elements change over time but the rate of
change is not constant, which is why the table specifies the date range
for which it is valid):
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t1.txt
If you want maximum accuracy you can use JPL's Horizon system to get
the most accurate ephemerides currently available.
No doubt your retraction will be forthcoming.
Bill
<SNIP>
Sorcerer
<bill.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166528615.8...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1166473505....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | David wrote:
| > | > I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
| > | > mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
| > | > What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
| > | > velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
| > | > calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
| > | > calculations are independent of these two variables?
| > | > Thanks,
| > | > Dave Seppala
| > |
| > | All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts.
| >
| > Liar.
|
| Why do you accuse him of being a liar when he states a well known fact.
Because he's a fucking liar. BTW, idiot, you are supposed to
add one of these "?" at the end of a question or you betray
who you are, fuckhead.
bill.m...@gmail.com
Since the data you requested was provided, you are proven wrong. We
await the retraction of your accusation. There will be no holding of
breath though. No doubt you wont retract but instead just poopy your
pants.
Bill
Sorcerer
<bill.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166531236.4...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <bill.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166528615.8...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1166473505....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | David wrote:
| > | > | > I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
| > | > | > mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
| > | > | > What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
| > | > | > velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
| > | > | > calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
| > | > | > calculations are independent of these two variables?
| > | > | > Thanks,
| > | > | > Dave Seppala
| > | > |
| > | > | All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts.
| > | >
| > | > Liar.
| > |
| > | Why do you accuse him of being a liar when he states a well known fact.
| >
| > Because he's a fucking liar. BTW, idiot, you are supposed to
| > add one of these "?" at the end of a question or you betray
| > who you are, fuckhead.
|
| Since the data you requested was provided, you are proven wrong.
Do it then, idiot.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote:
> | Why do you accuse him of being a liar when he states a well known fact.
>
> Because he's a fucking liar. BTW, idiot, you are supposed to
> add one of these "?" at the end of a question or you betray
> who you are, fuckhead.
Stop evading the questions. But please, feel free to respond with your
usual torrent of abuse. Its fun watching you squirm.
Ken S. Tucker
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Igor wrote:
> > All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts. And all
> > of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
> > to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
> > and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
> > the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
> > Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
> > shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
> > planets.
>
> Well, sort of. There are perihelion shifts for at least Mercury, Venus,
> Earth, and Icarus that are unexplained by Newtonian mechanics but are
> well modeled by GR. Mercury's is by far the largest. Weinberg
> (_Gravitation_and_Cosmology_, p198) has a table. That's a rather old
> textbook and surely better values are known now, and perhaps additional
> objects....
I confirmed Tom's source and found another.
GP-b is expected to reveal that effect soon,
but eliminating the Earths oblate spheriodal
effect on the orbit is necessary for such a
delicate observation.
Ken
Igor
One must usually go to a drive-by shooting or a suicide-bombing to meet
a person of your caliber. Laziness, stupidity, and bigotry all rolled
into one big diseased package.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1166556058....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is nicely and adequately put :-)
Original?
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1166556058....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
va...@cox.net
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Igor wrote:
> > All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts. And all
> > of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
> > to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
> > and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
> > the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
> > Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
> > shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
> > planets.
>
> Well, sort of. There are perihelion shifts for at least Mercury, Venus,
> Earth, and Icarus that are unexplained by Newtonian mechanics but are
> well modeled by GR. Mercury's is by far the largest. Weinberg
> (_Gravitation_and_Cosmology_, p198) has a table. That's a rather old
> textbook and surely better values are known now, and perhaps additional
> objects....
Taylor & Wheeler's Exploring Black Holes has a project where the reader
learns to predict the perihelion shift, using the Schwarschild metric,
for orbiting bodies in a weak field such as our solar system. There is
also a table for Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. JPL calculation.
Advance of perihelion in seconds of arc per century.
Mercury 42.980 +/- 0.001
Venus 8.618 +/- 0.041
Earth 3.846 +/- 0.012
Mars 1.351 +/- 0.001
Happy Holidays
Bruce
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote:
> | One must usually go to a drive-by shooting or a suicide-bombing to meet
> | a person of your caliber. Laziness, stupidity, and bigotry all rolled
> | into one big diseased package.
> |
> Show us your data, stupid lazy liar.
Why not find it for yourself, if you are capable? Your potty mouth
impresses no-one.
bill.m...@gmail.com
No you will have to ask your mommy to change your diapers, they are too
smelly. After that has been done you can come back with the retraction
of your accusation.
Bill
Phineas T Puddleduck
va...@cox.net wrote:
> Taylor & Wheeler's Exploring Black Holes has a project where the reader
> learns to predict the perihelion shift, using the Schwarschild metric,
> for orbiting bodies in a weak field such as our solar system. There is
> also a table for Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. JPL calculation.
>
> Advance of perihelion in seconds of arc per century.
>
> Mercury 42.980 +/- 0.001
>
> Venus 8.618 +/- 0.041
>
> Earth 3.846 +/- 0.012
>
> Mars 1.351 +/- 0.001
>
>
> Happy Holidays
>
> Bruce
Yep and BTW sorceror I went through the derivation for Mercury from this
very text and should still have it as a .tex file if you are unable to
follow it - and you can even download the first few chapters from the
authors website.
va...@cox.net
Intellectual dishonest knucklehead. Ignorance is no excuse for calling
Igor a liar.
Happy Holidays
Bruce
Sorcerer
<bill.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166562140.5...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <bill.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166531236.4...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > <bill.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166528615.8...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1166473505....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | David wrote:
| > | > | > | > I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
| > | > | > | > mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
| > | > | > | > What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
| > | > | > | > velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
| > | > | > | > calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
| > | > | > | > calculations are independent of these two variables?
| > | > | > | > Thanks,
| > | > | > | > Dave Seppala
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Liar.
| > | > |
| > | > | Why do you accuse him of being a liar when he states a well known fact.
| > | >
| > | > Because he's a fucking liar. BTW, idiot, you are supposed to
| > | > add one of these "?" at the end of a question or you betray
| > | > who you are, fuckhead.
| > |
| > | Since the data you requested was provided, you are proven wrong.
| >
| >
| > Do it then, idiot.
|
| No
Knew you couldn't, fuckhead.
Sorcerer
<va...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1166562345.5...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Hey fuckhead! Show us your data. Ignorance is no excuse for
dishonesty, and your dishonesty is every reason for calling
you a stooopid fuck.
jcon
va...@cox.net wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > Igor wrote:
> > > All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts. And all
> > > of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
> > > to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
> > > and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
> > > the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
> > > Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
> > > shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
> > > planets.
> >
> > Well, sort of. There are perihelion shifts for at least Mercury, Venus,
> > Earth, and Icarus that are unexplained by Newtonian mechanics but are
> > well modeled by GR. Mercury's is by far the largest. Weinberg
> > (_Gravitation_and_Cosmology_, p198) has a table. That's a rather old
> > textbook and surely better values are known now, and perhaps additional
> > objects....
>
> Taylor & Wheeler's Exploring Black Holes has a project where the reader
> learns to predict the perihelion shift, using the Schwarschild metric,
> for orbiting bodies in a weak field such as our solar system. There is
> also a table for Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. JPL calculation.
>
> Advance of perihelion in seconds of arc per century.
>
> Mercury 42.980 +/- 0.001
>
It's worth pointing out that this discrepancy amounts to
only about a 10% correction to the Newtonian effects
that dominate the precession, yet this was already
recognized as a BIG problem by the middle of the
19th century - a tribute to the accuracy of both the
observations and the calculations at the time. I believe
that this is one of the first historical instances of an
anomalous precision measurement hinting at a major
discovery lurking just around the bend.
(...pause while "Sorcerer" says something stupid...)
-jc
Phineas T Puddleduck
"jcon" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's worth pointing out that this discrepancy amounts to
> only about a 10% correction to the Newtonian effects
> that dominate the precession, yet this was already
> recognized as a BIG problem by the middle of the
> 19th century - a tribute to the accuracy of both the
> observations and the calculations at the time. I believe
> that this is one of the first historical instances of an
> anomalous precision measurement hinting at a major
> discovery lurking just around the bend.
>
> (...pause while "Sorcerer" says something stupid...)
And of course lead to the search for Vulcan as well... (queue Star Trek
joke in 5...4... ;-) )
bill.m...@gmail.com
Sorcerer
<bill.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166570703.4...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Change your name again, you'll still be a fuckhead.
*plonk*
Henri Wilson
>
>David wrote:
>> I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
>> mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
>> What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
>> velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
>> calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
>> calculations are independent of these two variables?
>> Thanks,
>> Dave Seppala
>
>All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts. And all
>of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
>to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
>and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
>the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
>Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
>shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
>planets.
Nobody is 100% certain about what factors cause planetary precession.
Mercury appears anomalous because it is much closer to the sun and has a highly
eccentric orbit. All kinds of unknown influences might come into play.
...and with due respects, ninetenth century astronomers knew virtually fuck all
about what goes on in the universe.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.
Henri Wilson
All you had then was a bunch of ignorant alchemists...
What would they know about all the other factors that might influence mercury's
orbit.
>I believe
>that this is one of the first historical instances of an
>anomalous precision measurement hinting at a major
>discovery lurking just around the bend.
Yes, light speed is source dependent.
>(...pause while "Sorcerer" says something stupid...)
He can't help it sometimes but he is usually correct.
>
>-jc
>
>
>> Venus 8.618 +/- 0.041
>>
>> Earth 3.846 +/- 0.012
>>
>> Mars 1.351 +/- 0.001
>>
>>
>> Happy Holidays
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
>> > > calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
>> > > calculations are independent of these two variables?
>> >
>> > The computations use GR, in which both of those variables are absent.
>> >
>> > [_Changes_ in gravitation propagate at c, but that is not
>> > in any reasonable sense the "velocity of gravitational
>> > effects", because gravity does not propagate.]
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom Roberts
Phineas T Puddleduck
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
> All you had then was a bunch of ignorant alchemists...
> What would they know about all the other factors that might influence
> mercury's
> orbit.
Do a quick search at the 19th century scientists you just called
ignorant alchemists. It may just open your eyes...
jcon
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >David wrote:
> >> I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
> >> mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
> >> What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
> >> velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
> >> calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
> >> calculations are independent of these two variables?
> >> Thanks,
> >> Dave Seppala
> >
> >All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts. And all
> >of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
> >to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
> >and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
> >the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
> >Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
> >shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
> >planets.
>
> Nobody is 100% certain about what factors cause planetary precession.
>
What you mean is *you* have no idea what causes precession - or orbits
for that matter.
> Mercury appears anomalous because it is much closer to the sun and has a highly
> eccentric orbit. All kinds of unknown influences might come into play.
>
For example, if you had ever taken mechanics, you would know that
eccentricity
does not cause the perihelion to precess. You need some sort of
external perturbation - or relativity.
> ...and with due respects, ninetenth century astronomers knew virtually fuck all
> about what goes on in the universe.
>
With all due respect, any decent 19th century astronomer knew so much
more about mechanics that you do that it's mind boggling.
-jc
jcon
Surely even *you* are capable of using Google. Already in the
18th century, astronomers knew enough mechanics to
predict the existence of Neptune based on the
deviations in Uranus' orbit.
By the 19th century, calculations had become extremely
precise. In fact, there have been no significant advances in
classical mechanics *since* the 19th century - at least
not as far as planetary motion is concerned.
Just because you're an idiot, don't assume everybody
else is.
-jc
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:h0gjo2lcpq9fu4tfi...@4ax.com...
| On 18 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
|
| >
| >David wrote:
| >> I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
| >> mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
| >> What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
| >> velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
| >> calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
| >> calculations are independent of these two variables?
| >> Thanks,
| >> Dave Seppala
| >
| >All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts. And all
| >of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
| >to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
| >and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
| >the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
| >Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
| >shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
| >planets.
|
| Nobody is 100% certain about what factors cause planetary precession.
Oh, do give over. The only factors are other massive bodies.
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
|
| Mercury appears anomalous because it is much closer to the sun and has a highly
| eccentric orbit. All kinds of unknown influences might come into play.
Fucking nonsense. The computations are horrendous, but that's all.
You and your "might be" and "probably"... if you don't know, don't guess.
|
| ...and with due respects, ninetenth century astronomers knew virtually fuck all
| about what goes on in the universe.
Yeah, well, nineteenth century astronomers didn't know what a galaxy was,
telescopes were not good enough. Galaxies were called nebulae (clouds).
If GR were any good it would predict 0.1 arc seconds per orbit, not 43
arc seconds per century, and it doesn't.
The precession of Mercury varies every year because Venus takes 225 days per
orbit, Earth takes 365 days and Jupiter 12 years. Mars is too small and far away
to matter and the outer gas giants are too slow and far away.
I'll bet you've never even seen Mercury and wouldn't know it if you did,
you have to view it just before dawn or just after sunset. It rises and sets
with the Sun, you don't get much chance.
Few would dispute the MEAN is 43 arc sec per century, but
the yearly precession varies. It has to. One century is 415 Mercury orbits.
As for Igor, he's a sheep, bleating with the rest of the flock.
| Thank christ there is one genuine mathematician and astronomer on the NG.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote:
>
> If GR were any good it would predict 0.1 arc seconds per orbit, not 43
> arc seconds per century, and it doesn't.
Why would it, when 43 arc seconds per century is the right figure. The
only reason it is quoted per century is when you work in those units to
begin with.
bill.m...@gmail.com
Sorcerer runs again. No wonder his diapers are so smelly.
Bill
Proud to be plonked by Androtard/Sorcerer
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2006 14:59:16 -0800, "jcon" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >va...@cox.net wrote:
>> All you had then was a bunch of ignorant alchemists...
>> What would they know about all the other factors that might influence mercury's
>> orbit.
>>
>
>Surely even *you* are capable of using Google. Already in the
>18th century, astronomers knew enough mechanics to
>predict the existence of Neptune based on the
>deviations in Uranus' orbit.
>
>By the 19th century, calculations had become extremely
>precise. In fact, there have been no significant advances in
>classical mechanics *since* the 19th century - at least
>not as far as planetary motion is concerned.
>
>Just because you're an idiot, don't assume everybody
>else is.
Youi fucking moron, 19th century astronomers knew stuff all about electricity,
magnetism, galaxies, QM, the speed of light or gravity. I have put forward many
reasons why Mercury's orbit might behave differently from what Kepler said it
should.
For instance, what effect might the interaction between the magnetic felds of
the sun and Mercury have? Do you think anyone around 1850 would ask a question
like that? What about radiation pressure? What about the variable speed of
light hitting mercury from the sun?
>
>-jc
>
>
>
>
>
>> >I believe
>> >that this is one of the first historical instances of an
>> >anomalous precision measurement hinting at a major
>> >discovery lurking just around the bend.
>>
>> Yes, light speed is source dependent.
>>
>> >(...pause while "Sorcerer" says something stupid...)
>>
>> He can't help it sometimes but he is usually correct.
>>
>> >
>>
HW.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
What about tidal effect? What about magnetic damping? What about radiation
pressure? What about the speed of gravity? What about a thousand other factors
I could mention?
>| ...and with due respects, ninetenth century astronomers knew virtually fuck all
>| about what goes on in the universe.
>
>Yeah, well, nineteenth century astronomers didn't know what a galaxy was,
>telescopes were not good enough. Galaxies were called nebulae (clouds).
They knew fuck compared with today's astronomers, in spite of the fact that the
latter are brainwashed with Einsteiniana.
>
>If GR were any good it would predict 0.1 arc seconds per orbit, not 43
>arc seconds per century, and it doesn't.
>
>The precession of Mercury varies every year because Venus takes 225 days per
>orbit, Earth takes 365 days and Jupiter 12 years. Mars is too small and far away
>to matter and the outer gas giants are too slow and far away.
>I'll bet you've never even seen Mercury and wouldn't know it if you did,
>you have to view it just before dawn or just after sunset. It rises and sets
>with the Sun, you don't get much chance.
>Few would dispute the MEAN is 43 arc sec per century, but
>the yearly precession varies. It has to. One century is 415 Mercury orbits.
>
>As for Igor, he's a sheep, bleating with the rest of the flock.
Yeh! They're all the same....
>
>| Thank christ there is one genuine mathematician and astronomer on the NG.
thank christ there is only one pommie pisspot engineer on this NG.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:mpkko2t3sl3f1s2e4...@4ax.com...
What about it? I won't cause any advance of longitude of perihelion.
| What about magnetic damping?
What about it? I won't cause any advance of longitude of perihelion.
| What about radiation pressure?
What about it? I won't cause any advance of longitude of perihelion.
| What about the speed of gravity?
HAHAHA!
If I touch your hand to shake it, how long it take for your hand to touch mine?
The Earth weighs 170 lbs in my gravitational field.
|What about a thousand other factors I could mention?
All irrelevant.
The effect is entirely explained by the pull of three other planets to
within 0.000008 %
Data:
100 years
43 arc seconds
415 orbits of Mercury
360 degrees/orbit
60 arc minutes per degree
60 arc seconds per arc minute.
That's a total of 537840000 arc seconds.
43/(537840000) * 100 = 0.0000008 %
Einstein could do better with his 3-significant figure slide rule, we've only got
a couple of 32-bit computers.
"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars." -- Shrugging Roberts.
Igor is fucking stupid.
|
| >| ...and with due respects, ninetenth century astronomers knew virtually fuck all
| >| about what goes on in the universe.
| >
| >Yeah, well, nineteenth century astronomers didn't know what a galaxy was,
| >telescopes were not good enough. Galaxies were called nebulae (clouds).
|
| They knew fuck compared with today's astronomers, in spite of the fact that the
| latter are brainwashed with Einsteiniana.
Kepler knew more than you ever will, and he was 16th century.
| >
| >If GR were any good it would predict 0.1 arc seconds per orbit, not 43
| >arc seconds per century, and it doesn't.
| >
| >The precession of Mercury varies every year because Venus takes 225 days per
| >orbit, Earth takes 365 days and Jupiter 12 years. Mars is too small and far away
| >to matter and the outer gas giants are too slow and far away.
| >I'll bet you've never even seen Mercury and wouldn't know it if you did,
| >you have to view it just before dawn or just after sunset. It rises and sets
| >with the Sun, you don't get much chance.
| >Few would dispute the MEAN is 43 arc sec per century, but
| >the yearly precession varies. It has to. One century is 415 Mercury orbits.
| >
| >As for Igor, he's a sheep, bleating with the rest of the flock.
|
| Yeh! They're all the same....
"I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. " --Galileo
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Quotations/Galileo.html
At least you and I have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. History repeats
itself.
Ecclesiastes 1:9:
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun
|
| >
| >| Thank christ there is one genuine mathematician and astronomer on the NG.
|
| thank christ there is only one pommie pisspot engineer on this NG.
You'd better believe it! I'm the original Hack of all Trades, Master of Some.
jcon
Except there was something missing.... Oh, let's see. I know, a
*calculation*!
Try to find a hobby you can understand and leave physics to
the people who can do math.
-jc
Sorcerer
"jcon" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1166711500.7...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Except there was something missing.... Oh, let's see. I know, a
| *calculation*!
|
| Try to find a hobby you can understand and leave physics to
| the people who can do math.
|
What are you hanging around for, then?
Igor
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >David wrote:
> >> I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
> >> mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
> >> What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
> >> velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
> >> calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
> >> calculations are independent of these two variables?
> >> Thanks,
> >> Dave Seppala
> >
> >All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts. And all
> >of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
> >to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
> >and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
> >the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
> >Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
> >shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
> >planets.
>
> Nobody is 100% certain about what factors cause planetary precession.
>
> Mercury appears anomalous because it is much closer to the sun and has a highly
> eccentric orbit. All kinds of unknown influences might come into play.
Eccentricity has nothing to do with it and as for proximity to the sun,
that's how GR explains it quite well.
> ...and with due respects, ninetenth century astronomers knew virtually fuck all
> about what goes on in the universe.
Yeah, they assumed it was all Newtonian. Just like you do.
Igor
You just threw Maxwell's equations out the window. There's nothing
left. You're finished. Hang it up.
Phineas T Puddleduck
>> Yes, light speed is source dependent.
>
> You just threw Maxwell's equations out the window. There's nothing
> left. You're finished. Hang it up.
It would be interested to see what Ken's view on Maxwell's equations
are, and whether he understands just why you wrote what you did ...
--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Carl Sagan
jcon
You *really* aren't expecting Henri to understand that remark, are you?
-jc
Henri Wilson
Maxwell's equation apply to the speed of EM in a medium, wrt that medium.
>
>-jc
Phineas T Puddleduck
>
> Maxwell's equation apply to the speed of EM in a medium, wrt that medium.
Yep, you don't understand Maxwell's equations at all.
Henri Wilson
I haven't tried to explain it . ..I just pointed out there are many more known
factors involved now that there were in 1850.
frit...@bellsouth.net
> I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
> mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
> What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
> velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
> calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
> calculations are independent of these two variables?
> Thanks,
> Dave Seppala
I've heard that the problem with Newtonian physics (with regard to
planetary orbits) is that Newton's gravitational effects are
instantaneous, i.e. they have an infinite speed of propagation.
If you assign a finite speed (the speed of light, for instance) to
gravitational effects and then build this velocity into the equations
for the force that the sun exerts on any given planet, you can
accurately model perihelion advancement without resort to
General Relativity ideas.
Walter Ritz, did this in 1908. Others, including Tisserand, had
been working the problem back in the 19th century.
Ritz's approach was to write gravitational equations which were
independent of an absolute reference frame, especially that of the
ether. They were modeled on Gauss and Weber's electrodynamic
expressions which had finite speeds for force producing effects.
Ritz's section on gravitation, with the Mercury info, can be seen at:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit2/1908-2p.htm
Bakman's (translation editor) footnote at the end of the section
is most interesting. In essence, Ritz beat Einstein to the
punch by seven years on Mercury's perihelion advancement,
using a totally different kind of relativity.
Bob Fritzius
Koobee Wublee
wrote:
> I've heard that the problem with Newtonian physics (with regard to
> planetary orbits) is that Newton's gravitational effects are
> instantaneous, i.e. they have an infinite speed of propagation.
>
> If you assign a finite speed (the speed of light, for instance) to
> gravitational effects and then build this velocity into the equations
> for the force that the sun exerts on any given planet, you can
> accurately model perihelion advancement without resort to
> General Relativity ideas.
>
> Walter Ritz, did this in 1908. Others, including Tisserand, had
> been working the problem back in the 19th century.
>
> Ritz's approach was to write gravitational equations which were
> independent of an absolute reference frame, especially that of the
> ether. They were modeled on Gauss and Weber's electrodynamic
> expressions which had finite speeds for force producing effects.
>
> Ritz's section on gravitation, with the Mercury info, can be seen at:
>
> http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit2/1908-2p.htm
>
> Bakman's (translation editor) footnote at the end of the section
> is most interesting. In essence, Ritz beat Einstein to the
> punch by seven years on Mercury's perihelion advancement,
> using a totally different kind of relativity.
If gravitational effect has a speed limit, the system involved would
not be stable.
Paul Gerber beat both Einstein and Ritz to it by placing such a speed
limit on the effect of gravity. However, his derivation was not so.
He merely introduced a new gravitational potential as a function of the
radial speed. His gravitational potential behaves like a Newtonian one
at low gravity.
Given credit to Einstein (or more likely to be his friend Besso), he
saw Gerber's work in the same physics journal where Einstein
published his in 1905 and designed a gravitational potential strictly a
function of radial distance. It also had a Newtonian limit.
Gerber, Ritz, Einstein, and many others rank among the hall of fame to
be able to predict Mercury's orbital anomaly after knowing the
answer. Some would put a halo on each of these hall-of-famers. Some
would say hind sights are 20/20.
Henri Wilson
<phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 2006-12-22 01:02:32 +0000, HW@..(Henri Wilson) said:
>
>>
>> Maxwell's equation apply to the speed of EM in a medium, wrt that medium.
>
>Yep, you don't understand Maxwell's equations at all.
Piss off, moron. What's hard about Maxwell's equations?
>--
>
>For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
>persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
>
>Carl Sagan
Henri Wilson
<frit...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
That's great Bob.
Let's see what the relativists have to say about it. It might shut them up
somewhat.
They are a very stubborn lot though....will never accept plain facts no matter
how obvious.
>Bakman's (translation editor) footnote at the end of the section
>is most interesting. In essence, Ritz beat Einstein to the
>punch by seven years on Mercury's perihelion advancement,
>using a totally different kind of relativity.
>
>Bob Fritzius
jcon
That's been shown to be false experimentally, but let's assume
for the sake of argument that it's true. How exactly would that
make the speed of light *source* dependent?!?
Admit it, you've never taken a physics class in your life,
have you?
-jc
Henri Wilson
There is no connection.
There is NO absolute medium, a la Maxwell.
Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt any other object.
>
>Admit it, you've never taken a physics class in your life,
>have you?
>
>-jc
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
><va...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1166562345.5...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>|
>| Sorcerer wrote:
>| > "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1166473505....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>| > |
>| > | David wrote:
>| > | > I've seen many references stating that the motion of the planet
>| > | > mercury cannot be explained with Newtonian physics.
>| > | > What values for the absolute motion of our solar system and for the
>| > | > velocity of gravitational effects are used in the perihelion
>| > | > calculation, or have the mathematicians proven that the results of the
>| > | > calculations are independent of these two variables?
>| > | > Thanks,
>| > | > Dave Seppala
>| > |
>| > | All the planets in our solar system exhibit perihelion shifts.
>| >
>| > Liar.
>| >
>| >
>| > And all
>| > | of them except Mercury can be explained by Newtonian perturbations due
>| > | to the other planets. This was well known in the nineteenth century
>| > | and started a search for another planet smaller than Mercury closer to
>| > | the sun. It was never discovered. The Schwarschild metric of General
>| > | Relativity provides an additional term that explains the perihelion
>| > | shift of Mercury quite well, while adding nothing to the remaining
>| > | planets.
>| >
>| >
>| > Show us your data, stupid liar.
>|
>| Intellectual dishonest knucklehead. Ignorance is no excuse for calling
>| Igor a liar.
>
>Hey fuckhead! Show us your data. Ignorance is no excuse for
>dishonesty, and your dishonesty is every reason for calling
>you a stooopid fuck.
Have you sen Bob Fritzius' note below about Ritz?
see: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit2/1908-2p.htm
hahahohohohahaha!
Another of their sacred cows is dead...
Jerry
(yawn)
Gerber's theory, which adds an arbitrary, completely unjustified
correction factor into the gravitational potential, is experimentally
ruled out. Although the theory yields correct values for anomalous
precession, it predicts other effects that are drastically at odds
with observation.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
Ritz's theory, of course, is dead for many other reasons.
Jerry
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:55hoo2pkotlrr7non...@4ax.com...
"Let us take as the x-y plane the plane of the orbit, the immobile Sun being at the origin of the coordinates. "
This isn't possible. The Sun moves around a common barycentre with Jupiter.
Nor is Mercury's orbit in the same plane as Jupiter's.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/revolution.html
Look at the edge-on view of Earth's and Venus's orbits and
then back to the plan view.
"In this figure the white portion of the orbit is above the ecliptic plane and the yellow portion is below. "
The reference plane is that of Earth, of course. The Sun itself rises and falls
above and below the ecliptic due to this unfortunate choice of reference frame,
but it is from this FoR that Mercury's position is measured.
Ritz's calculations do not take that into account, there is no dz/dt anywhere.
Now although it is very small, it cannot be ignored altogether when claiming
the alledged "error" of 0.0000008% is considered to be large enough
to show GR superior to Newtonian Mechanics.
As always the error can be traced to incorrect assumption, the most
common being an inadvertant mental shift in frame of reference.
Moreover, all solutions to three body problems (and more)
are necessarily numerical, no analytical solutions exist.
Neither Ritz nor Einstein had access to the number crunching
capability of a 1980 PC, let alone today's machines.
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166823753.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
You bought Einstein's snake oil, I gave you the opportunity
to prove it cured all ailments; you failed to do so, quack.
Go sell it somewhere else, you have no credibility here.
Jerry
(double yawn)
Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
But of course, you can't do it, can you? Even though over the years
you have been challenged repeatedly to
1) reproduce Cepheid radial Doppler shifts...
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
2) reproduce Cepheid Doppler broadening (turbulence) effects...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...336..553Y
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999astro.ph..9024B
3) explain temperature/composition changes / spectral shifts...
4) explain period noise...
5) explain amplitude noice...
6) explain secular period changes...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Ap&SS..96..185S
6) explain interferometric measurements of Cepheid variable size
http://jura.astro.utoledo.edu/~karen/baglunch/vijh_abl_fall03.pdf
7) et cetera et cetera...
You have never risen to the challenge.
Jerry
frit...@bellsouth.net
>
> Ritz's theory, of course, is dead for many other reasons.
>
That may or may not be true.
After studying most, if not all, of the tests ever conducted
with regard to Einstein's relativity versus that of Ritz,
John Fox concluded:
"In spite of all the experiments and arguments which
have been made, dealing with sources of electromagnetic
radiation in motion with respect to the observer, a
completely certain conclusion cannot be reached, from
an experimental point of view, in regard to the second
postulate of special relativity."
I highly commend Fox's paper to the members of this
discussion group who have yet to read it.
John G. Fox, "Evidence Against Emission Theories,"
American Journal of Physics, 33, 1 (1965).
Bob Fritzius
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166832238....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Yes, why don't you, fuckhead?
Einstein's snake oil is dead for many reasons, quack.
Go peddle it somewhere else, you have no credibility here.
Jerry
On the other hand:
After studying most, if not all, of the tests ever conducted with
regard to Einstein's relativity versus that of Ritz, John Fox
concluded in a -later- paper (Fox, 1967):
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Fox_1967.pdf
"The whole history of this matter of proving the constancy of c has
involved an unusually large number of errors. There may be more but
it seems that at least we now understand the role of extinction.
Good evidence, all of recent date, now exists [four citations]. It
is to be hoped that time will not be wasted in future on additional
experiments or arguments which are nullified by extinction."
The four papers which John Fox cites as providing good evidence
against emission theories include:
1) his -own- paper, (Filippas and Fox,1964)
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf
2) Alvager et al, 1966
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf
3) Babcock and Bergman, 1964
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Babcock_Bergman_1964.pdf
4) Beckmann and Mandics, 1965
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Beckmann_Mandics_1965.pdf
Fox does a detailed critique of this last paper, stating "all of
their data and some of it was free from [...] criticism, so the
results are meaningful." (My ellipses delete the single word, "this",
which would be confusing taken out of context.)
I highly recommend Fox's 1967 paper to the members of this discussion
group who have apparently only read his 1965 paper.
Furthermore, Kenneth Brecher, who was fully cognizant of Fox's
arguments and the importance of extinction, did an analysis of X-ray
sources in binary star systems in his 1967 paper, "Is the Speed of
Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source", taking full account
of possible extinction effects, and concluded the speed of
independent of the velocity of the source.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf
Jerry
Jerry
Ah, yes. You SNIP what you don't like to read.
Let me restore what you've snipped:
(double yawn)
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166872524.7...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ah yes, you can't read or calculate the orbit of Mercury.
Have some pictures instead:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
BTW, Joe Barbera died.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/arts/19barbera.html?ex=1182142800&en=9f6bdd0ef88182a4&ei=5087&excamp=GGGNbarbera
Einstein's snake oil is as dead as Tom and Jerry for many reasons,
insufferable quack.
Jerry
> 4) Beckmann and Mandics, 1965
> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Beckmann_Mandics_1965.pdf
> Fox does a detailed critique of this last paper, stating "all of
> their data and some of it was free from [...] criticism, so the
> results are meaningful." (My ellipses delete the single word, "this",
> which would be confusing taken out of context.)
Sorry, messed up my quote.
Fox does a detailed critique of this last paper, stating "all of
their data contradicted the emission theory and some of it was free
from [...] criticism, so the results are meaningful." (My ellipses
delete the single word, "this", which would be confusing taken out
of context.)
Jerry
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166874620.4...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
The constancy of velocity is not in question; it is Einstein's drool that
is nonsense, c = 0/0 because in Einstein's snake oil the value c
changes direction and is therefore not constant.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
Jerry
Again and again, you SNIP what you don't like to read.
Let me restore what you've snipped:
(double yawn)
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166878572.3...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's not my ballistic theory, shithead, that's Wilson's.
|
| But of course, you can't do it, can you?
I can reproduce all light curves for two body systems.
I have never claimed and never will claim to duplicate n-body systems
(n > 2), sneering fuckwit. It case you didn't notice, our solar
system has more than two bodies and the second largest has a 12-year
period.
Even though over the years
| you have been challenged repeatedly to
| 1) reproduce Cepheid radial Doppler shifts...
| http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
Been done, you lying shit.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
| 2) reproduce Cepheid Doppler broadening (turbulence) effects...
| http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...336..553Y
Been done, you lying shit.
| http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999astro.ph..9024B
| 3) explain temperature/composition changes / spectral shifts...
Imagination requires no explanation.
| 4) explain period noise...
You haven't a clue what "noise" is. What you mean
by noise is caused by a third body.
| 5) explain amplitude noice...
You haven't a clue what "noice" is. What you mean
by "noice" is caused by a third body.
| 6) explain secular period changes...
| http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Ap&SS..96..185S
| 6) explain interferometric measurements of Cepheid variable size
| http://jura.astro.utoledo.edu/~karen/baglunch/vijh_abl_fall03.pdf
That's two 6)s, learn to count, shithead.
| 7) et cetera et cetera...
|
| You have never risen to the challenge.
Lying mobster, you have the obstinacy of a glutted adder!
"I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. " ---Galileo Galilei.
I myself, a professional mathematician, on re-reading my own work find it strains my mental powers to recall to mind from the figures the meanings of the demonstrations, meanings which I myself originally put into the figures and the text from my mind. But when I attempt to remedy the obscurity of the material by putting in extra words, I see myself falling into the opposite fault of becoming chatty in something mathematical.
--- New Astronomy: Astronomia nova (Heidelberg, 1609) Introduction, second paragraph.
Where are you calculations for the advance of perihelion of
Mercury for the last TWO orbits, snake oil seller?
You have never risen to the challenge... fuckhead.
frit...@bellsouth.net
> The four papers which John Fox cites as providing good evidence
> against emission theories include:
>
> 1) his -own- paper, (Filippas and Fox,1964)
> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf
>
conflict with [received]
physical theory at such a basic level that it is difficult to be sure
what linen of reasoning is
safe to employ." He then says: "We have adopted the following because
it seems reasonable."
Looks to me like there may still be some "wiggle room."
> 2) Alvager et al, 1966
> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf
Alvager et al do not state how it was determined that the 6 Gev
Gammas were in fact emitted by the fast moving mesons rather
than being emitted by the more or less stationary nuclei that they
had hit.
A copy of their reference 9 [de Sitter shooting down Ritz] is available
online at:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-4e.htm
Four W. de Sitter articles on the same topic, including
the article just mentioned) are at:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm
> 3) Babcock and Bergman, 1964
> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Babcock_Bergman_1964.pdf
This experiment was done in a vacuum but I see no evaluation of
extinction effects. If the experimenters considered total path length
in their reasoning, they might be amiss. Excluding air extinction, the
only extinction free paths were those between the moving windows
and the first mirrors that the light came to next.
>
> 4) Beckmann and Mandics, 1965
> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Beckmann_Mandics_1965.pdf
>
These experimenters conclude that our best vacuums are needed to reduce
extinction effects to workable levels.
>
>[snip]
>
> I highly recommend Fox's 1967 paper to the members of this discussion
> group who have apparently only read his 1965 paper.
Concur!
>
> Furthermore, Kenneth Brecher, who was fully cognizant of Fox's
> arguments and the importance of extinction, did an analysis of X-ray
> sources in binary star systems in his 1967 paper, "Is the Speed of
> Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source", taking full account
> of possible extinction effects, and concluded the speed of
> independent of the velocity of the source.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf
>
Looks to me like Breecher did a pretty good job [handling extinction]
in his 1967 paper but I think he "blew it" in a 2000 AAS presentation
on Gamma-Ray Bursts. See my article:
Ritzian Gamma-Ray Bursts http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/grbs.htm
[The Breecher "critique" is about 2/3rds way down in the article. The
link to his abstract no longer works.]
Bob Fritzius
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166878572.3...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ah, some REAL comments at last! With (or without) your permission,
I will, in the interest of brevity, trim this overly long post.
> | Again and again, you SNIP what you don't like to read.
> | Let me restore what you've snipped:
> |
> | (double yawn)
> | Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
> | Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
> | that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
>
>
> It's not my ballistic theory, shithead, that's Wilson's.
>
>
>
> |
> | But of course, you can't do it, can you?
>
> I can reproduce all light curves for two body systems.
> I have never claimed and never will claim to duplicate n-body systems
> (n > 2), sneering fuckwit. It case you didn't notice, our solar
> system has more than two bodies and the second largest has a 12-year
> period.
>
>
> Even though over the years
> | you have been challenged repeatedly to
> | 1) reproduce Cepheid radial Doppler shifts...
> | http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
>
> Been done, you lying shit.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
Those are LUMINOSITY curves that you calculate.
I asked for RADIAL DOPPLER SHIFTS.
> | 2) reproduce Cepheid Doppler broadening (turbulence) effects...
> | http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...336..553Y
>
> Been done, you lying shit.
Where?
> | http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999astro.ph..9024B
> | 3) explain temperature/composition changes / spectral shifts...
>
> Imagination requires no explanation.
In other words, you have no explanation
> | 4) explain period noise...
>
>
> You haven't a clue what "noise" is. What you mean
> by noise is caused by a third body.
The magnitude of the period noise far exceeds what could be
accommodated in a stable three-body orbit.
> | 5) explain amplitude noice...
>
> You haven't a clue what "noice" is. What you mean
> by "noice" is caused by a third body.
The magnitude of the amplitude noise far exceeds what could be
accommodated in a stable three-body orbit.
> | 6) explain secular period changes...
> | http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Ap&SS..96..185S
>
> | 6) explain interferometric measurements of Cepheid variable size
> | http://jura.astro.utoledo.edu/~karen/baglunch/vijh_abl_fall03.pdf
>
>
> That's two 6)s, learn to count, shithead.
Unable to explain secular period changes, you focus on trivia.
> | 7) et cetera et cetera...
> |
> | You have never risen to the challenge.
>
> Lying mobster, you have the obstinacy of a glutted adder!
>
> "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. " ---Galileo Galilei.
>
>
> I myself, a professional mathematician, on re-reading my own work find it strains my mental powers to recall to mind from the figures the meanings of the demonstrations, meanings which I myself originally put into the figures and the text from my mind. But when I attempt to remedy the obscurity of the material by putting in extra words, I see myself falling into the opposite fault of becoming chatty in something mathematical.
> --- New Astronomy: Astronomia nova (Heidelberg, 1609) Introduction, second paragraph.
>
> Where are you calculations for the advance of perihelion of
> Mercury for the last TWO orbits, snake oil seller?
> You have never risen to the challenge... fuckhead.
Unable to meet my challenges, you resort to abuse.
How typical.
Jerry
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > The four papers which John Fox cites as providing good evidence
> > against emission theories include:
> >
> > 1) his -own- paper, (Filippas and Fox,1964)
> > http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf
> >
> Fox cautions: "The hypothesis which is being investigated is in drastic
> conflict with [received]
> physical theory at such a basic level that it is difficult to be sure
> what linen of reasoning is
> safe to employ." He then says: "We have adopted the following because
> it seems reasonable."
>
> Looks to me like there may still be some "wiggle room."
>
> > 2) Alvager et al, 1966
> > http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf
>
> Alvager et al do not state how it was determined that the 6 Gev
> Gammas were in fact emitted by the fast moving mesons rather
> than being emitted by the more or less stationary nuclei that they
> had hit.
Via what reaction path would you postulate this alternate source of
high energy gamma rays? The reaction products of protons impinging on
beryllium targets are extremely well characterized, and the decay of
neutral pi mesons is the only known source of high energy gammas.
Of course you realize you can't have it both ways.
If extinction effects are, as you would assert, so dominant as to
invalidate the terrestrial tests of emission theory conducted by
Babcock and Bergman (1964) and Beckmann and Mandics (1965) despite
use of vacuums resulting in path lengths equivalent to microns of air,
then it is impossible for Sekerin's theories to be valid, since
extinction would prevent accumulation of variable light speed effects
over distances greater than a fraction of an AU.
In other words,
If these terrestrial tests of emission theory are valid, then
Sekerin's theories are invalid.
If these terrestrial tests of emission theory are invalid because
of extinction, then Sekerin's theories are invalid.
Either way, Sekerin is dead.
Jerry
Henri Wilson
wrote:
You obviously didn't read the paper.
Ritz incorporated the fact that gravity travels at a finite speed (c) and came
up with exactly the right answer for Mercury's precession....some years before
Einstein produced a similar equation.
Phineas T Puddleduck
> Yes, why don't you, fuckhead? Einstein's snake oil is dead for many
> reasons, quack.
> Go peddle it somewhere else, you have no credibility here.
Repeating a lie does not make it the truth.
--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Carl Sagan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Henri Wilson
>frit...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> Jerry wrote:
>> > The four papers which John Fox cites as providing good evidence
>> > against emission theories include:
>> >
>If these terrestrial tests of emission theory are valid, then
>Sekerin's theories are invalid.
>
>If these terrestrial tests of emission theory are invalid because
>of extinction, then Sekerin's theories are invalid.
>
>Either way, Sekerin is dead.
>
>Jerry
There has never been a believable OWLS experiment so how can you claim that
there have been experiments that can discriminate between c and c+v.
I have also revealed the principle error in De Sitter's 'variable star'
refutation of Ritzian theory.
There appears to be some kind of light speed unification as the c+v and c-v
light from an orbiting star travels across space. The result is the fast light
stops catching up with the slower light well before the critical distance is
reached...critical distance being that at which the first double image would
normally be expected.
It is quite obvious that the majority of 'variable stars' are not variable at
all. The effect is merely due to the star's emitted light initially traveling
at c+v wrt the Earth observer.
See: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
for a few examples of how brightness curves can be matched using the Ballistic
Theory. The yellow or red lines are my curves.
What more evidence do you need?
Henri Wilson
>Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166823753.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>> | Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> | > On Dec 21, 6:17 pm, "fritz...@bellsouth.net" <fritz...@bellsouth.net>
>> | > wrote:
>
>(double yawn)
>Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
>Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
>that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
I have produced these curves.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
Not a bad fit, eh Jeery?
I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
>But of course, you can't do it, can you? Even though over the years
>you have been challenged repeatedly to
>1) reproduce Cepheid radial Doppler shifts...
> http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
>2) reproduce Cepheid Doppler broadening (turbulence) effects...
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...336..553Y
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999astro.ph..9024B
>3) explain temperature/composition changes / spectral shifts...
>4) explain period noise...
>5) explain amplitude noice...
>6) explain secular period changes...
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Ap&SS..96..185S
>6) explain interferometric measurements of Cepheid variable size
> http://jura.astro.utoledo.edu/~karen/baglunch/vijh_abl_fall03.pdf
>7) et cetera et cetera...
>
>You have never risen to the challenge.
>
>Jerry
Phineas T Puddleduck
> I have produced these curves.
> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
>
> Not a bad fit, eh Jeery?
> I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
And the math behind this is?
Jerry
> On 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Sorcerer wrote:
> >> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166823753.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >> | Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >> | > On Dec 21, 6:17 pm, "fritz...@bellsouth.net" <fritz...@bellsouth.net>
> >> | > wrote:
>
> >
> >(double yawn)
> >Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
> >Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
> >that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
>
> I have produced these curves.
> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
>
> Not a bad fit, eh Jeery?
Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
> I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
Then why don't you show your radial velocity curves and the
brightness curves on a single set of plots?
Jerry
See my challenge to Androcles, for starters.
Jerry
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166889555.5...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166878572.3...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ah, some REAL comments at last! With (or without) your permission,
| I will, in the interest of brevity, trim this overly long post.
|
| > | Again and again, you SNIP what you don't like to read.
| > | Let me restore what you've snipped:
| > |
| > | (double yawn)
| > | Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
| > | Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
| > | that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
| >
| >
| > It's not my ballistic theory, shithead, that's Wilson's.
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | But of course, you can't do it, can you?
| >
| > I can reproduce all light curves for two body systems.
| > I have never claimed and never will claim to duplicate n-body systems
| > (n > 2), sneering fuckwit. It case you didn't notice, our solar
| > system has more than two bodies and the second largest has a 12-year
| > period.
| >
| >
| > Even though over the years
| > | you have been challenged repeatedly to
| > | 1) reproduce Cepheid radial Doppler shifts...
| > | http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
| >
| > Been done, you lying shit.
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
|
| Those are LUMINOSITY curves that you calculate.
Yes.
|
| I asked for RADIAL DOPPLER SHIFTS.
|
Yes, you have to run the PROGRAM for those.
| > | 2) reproduce Cepheid Doppler broadening (turbulence) effects...
| > | http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...336..553Y
| >
| > Been done, you lying shit.
|
| Where?
Here.
|
| > | http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999astro.ph..9024B
| > | 3) explain temperature/composition changes / spectral shifts...
| >
| > Imagination requires no explanation.
|
| In other words, you have no explanation
As I said. <shrug>
I have no explanation for virgin births, either. Have you?
Whatever, it caused you to be home for its anniversary.
|
| > | 4) explain period noise...
| >
| >
| > You haven't a clue what "noise" is. What you mean
| > by noise is caused by a third body.
|
| The magnitude of the period noise far exceeds what could be
| accommodated in a stable three-body orbit.
Bullshitting whore.
|
| > | 5) explain amplitude noice...
| >
| > You haven't a clue what "noice" is. What you mean
| > by "noice" is caused by a third body.
|
| The magnitude of the amplitude noise far exceeds what could be
| accommodated in a stable three-body orbit.
Has anyone ever seen you upright?
|
| > | 6) explain secular period changes...
| > | http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Ap&SS..96..185S
| >
| > | 6) explain interferometric measurements of Cepheid variable size
| > | http://jura.astro.utoledo.edu/~karen/baglunch/vijh_abl_fall03.pdf
| >
| >
| > That's two 6)s, learn to count, shithead.
|
| Unable to explain secular period changes, you focus on trivia.
Unable to explain your fucking lies, you focus on bullshit.
|
| > | 7) et cetera et cetera...
| > |
| > | You have never risen to the challenge.
| >
| > Lying mobster, you have the obstinacy of a glutted adder!
| >
| > "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. " ---Galileo Galilei.
| >
| >
| > I myself, a professional mathematician, on re-reading my own work find it strains my mental powers to recall to mind from the figures the meanings of the demonstrations, meanings which I myself originally put into the figures and the text from my mind. But when I attempt to remedy the obscurity of the material by putting in extra words, I see myself falling into the opposite fault of becoming chatty in something mathematical.
| > --- New Astronomy: Astronomia nova (Heidelberg, 1609) Introduction, second paragraph.
| >
| > Where are you calculations for the advance of perihelion of
| > Mercury for the last TWO orbits, snake oil seller?
| > You have never risen to the challenge... fuckhead.
|
| Unable to meet my challenges,
I challenged you, cunt.
Phineas T Puddleduck
> I challenged you, cunt.
> Where are you calculations for the advance of perihelion of
> Mercury for the last TWO orbits, snake oil seller?
> You have never risen to the challenge... fuckhead.
The equations are out there for you to do yourself, or do I have to ask
Dirk to add another fumble about how you were confused about the fact
its commonly quoted in arc secs per century?
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:ufaro2pf8glqldqlo...@4ax.com...
Fuck you too.
|
| Ritz incorporated the fact that gravity travels at a finite speed (c) and came
| up with exactly the right answer for Mercury's precession....some years before
| Einstein produced a similar equation.
Bullshitting bastard, go back to herding sheep and goats, you don't
know what a fact is. Open a gate, walk into a field and tell me how
fast the grass arrives, you stooopid fuck. Even a sheep know what
a field is.
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166919377....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > On 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
| >
| > >Sorcerer wrote:
| > >> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166823753.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
| > >> | Koobee Wublee wrote:
| > >> | > On Dec 21, 6:17 pm, "fritz...@bellsouth.net" <fritz...@bellsouth.net>
| > >> | > wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >(double yawn)
| > >Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
| > >Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
| > >that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
| >
| > I have produced these curves.
| > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
| >
| > Not a bad fit, eh Jeery?
|
| Totally unimpressive.
So are you, shit for brains; explain this scientific discovery, fuckhead:
http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html
I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope.-- Galileo Galilei.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166889555.5...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166878572.3...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | > | 4) explain period noise...
> | >
> | >
> | > You haven't a clue what "noise" is. What you mean
> | > by noise is caused by a third body.
> |
> | The magnitude of the period noise far exceeds what could be
> | accommodated in a stable three-body orbit.
>
> Bullshitting whore.
No bullshit, just experience. I studied three body simulations as an
undergrad, before I switched majors and became a premed.
A typical quasi-stable three body configuration with all three
bodies of comparable mass might have the third body orbiting at a
great distance from a closely orbiting pair, and the perturbative
influence of the third body on the period of the two closely orbiting
bodies would never amount to more than a tiny fraction of a percent
of the said period. Move the third body closer in, and the
perturbations would become larger, but the orbital motions also
become chaotic, the usual result being ejection of one or another of
the bodies leading to a two body stable solution.
The degree of period noise exhibited by Cepheids cannot be explained
by any general three body configuration of which I am aware. Then
of course, there are RR Lyrae stars, Mira type stars, and
semiregulars, that exhibit even larger degrees of period noise than
the Cepheids.
Jerry
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166960997.2...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
So you SNIP. Totally unimpressive.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166960997.2...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> So you SNIP.
Since I need to make a minor correction, let me restore what you
didn't want to read and don't know how to respond to.
>> I studied three body simulations as an undergrad, before I
>> switched majors and became a premed.
>> A typical quasi-stable three body configuration with all three
>> bodies of comparable mass might have the third body orbiting at a
>> great distance from a closely orbiting pair, and the perturbative
>> influence of the third body on the period of the two closely
>> orbiting bodies would never amount to more than a tiny fraction of
>> a percent of the said period. Move the third body closer in, and
>> the perturbations would become larger, but the orbital motions
>> also become chaotic, the usual result being ejection of one or
>> another of the bodies leading to a two body stable solution...
CORRRECTION - ADD THE WORDS
...or alternatively, collision of two bodies, also leading to a two
body stable solution.
>> The degree of period noise exhibited by Cepheids cannot be
>> explained by any general three body configuration of which I am
>> aware. Then of course, there are RR Lyrae stars, Mira type stars,
>> and semiregulars, that exhibit even larger degrees of period noise
>> than the Cepheids.
> Totally unimpressive.
I admit that I didn't break any new ground. But it was fun work, and
certainly more than anything you've shown yourself capable of doing.
Jerry
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166965663....@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166960997.2...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > [...]
| >
| > So you SNIP.
|
| Since I need to make a minor correction, let me restore what you
| didn't want to read and don't know how to respond to.
Oh, you want to back up.
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1140005180....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hexenmeister wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>> news:AJ4If.29812$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> > Stan Byers wrote:
>> >> Eski, I do believe you have stirred up the pro and con hornets of the
>> >> 100
>> >> year old Special Relativity debate.
>> >
>> > No, this just excited the cranks. There _is_ no "100 year old Special
>> > Relativity Debate" except among cranks and people who do not understand
>> > SR.
>>
>> What Roberts means is "Einstein said it, he believes it, that settles
>> it".
>> Androcles.
>
> What Androcles means is, "I don't want SR to be true, therefore
> it is false."
Likes and dislikes are the emotional drivel that Jeery is appealing to.
What Jeery means is "I want SR to be true, therefore it is."
What Androcles means is "Until you can prove SR, it is false."
This is in keeping with "Innocent until proven guilty." The operative
word is "prove".
So prove the PoR is an approximation to the first order for small
quantities.
Make the bottle move by one pixel.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
The difference between a relativist and a mathematician is the faith:logic
ratio.
Androcles doesn't believe and demands proof. If Jeery can prove SR valid,
Androcles will accept SR.
Jeery will accept SR because other morons do. That pathetic mass mentality
persisted for 1400 years from Ptolemy to Copernicus and is still prevalent
among religious sects and relativist sheep.
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166965663....@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Why do you always talk to this imbecile as if he would be
a person one talks to?
Dirk Vdm
Jerry
At the other end of the internet connection is a human being who
deserves respect for being who he is. He's obviously lonely and
isolated, and craves attention, even if negative. Given the amount
of time that he spends on this newsgroup, this obviously is one of
Androcles's few outlets for expression.
Unlike most members of this newsgroup, I don't have any macho need
to prove myself smarter than others, nor do I get any jollies putting
people down. I don't see any fun in bear-baiting, a barbaric "sport"
which is still popular in many parts of the world. Maybe it's easier
for me because I lack a Y-chromosome; but then I see male members of
this newsgroup, like Tom Roberts or Sal, who seem equally or even
more tolerant than I am, so it's obviously not something that I can
necessarily attribute to womanhood.
Next semester, one of my two rotations will be in psychiatry. I
expect to see many, many lonely old men (and women) during this
rotation, and they won't necessarily be pleasant people to deal with.
Some will be outright disaster areas. Nevertheless, they will all be
members of the human race, even as Androcles is, and I hope to
remember to treat them all with dignity.
Jerry
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166987694.0...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Aww.. how sad. Is that your problem, Tom and Jeery?
| He's obviously lonely and
| isolated, and craves attention, even if negative. Given the amount
| of time that he spends on this newsgroup, this obviously is one of
| Androcles's few outlets for expression.
Oh dear, you mispelt Dork Van de psychopath, it starts with D, not A.
|
| Unlike most members of this newsgroup, I don't have any macho need
| to prove myself smarter than others, nor do I get any jollies putting
| people down. I don't see any fun in bear-baiting, a barbaric "sport"
| which is still popular in many parts of the world. Maybe it's easier
| for me because I lack a Y-chromosome; but then I see male members of
| this newsgroup, like Tom Roberts or Sal, who seem equally or even
| more tolerant than I am, so it's obviously not something that I can
| necessarily attribute to womanhood.
|
| Next semester, one of my two rotations will be in psychiatry. I
| expect to see many, many lonely old men (and women) during this
| rotation, and they won't necessarily be pleasant people to deal with.
| Some will be outright disaster areas. Nevertheless, they will all be
| members of the human race, even as Androcles is, and I hope to
| remember to treat them all with dignity.
|
| Jerry
Egads... a do-gooder. Let me guess... a fully indoctrinated and
paid up card carrying xtian as well? Left unfettered, the baited
bear will eat the pee puppy Dork in a single bite.
"if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years" -- Dork Van de psychotic.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
But it was fun work, and certainly more than anything you've
shown yourself capable of doing, whatever your opinions of
your own worth may be, Goldilocks.
Henri Wilson
I have just answered that.
look at www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
Would you not agree that is a reasonable fit?
>Jerry
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Sorcerer wrote:
>> >> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166823753.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>> >> | Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> >> | > On Dec 21, 6:17 pm, "fritz...@bellsouth.net" <fritz...@bellsouth.net>
>> >> | > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >(double yawn)
>> >Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
>> >Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
>> >that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
>>
>> I have produced these curves.
>> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
>>
>> Not a bad fit, eh Jeery?
>
>Totally unimpressive.
>With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
>You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
You can't get out of it that easily Jerry.
The basic maths is limited to the use of c+v.cos(theta) only. The parameters I
can change wont make any difference to the range of basic shapes I can produce.
Cepheid curves are typical of stars in moderately eccentric orbits with their
major axes lying about 45 degres away fronm the LOS.
It so happens that the current view of these 'huff-puff' stars might also give
a similar brightness curve, based on the variable c+v of their surface facing
Earth..
So I win either way.
>
>> I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
>
>Then why don't you show your radial velocity curves and the
>brightness curves on a single set of plots?
I did once before.
I can't find it now.
The radial velocity curves are exactly those of a star with the above
parameters.
However there was a great deal of doubt as to the actual phasing between the
published brightness and velocity curves. This was admitted by the author.
>> >But of course, you can't do it, can you? Even though over the years
>> >you have been challenged repeatedly to
>> >1) reproduce Cepheid radial Doppler shifts...
>> > http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
>> >2) reproduce Cepheid Doppler broadening (turbulence) effects...
>> > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...336..553Y
>> > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999astro.ph..9024B
>> >3) explain temperature/composition changes / spectral shifts...
>> >4) explain period noise...
>> >5) explain amplitude noice...
>> >6) explain secular period changes...
>> > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Ap&SS..96..185S
>> >6) explain interferometric measurements of Cepheid variable size
>> > http://jura.astro.utoledo.edu/~karen/baglunch/vijh_abl_fall03.pdf
>> >7) et cetera et cetera...
>> >
>> >You have never risen to the challenge.
I have already done it, Jerry.
Jerry
> On 23 Dec 2006 16:16:17 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sorcerer wrote:
> >> >> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166823753.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> | Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >> >> | > On Dec 21, 6:17 pm, "fritz...@bellsouth.net" <fritz...@bellsouth.net>
> >> >> | > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >(double yawn)
> >> >Why don't you do something useful, like compute Cepheid Variable
> >> >Velocity graphs for RT Aurigae using your ballistic theory, and prove
> >> >that your graphs are consistent with your brightness graphs.
> >>
> >> I have produced these curves.
> >> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurc.jpg
> >>
> >> Not a bad fit, eh Jeery?
Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
> >Totally unimpressive.
> >With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
> >You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
>
> You can't get out of it that easily Jerry.
> The basic maths is limited to the use of c+v.cos(theta) only. The parameters I
> can change wont make any difference to the range of basic shapes I can produce.
Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
> Cepheid curves are typical of stars in moderately eccentric orbits with their
> major axes lying about 45 degres away fronm the LOS.
>
> It so happens that the current view of these 'huff-puff' stars might also give
> a similar brightness curve, based on the variable c+v of their surface facing
> Earth..
>
> So I win either way.
Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
> >> I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
> >Then why don't you show your radial velocity curves and the
> >brightness curves on a single set of plots?
>
> I did once before.
> I can't find it now.
Uh, huh...
> The radial velocity curves are exactly those of a star with the above
> parameters.
> However there was a great deal of doubt as to the actual phasing between the
> published brightness and velocity curves. This was admitted by the author.
Uh huh...
Try this set of curves:
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
> >> >But of course, you can't do it, can you? Even though over the years
> >> >you have been challenged repeatedly to
> >> >1) reproduce Cepheid radial Doppler shifts...
> >> > http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
> >> >2) reproduce Cepheid Doppler broadening (turbulence) effects...
> >> > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...336..553Y
> >> > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999astro.ph..9024B
> >> >3) explain temperature/composition changes / spectral shifts...
> >> >4) explain period noise...
> >> >5) explain amplitude noice...
> >> >6) explain secular period changes...
> >> > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Ap&SS..96..185S
> >> >6) explain interferometric measurements of Cepheid variable size
> >> > http://jura.astro.utoledo.edu/~karen/baglunch/vijh_abl_fall03.pdf
> >> >7) et cetera et cetera...
> >> >
> >> >You have never risen to the challenge.
>
> I have already done it, Jerry.
Obviously not.
As I said, totally unimpressive.
Jerry
Henri Wilson
I have shown them before.
>
>> Cepheid curves are typical of stars in moderately eccentric orbits with their
>> major axes lying about 45 degres away fronm the LOS.
>>
>> It so happens that the current view of these 'huff-puff' stars might also give
>> a similar brightness curve, based on the variable c+v of their surface facing
>> Earth..
>>
>> So I win either way.
>
>Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
I have shown them before.
>
>> >> I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
>
>Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
I have shown them before.
>
>> >Then why don't you show your radial velocity curves and the
>> >brightness curves on a single set of plots?
>>
>> I did once before.
>> I can't find it now.
>
>Uh, huh...
I have shown them before.
>
>> The radial velocity curves are exactly those of a star with the above
>> parameters.
>> However there was a great deal of doubt as to the actual phasing between the
>> published brightness and velocity curves. This was admitted by the author.
>
>Uh huh...
>
>Try this set of curves:
>http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
THat's the one to which I just referred you.
>
>Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
>and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
I have shown them before.
Jerry
Dog ate your homework?
> >> Cepheid curves are typical of stars in moderately eccentric orbits with their
> >> major axes lying about 45 degres away fronm the LOS.
> >>
> >> It so happens that the current view of these 'huff-puff' stars might also give
> >> a similar brightness curve, based on the variable c+v of their surface facing
> >> Earth..
> >>
> >> So I win either way.
> >
> >Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
>
> I have shown them before.
Dog ate your homework?
> >> >> I have the radial velocity curves as well...also a perfect fit.
> >
> >Where are your predicted Doppler shifts = radial velocity curves?
>
> I have shown them before.
Dog ate your homework?
> >> >Then why don't you show your radial velocity curves and the
> >> >brightness curves on a single set of plots?
> >>
> >> I did once before.
> >> I can't find it now.
> >
> >Uh, huh...
>
> I have shown them before.
Dog ate your homework?
> >> The radial velocity curves are exactly those of a star with the above
> >> parameters.
> >> However there was a great deal of doubt as to the actual phasing between the
> >> published brightness and velocity curves. This was admitted by the author.
> >
> >Uh huh...
> >
> >Try this set of curves:
> >http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
>
> THat's the one to which I just referred you.
Dog ate your homework?
> >Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
> >and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
>
> I have shown them before.
Dog ate your homework?
When you DO find your homework, remember that, according to Doppler
shift measurements, RT Aurigae shows a 2.2 million km variation in
star radius.
In terms of YOUR model of Cepheid behavior, that figure should be
reinterpreted as a 2.2 million km orbital diameter measured along the
line-of-sight.
------------------------------------------------------------
Since you are currently incapable of answering me on the question of
Doppler shift, let's try testing you on a DIFFERENT question -
Explain Secular Period Changes
1) Explain V725 Sgr
http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/fall06.pdf
2) Explain RU Cam
http://weblore.com/richard/ru_cam_ex_cepheid_star.htm
Jerry
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:arouo2dukplia1n9m...@4ax.com...
That diagram is as poor as piss, unreadable, scanned straight out of
a text book.
The fit in THIS curve is pure bloody guesswork:
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid9.gif
The REAL data:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RTAurVel.GIF
And the DERIVED data is idiotic:
"The acceleration information for the entire cycle can be found by differentiating the velocity graph by time. "
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RTAurVelCheat.GIF
The acceleration goes up while the velocity goes down?
No way, Jose!
| >Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
| >and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
I want to see JEERY simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
| I have shown them before.
H, let the cartoon cat and mouse team Tom and Jeery do it, the lying phuckwits.
I want to see the brightness PHASE matched to the velocity phase, or
the JULIAN DATE matched to the velocity curve. That crucial data is ALWAYS
missing.
Why?
I'll tell you why. They are NOT in phase as the cheating idiots pretend.
The gif at http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid6.gif is FAKED.
C Johnson, Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago is yet another incompetent moron who can't even get the sign of the acceleration correct, like you and your Fuck the '-'.
Who the fuck would use DERIVED data?
Androcles.
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1167036090....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's YOUR homework, fuckhead.
|
| > >Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
| > >and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
| >
| > I have shown them before.
|
| Dog ate your homework?
This is YOUR homework, shit for brains:
Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
I want Julian Dates for peak velocity and peak luminosity.
Dog ate your homework, fuckhead?
|
| When you DO find your homework, remember that, according to Doppler
| shift measurements, RT Aurigae shows a 2.2 million km variation in
| star radius.
The fuck it does, lying bitch.
|
| In terms of YOUR model of Cepheid behavior, that figure should be
| reinterpreted as a 2.2 million km orbital diameter measured along the
| line-of-sight.
Yep.
This is YOUR homework, shit for brains:
Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
I want Julian Dates for peak velocity and peak luminosity.
Dog ate your homework, fuckhead?
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Since you are currently incapable of answering me on the question of
| Doppler shift, let's try testing you on a DIFFERENT question -
Fuck you, do YOUR homework.
Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
Since you are currently incapable of answering me on the question of
phase let's call you names, you stupid fucking moron.
I want Julian Dates for peak velocity and peak luminosity.
Dog ate your homework, fuckhead?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166987694.0...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
After having seen his reply to this, I rest my case on
Androcles, the "human being who deserves respect for being who he is":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HumanBeing.html
Merry Christmas :-)
Dirk Vdm
Jerry
> "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:arouo2dukplia1n9m...@4ax.com...
> | On 24 Dec 2006 16:31:24 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> |
> | >Henri Wilson wrote:
> | >> On 23 Dec 2006 16:16:17 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> | >>
> | >> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> | >> >> On 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> | >> >>
> | >> >> >Sorcerer wrote:
> | >> >> >> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1166823753.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Johnson writes:
"This is a 'smoothed curve' graph and is a best-fit to a group of
around 25 data points. The radial velocity data generally has
significant error factors since the values are determined entirely by
rather subtle Doppler shifts in the spectral lines. Therefore, the
raw data is less useful for these purposes, and a smoothed curve is
used here."
The term "best-fit" has a precise technical meaning.
> The REAL data:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RTAurVel.GIF
I suppose that when YOU fit raw data to your curve fits, that EVERY
point lies on top of your graphs and that you NEVER find outliers?
Don't be silly.
> And the DERIVED data is idiotic:
>
> "The acceleration information for the entire cycle can be found by differentiating the velocity graph by time. "
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RTAurVelCheat.GIF
>
> The acceleration goes up while the velocity goes down?
> No way, Jose!
At the end of the article, Johnson explains the column headings and
the sign conventions used:
"In the (Measured) Radial Velocity column and Relative Radial Velocity
column, plus numbers mean moving away from Earth. The opposite is
true in the Acceleration column, where negative values indicate
acceleration away from us, toward the center of the star, or a
gravitational collapsing effect...."
> | >Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
> | >and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
>
>
> I want to see JEERY simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
> and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
It is the responsibility of the individuals making the extraordinary
claims (ANDROCLES and HENRI) to provide the extraordinary evidence
(ability of their modified Sekerin theories to model all features of
Cepheid variables).
Which neither of you have done...
> | I have shown them before.
>
> H, let the cartoon cat and mouse team Tom and Jeery do it, the lying phuckwits.
> I want to see the brightness PHASE matched to the velocity phase, or
> the JULIAN DATE matched to the velocity curve. That crucial data is ALWAYS
> missing.
> Why?
> I'll tell you why. They are NOT in phase as the cheating idiots pretend.
>
> The gif at http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid6.gif is FAKED.
If you take the extreme stance that all astronomers are grouped in a
wild conspiracy to disprove a theory of Cepheid variability that most
astronomers aren't even aware of, then there really isn't any hope
for you. I could easily go to the university library and scan dozens
of articles for you.
But that's not my mission in life, despite anything you might think.
And you wouldn't read the articles anyway.
> C Johnson, Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago is yet
another incompetent moron who can't even get the sign of the
acceleration correct, like you and your Fuck the '-'.
>
> Who the fuck would use DERIVED data?
Jerry
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1167056073.7...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Least squares, idiot.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LeastSquaresFittingExponential.html
|
| > The REAL data:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RTAurVel.GIF
|
| I suppose that when YOU fit raw data to your curve fits, that EVERY
| point lies on top of your graphs and that you NEVER find outliers?
| Don't be silly.
Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
Jeery 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800
You'd suppose anything, you are a moron.
You whine about "noise" and don't know what it is.
YOU are an example of noise. Shut the fuck up and learn, idiot.
|
| > And the DERIVED data is idiotic:
| >
| > "The acceleration information for the entire cycle can be found by differentiating the velocity graph by time. "
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RTAurVelCheat.GIF
| >
| > The acceleration goes up while the velocity goes down?
| > No way, Jose!
|
| At the end of the article, Johnson explains the column headings and
| the sign conventions used:
| "In the (Measured) Radial Velocity column and Relative Radial Velocity
| column, plus numbers mean moving away from Earth. The opposite is
| true in the Acceleration column, where negative values indicate
| acceleration away from us, toward the center of the star, or a
| gravitational collapsing effect...."
The guy is a fucking idiot, just like you, he got the sign wrong.
I dumped his "data" into an Excel spreadsheet, fuckhead.
He's even labelled the velocity as "mag" (magnitude).
|
| > | >Simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
| > | >and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
| >
| >
| > I want to see JEERY simultaneously match the Doppler shift (radial velocity) curve
| > and the brightness curve of RT Aurigae.
|
| It is the responsibility of the individuals making the extraordinary
| claims (ANDROCLES and HENRI) to provide the extraordinary evidence
| (ability of their modified Sekerin theories to model all features of
| Cepheid variables).
|
| Which neither of you have done...
Dog ate your homework, fuckhead?
No, you didn't do any, bone idle bitch.
|
| > | I have shown them before.
| >
| > H, let the cartoon cat and mouse team Tom and Jeery do it, the lying phuckwits.
| > I want to see the brightness PHASE matched to the velocity phase, or
| > the JULIAN DATE matched to the velocity curve. That crucial data is ALWAYS
| > missing.
| > Why?
| > I'll tell you why. They are NOT in phase as the cheating idiots pretend.
| >
| > The gif at http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid6.gif is FAKED.
|
| If you take the extreme stance that all astronomers are grouped in a
| wild conspiracy to disprove a theory of Cepheid variability that most
| astronomers aren't even aware of, then there really isn't any hope
| for you.
Fuck off. I was talking to Henri, not you, mobster with the obstinacy of
a glutted adder.