Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 7 [98 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Author Message
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:34 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead!

On 20 Jul 2006 04:38:01 -0700, "Sorcerer" <androc1es@hotmail.com> wrote:

 Quote: Henri Wilson wrote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:36:23 GMT, "Sorcerer"

'u' is the speed of the barycentre wrt Earth. The unified light ends up
traveling at something like c+u wrt Earth.

 Quote: In this instance, the + and - v's approach zero at about 0.3 LYs, for reasons unbeknown to me at this stage. I cal the process speed unifiction. UniFICTION is right. Work out how the star moves and then add the speed of light to that. This has nothing to do with the average brightness of the star anywhere.

Every star has an ' average brightness'.

 Quote: Fast light catches up with slow light. The total light for a complete orbit is | >My grandson would say that. You can't model a spectrum, Wilson. | | I can easily model a spectrum if I want to. My grandson would say that. I expect it from a child's mentality, but then he'd soon come around and ask me how it do it. Then I'd smile and show him. You can't model a spectrum, Wilson, and you are too senile to try, but you know you'd f*** up anyway, and so do I. I model the radial velocity vs time curves as they would appear near the source and the prediction of the BaTh here on Earth. I know you do, and it's a load of bollocks because the orbit is face-on.

I'll explain my method again. It is far simpler than yours.

First, cut out a paper ellipse and hold it in front of you at some kind of
oblique angle. Stick something through its centre to represent the LOS.

Now, if you rotate the ellipse around the LOS, at some point, there will be a
imaginary horizontal line through the paper ellipse plane that is also
perpendicular to the LOS. The LOS effetively has a horizontal T- join at its
end.

This happens no matter what the eccentricity or how the paper was originally
orientated.

Having found this particular position, the paper can now be rotated around that
horizontal axis to 'edge on'. The angle through which it is rotated is what I
define as pitch.
In the edge on position, the direction of the major axis defines my yaw angle.
(90 is my zero)

Put simply, I rotate the observer until a 'horizontal' line can be drawn at
right angles to his LOS, in the orbit plane.
One advantage of this method is that the pitch angle affects all points on the
predicted brightness curve by the same factor, as do velocity and distance.

Since published radial velocity curves automatically include pitch, I don't

 Quote: The spectral shift What spectral shift? Algol doesn't show one, you idiot. That's why Andersen can't show it to you, and you won't find one for WR20 either. The spectral shift is imaginary.

there are supposed to be two distinct spectral curves for Algol.

I say one is the refletion from the WCH known as 'androcles'.

 Quote: Nah! This is how we play: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/funnies.doc Ok... my ankle has stopped me from playing altogether.

My fucking ankle is stuffed too, right now. I can hardly walk on the bloody
thing. I don't think it's gout. Rather torn ligaments. Fucking painful...

big snip

 Quote: I accept that my 'yaw' and 'pitch' are not the conventional ones...but that doesn't matter. You are right, you called it roll, and that doesn't matter. What matters is that the angle is real. Without it you'll have a crackpot theory of unifuckation.

If you think about my method you will see how streamlined it is.

 Quote: If you butt in I'm going to plonk you, and I mean that. Now LEARN. APPROPRIATE message snipping is considerate and painless. Begin ------------------------------------- Suppose light from apastron reaches Earth at the same instant as light from periastron, with zero pitch. The light left apastron earlier. Suppose this orbit is 10 parsecs (33 LY) away. Now... if the orbit is moved to 20 parsecs away, and it is then pitched to 60 degrees (cos 60 = 0.5), light from apastron will reach Earth at the same instant as light from periastron. So... the light curves will be identical. The only difference is apparent magnitude, because of the inverse square law. Absolute magnitude is the same. Same curve, same period, same absolute magnitude, different distance. This is what Leavitt-Swan FOUND. This is why a cepheid is a standard candle. It has the same curve as a nearby cepheid, but its apparent magnitude gives us the distance. The distance divided by the time is the velocity, and it HAS to reduce for light from apastron to get here at the same instant as light from periastron, and that is exactly what happens. If we don't pitch the orbit, we get a different curve. Now take your time and think about it. Better yet, model it: T_apastron = 0 T_periastron = 1 T_arrive = 10 Dist = 10 Speed_apastron = Dist/ (T_arrive - T_apastron) Speed_periastron = Dist/ (T_arrive - T_periastron) Compute: Speed_apastron = 10/(10-0) = 1 Speed_peristron = 10/(10-1) = 1.1 Now change Dist to 20 and T_arrive to 20 Speed_apastron = 20/(20-0) = 1 Speed_peristron = 20/(20-1) = 1.05 The speed changes. Simple! If you keep the speeds the same, there will be two different times of arrival and that changes the shape of the light curve. Leavitt-Swan's discovery has now been explained, by ME. ------------------------------------ NOW you can comment.

OK.
Leavitt's relationship says that a cepheid's period is related to its absolute
brightness....which is reasonable because period naturally depends on size.
There is also an assumption that all cepheids having a particular oscillation
period are about the same temerature and are made of the same stuff.
Not only that, the presumed huffing and puffing must be spherically
symmetrical.

So by comparing the apparent brightness of cepheids with a particular period
with a known reference cepheid, their distance can be determined pretty
accurately.

I don't see that your claim is really the same as Leavitt's.
Introduction of pitch will f*** up the law completely.

Maybe cepheids really ARE huff-puff stars. That doesn't upset the BaTh analysis
of their brightness curves.

 Quote: There is still the assumption that period is accurately related to the cepheid's size and absolute brightness. We can no longer rely on that. Ok, you are correct, but remember, Leavitt-Swan is NOT saying all cepheids are identical. She was assuming a huff puff star and a group of them with SIMILAR curves and a short period is called a cepheid. They do not all have the same period. A longer period WILL make the change in magnitude greater. For example, you complained about the magnitude of S-Boo being 7 magnitudes, thinking it should be 1 - 1.5 mags, but you overlooked the period. S-Boo is a variable, but it is not considered a cepheid, it's period is 32 cycles in 22 years, or 8.25 MONTHS, not 8 DAYS. S-Boo's Jovian sized planet is in orbit roughly where Venus is in our solar system, but it has to be much further away than d-Ceph AND have a bigger tilt. I'm not going to name it, I own them all anyway and there are too many for me. You can have it, I don't seek glory. So there IS a period-magnitude relationship, and that is ANOTHER "proof" of the vector addition of velocities, as an ACCURATE computer model will show. Seven years ago I was hoping you'd improve on my work, but you've fucked up and want your own crazy theory, you fucking egotistical glory grabbing bastard with two noses. You really should study Sekerin's sketches. Mine were on the back of an envelope and I never saved them, I wrote a program instead.

I doubt if multiple imagery ever occurs.... because of speed unification.

 Quote: I gave you all the parameters...so the rest was easy.. Of course it is easy. I know the distance, 0.3 LY. What's the period, major axis, pitch, eccentricity and longitude of periastron? You forgot to give me those. BTW, eccentricity = 0.25, not 0.8

My figure was 0.28

 Quote: There will be some eclipsing binaries...but very few. ..and they probably wont remain eclipsing for very long due to external gravity effects and galactic rotations etc. You and your fucking probables. THERE ARE NO CLOSE BINARIES. CLOSE BINARIES VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

I don't see why? They aren't all that close.

 Quote: Get fucked you useless engineer.. I will when I find a woman interested in science.

The aren't any...different brains you know. ...like the one I have here at
present.

 Quote: Now wait a minute. This advance - if it occurs at all - is usually pretty slow and wont be noticed over a hundred years. Yeah, Jupiter's effect on Mercury is quite small, the sun always wins, being bigger and closer. http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html It's quite easy to program, though, all you need to do is accumulate error. Mathematicians understand error accumulation. Even Your Basic Moron pointed it out to you, and he's as thick as two short planks. Pity Einstein wasn't a mathematician, he left out Jupiter and came up with a crackpot theory. Kinda like you leaving out pitch and coming up with unifuckation or unifiction or whatever you call it.

Pitch is included.

 Quote: Stick to golf, Wilson, you'll never be scientist, you are another shithead like Einstein. Are you sure your name isn't Albert?

f*** him..

 Quote: Also, in the case of a WCH, it wony happen at all because the planet might be as big as the star. Fucking might bes and probables. You are full of s**t. ALL stars are ordinary. ALL light curves are MINE.

Now you're raving...

 Quote: Frankly I don't see why any advance should occur unless gravity has a finite speed or external factors apply. Real advance of perihelion of Mercury is caused by Jupiter.

Probably.

 Quote: This is modelling: http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html

Yes that's quite brilliant. It probably has the same computer integration
errors that mine has though.

 Quote: I would need more info This is simple: Fast light passes slow light emitted earlier. Therefore the image of the star by slow light is in a different position to the image of the star by faster light (and all images in between). Computation shows the trailing image has the faster light, and that will be evident in spectral line broadening, which two velocities (and all velocities in between) in the same spectrum. Plain as the two noses in your face. Here's the broadening: http://www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk/nova2z.jpg It's a photograph, raw data, so it isn't a fake, and it kicks unifuckation in the can, but reading a spectrum takes knowledge that you lack.

I'm not into SNs yet.

 Quote: Find the spectrum then, or model it. What's the point in my finding the spectrum, feeding its details into my program then generating the spectrum again? Oh come on! That's what modelling is all about. If you can match the real thing then you have a worthwhile model. That's what you did with WR20. You matched the real data, so your model is fair, but it has the wrong distance because you have no pitch. All I'm bitching about is the quality, not the concept.

It DOES have fucking pitch. Your curve include pitch twice.

 Quote: Program in only the lines for hydrogen from Altair, http://www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk/nova2z.jpg then you can change velocity and see what happens. Here's mine, and it is NOT very good. I was hoping you'd improve on it. void CreateHydrogenLines() { //Upper limit corresponds to 400 nm, lower limit 750 nm // these are mapped to pixels at 10 and 246 on the screen for a 256 wide spectrum //For Balmer series, k = 2 int a, k = 2; double line; for (a = 3; a<13; a++) // Balmer series { line = (double)(a*a - k*k)/((a*a)*(k*k)); line *= RYDBERG_H; line = 1.0/line; // meters line = line*1000000000.0; // nanometers to meters series[a-3] = line; } You won't see any spectral shift for Algol, which is why I MAGNIFY the shift. You can set the magnification to 1 and run again. | | >It doesn't need period because there is no way period can be | >determined for a point source. | | It does need period and the period of a variable star is known. Nope. It's a huff puff point source. It doesn't need an orbit, let alone a period. How does an engineer define 'period'? The time for one complete orbit. Huff puff stars don't orbit, they huff puff.

maybe, maybe not.

 Quote: What is says. The minute hand of a clock goes though 360 degrees of yaw if you look at it edge-on and 360 degrees of roll if you look at it face-on. Nobody pitches clocks. Irrelevant. It's an analogy. Your unifuckation is ridiculous, you can't model a recurrent nova.

I haven't tried.

 Quote: The brightness curve is for one PARTICULAR YAW ANGLE. Yaw angle doesn't change much with time. The luminosity curve is for one particular LONGITUDE OF PERIASTRON. Each point is a different yaw, you have 20,000 points and they all change with time, from one to the other.

What are you talking about? The ORBIT has a particular yaw angle wrt Earth. It
wont change much in 100 years.

 Quote: Model the spectrum then. Mercury nips along at 47 km/sec, that's faster than Earth.It should be, it's closer to the sun. That's a HUGE velocity. If it orbited in 70 hours instead of 88 days then HUGE would become ENORMOUS. An eclipsing binary has to have an ENORMOUS velocity, Algol and WR20 do not.

That's because we see velocity x cos(pitch).

 Quote: Androcles.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
T Wake
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead!

"Sorcerer" <androc1es@hotmail.com> wrote in message
 Quote: If you responded sensibly at the end of a paragraph without your ifs, maybes, could bes, probablys and other fucking speculations and stuck to facts it would become readable. Androcles.

Oh look, the retard boy with the Einstein crush has morphed again. Obviously
languishing in too many kill files for comfort.
androc1es@hotmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 132

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:38 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead!

Henri Wilson wrote:
 Quote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:36:23 GMT, "Sorcerer" wrote in message news:prnqb2h67qgoe93r4s6luutikrn41i88kn@4ax.com... | >Funny how I matched your curve exactly. | | it is easy to match the curve. It is fucking hard to prove I multiplied by cos(pitch) twice without saying I multiply by yaw twice, I do both in one routine. Call me names, Wilson, I don't give a s**t. But don't call me a liar or you'll be the one sued in court. | Trouble is the distance required is much smaller | than the actual. It doesn't need [distance/eccentricity/major axis/period/longitude of periastron/pitch] because there is no way [pitch/distance/eccentricity/major axis/period/longitude of periastron] can be determined for a point source. ( I left out yaw, the orbit passes through 360 degrees - I only called it yaw in my data entry, it is really longitude of periastron). A SCIENTIST attempts to discover these values. A fuckin' ignoramus like you says they don't exist. You can do it the hard way of you like.

Better than not doing it at all.

 Quote: What you don't realize is that my model doesn't use peripheral speed at all. It uses distance and time. The time is dt and the distance is dx. Rotate(&x,&y,&z); // pitch and yaw a point on the ellipse delta_x = old_x-x; // distance source moves toward observer old_x = x; // save for next computation v=delta_x/interval; // velocity source moves toward observer The set {dx, dy} gives me the distance to the next point. That happens to be a different velocity between all pairs of points. I don't treat pitch any differently to the way I treat yaw or roll. I'm a PROFESSIONAL, Wilson. You are an amateur (and a fuckhead). | | | >I don't need to cheat, Wilson, I'm an engineer, not a phuckwit physicist | >with "theories". | | There wouldn't be ANY engineers if physicists hadn't taught them the ropes.. | There wouldn't be ANY physicists if mathematicians (Newton first) hadn't taught them, and you are not a scientist, you are an amateur. Old rope is all you are good for. Being a physicist and not an engineer, I was able to devise a much easier way to program this problem.

Yeah, we know. Replace the pitch of the orbit with h-unifuckation.

 Quote: | >Hopeless at distance. | >The magnitude at 0.3 LY would be about -2 or -3. Fucking bright, | >there's an inverse square law to consider. | | The fucking absolute magnitude is not affected by the unification distance. Of course it isn't, but we plot apparent magnitude. Absolute mag is at 10 parsecs, 33 LY. not 0.3 LY. You just don't get it do you?

Of course I "get it", you stupid cunt. You leave out pitch to have you
own
fuckwit theory.

 Quote: Light from the star initially moves at c+v+u and c-v+u towards us from various parts of the orbit.

Ordinary geometry has the star moving with a x-component of
v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch).
is bullshit.

 Quote: In this instance, the + and - v's approach zero at about 0.3 LYs, for reasons unbeknown to me at this stage. I cal the process speed unifiction.

UniFICTION is right.
Work out how the star moves and then add the speed of light to that.

 Quote: This has nothing to do with the average brightness of the star anywhere.

Fast light catches up with slow light. The total light for a complete
orbit is
constant, but the distribution of that total is the light curve we see.
We are
not discussing average with a light curve. Average light is a flat
line.
If a guy busts his balls for 6 months and earns \$100,000, then rests
for 6 months, his average income for the year is \$50,000. f*** average.

 Quote: | >My grandson would say that. You can't model a spectrum, Wilson. | | I can easily model a spectrum if I want to. My grandson would say that. I expect it from a child's mentality, but then he'd soon come around and ask me how it do it. Then I'd smile and show him. You can't model a spectrum, Wilson, and you are too senile to try, but you know you'd f*** up anyway, and so do I. I model the radial velocity vs time curves as they would appear near the source and the prediction of the BaTh here on Earth.

I know you do, and it's a load of bollocks because the orbit is
face-on.

 Quote: The spectral shift

What spectral shift? Algol doesn't show one, you idiot. That's why
Andersen
can't show it to you, and you won't find one for WR20 either. The
spectral
shift is imaginary. There are observed spectral shifts for some stars,
but
not those two. The "shift" for a recurrent nova is spectral line
splitting
followed by the spectrum becoming "nebulous", meaning it shows no
information.
It has a galaxy spectrum. You are chasing rainbows if you can measure
velocity for Algol or WR20.

vs time curve
 Quote: is simply a consequence of this. Why bother? Its value are what I use as data anyway.

That's your fucking problem, you are too lazy and too incompetent to
program
a spectrum, so you say "why bother?" You get your data off the net,
where
a bunch of idiots like Phuckwit Duck and Tusselad LIE to make
themselves look
good in their own eyes. But they can't find the spectrum of Algol,
because it
shows NO velocity shift and nobody wants to publish that. Michelson was

one of the few that published a null result, a great scientist.

 Quote: | >to 6th magnitude with the naked eye, dimmer than 6th and it's trelescope | >time. | >1 magnitude is about the smallest change the average person can detect by | >naked eye. | | Yes, I think the figures are bullshit. | Most variables change by less than about 1.5 magnitudes. I know that, but you are not an observer of faint stars, you've no trelescope, so you don't know it first hand and can't check. You are certainly not a mathematician. Hipparchus listed the stars that could be seen in each constellation, described their positions, and rated their brightness on a scale of 1 to 6, the brightest being 1. This method of describing the brightness of a star survives today. Of course, Hipparchus had no telescope, and so could only see stars as dim as 6th magnitude, but today we can see stars with ground-based telescopes down to about 22nd magnitude. When astronomers began to accurately measure the brightness of stars using instruments, it was found that each magnitude is about 2.5 times brighter than the next greater magnitude. This means a difference in magnitudes of 5 units (from magnitude 1 to magnitude 6, for example) corresponds to a change in brightness of 100 times. With equipment to make more accurate measurements, astronomers were able to assign stars decimal values, like 2.75, rather than rounding off to magnitude 2 or 3. There are stars brighter than magnitude 1. The star Vega (alpha Lyrae) has a visual magnitude of 0. There are a few stars brighter than Vega. Their magnitudes will be negative. Astronomers usually refer to "apparent magnitudes", that is, how bright a star appears to us here at Earth. Apparent magnitudes are often written with a lower case "m" (like 3.24m). The brightness of a star depends not only on how bright it actually is, but also on how far away it is. For example, a street light appears very bright directly underneath it, but not as bright if it's 1/2 a mile away down the road. Therefore, astronomers developed the "absolute" brightness scale. Absolute magnitude is defined as how bright a star would appear if it were exactly 10 parsecs (about 33 light years) away from Earth. For example, the Sun has an apparent magnitude of -26.7 (because it's very, very close) and an absolute magnitude of +4.8. Absolute magnitudes are often written with a capital (upper case) "M". Yes I have studied all htat...and I canot imagine why astronomers stick with such a stupid outmoded system....but then, they still believe that all starlight travels to little planet Earth at c. The bible told them so.

'c' is there and back again.

Man is a traditional animal. Real science is for the few. I say "pitch
to the line
of sight", a professional astronomer says "inclination to the celestial
plane".
Plain, simple 4 or 5- letter English words aren't as good as 10 or 11-
letter words.

 Quote: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/MAG.HTML f*** knows how Ptolemy managed to increase the number of stars in Hipparchus's catalogue from 1080 to 1022, that looks like a decrease to me. Maybe Ptolemy couldn't see as well as Hipparchus. Certainly Wilson can't see a thing. I can look into the sky any night and see the whole layout of the Milky way, complete with spiral arms. The sky is usually so clear here, I can even see galaxies with a pair of binoculars.

Get a proper telescope on a clock driven equatorial mount, a CCD at the
eyepiece
and watch the sky on your computer monitor. Capture the same star,
night after night.
Overlay images and see for yourself. A CCD is a very crude
spectrometer,
you can find the three colours (RGB) of a pixel. A web cam is cheap.

 Quote: | >you left out pitch. How could anyone be that stupid? | | But photometric methods are widely used these days. | They can't be that far out. These are amateurs, like you, but they have telescopes, you have golf clubs and a bottle of wine. Even NASA calls a change from 1080 to 1022 an increase. They've got golf clubs and wine bottles too. http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/golf.html Nah! This is how we play: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/funnies.doc

Ok... my ankle has stopped me from playing altogether.
 Quote: | >Tell it to the tick fairies, I'm not listening anymore. You are a fucking | >lunatic. | | ....Takes one to recognise another.... A stupid comment. I'm not a musician, but I recognise Beethoven was. Beethoven was a cranky old bastard who wrote boring fucking music. I'm listening to one of his sonatas right now. Too fucking serious.

He was still the musician that I'm not. It doesn't take one to
recognise one.

 Quote: | >| CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT THE PUBLISHED RADIAL VELOCITY FIGURES TAKE PITCH INTO | >| ACCOUNT? | | >There are no radial velocities. | >We see c+v.cos (yaw).cos (pitch) and v is the tangential speed. | | That's right. | What we measure has pitch included. Of course it does, shithead. You taking it out means your distance is 0.3 LY. I didn't take it out f*** YOU.

It was there in your first attempt, but you called it roll. Now its
gone, so you took it out.
f*** YOU very much.

 Quote: | The major axis doesn't matter either. All I need is the period, and the maximum | radial velocity. Period is easy, but you have no idea of max radial velocity. Of course I know the maximum radial velocity. That is given in the published curves I use.

The only way to find that is from the spectrum, and you've never seen
the spectrum. They've cooked the fucking books. That's why you are
finding anomalies. They think Algol/WR20 is eclipsing, so it HAS to
have a velocity, but rather than admit they can't find it in the
spectrum they
invent it. Look ONLY at empirical data, never at calculation. Sticks in
water appear bent. It is light that is bent.

 Quote: If I know the maximum velocity

You don't. Forget the "if".

and the eccentricity, then I also know the
 Quote: velocity at every point around the ellipse. The distribution of velocities around an ellipse doesn't change with its size. That comes from Kepler's second law. After selecting a particular eccentricity, I set up arrays which contain both the peripheral velocity around the ellipse and the angle of the velocity vector in the orbit plane. For edge on orbits, I can rotate the major axis and easily calculate the velocity component towards Earth by just adding the yaw angle to each element of the 'direction' array. Having set a yaw angle, I then add pitch by rotating the ellipse around an axis perpendicular to the LOS, in the edge on orbit plane. That multiplies all my velocity values by cos(pitch). I can get any orbit configuration in this way, remembering that rotation of the observer around the LOS is not important as far as brightness curves are concerned. The important point is that measured and published radial velocity curves automatically include the unknown cos(pitch) factor....so I don't need it in the program. All I need is the maximum OBSERVED radial velocity and I can perform all the calculations I need.

Then get the spectrum, not some arsehole's calculation of what he
thinks it ought to be to fit his theory. They are all parrots anyway,
what one says another believes. People lie, even to themselves. Only
the true scientist is honest.

 Quote: I accept that my 'yaw' and 'pitch' are not the conventional ones...but that doesn't matter.

You are right, you called it roll, and that doesn't matter. What
matters is that the angle is real. Without it you'll have a crackpot
theory of unifuckation.

 Quote: To find it, you need to measure the speed of light and subtract 300,000 km/sec. How are you going to do that? Heck, you don't even know what "take away" means, you have two noses and four eyes, there are 24 inches between your noses and a mirror halfway between them. Fucking senile old dope. Doesn't even know what a virtual image is.

Attacking me isn't going to hide your blunder. You fucked up and now
you'll lie to save face. Only a true scientist is honest. When you can
admit you fucked up I'll stop rubbing it in. Yoo said count the inches,
so I count the noses as well. You have two noses. Senile old wabo
doesn't know what virtual inches are.

 Quote: Now calm down... all kidding aside, let me explain something to you, very simply. *** READ CAREFULLY** and do not knee jerk or interrupt. Comment or ask questions after you've read it all. If you butt in I'm going to plonk you, and I mean that. Now LEARN. Suppose light from apastron reaches Earth at the same instant as light from periastron, with zero pitch. The light left apastron earlier. Suppose this orbit is 10 parsecs (33 LY) away. Now... if the orbit is moved to 20 parsecs away, and it is then pitched to 60 degrees (cos 60 = 0.5), light from apastron will reach Earth at the same instant as light from periastron. So... the light curves will be identical. The only difference is apparent magnitude, because of the inverse square law. Absolute magnitude is the same. Same curve, same period, same absolute magnitude, different distance. That's right. If we double the distance and halve the velocity, we get the same curve.

You interrupted. f*** you, you inconsiderate bastard. I'd plonk you,
but you agreed with me so I'll let it go. I'll start over, you can

If you butt in I'm going to plonk you, and I mean that. Now LEARN.
APPROPRIATE message snipping is considerate and painless.

Begin -------------------------------------

Suppose light from apastron reaches Earth at the same instant as light
from periastron, with zero pitch. The light left apastron earlier.
Suppose this orbit is 10 parsecs (33 LY) away.
Now... if the orbit is moved to 20 parsecs away, and it is then pitched
to 60 degrees (cos 60 = 0.5), light from apastron will reach Earth at
the same instant as light from periastron. So... the light curves
will be identical. The only difference is apparent magnitude, because
of the inverse square law. Absolute magnitude is the same.
Same curve, same period, same absolute magnitude, different distance.
This is what Leavitt-Swan FOUND. This is why a cepheid
is a standard candle. It has the same curve as a nearby cepheid,
but its apparent magnitude gives us the distance.
The distance divided by the time is the velocity, and it HAS to
reduce for light from apastron to get here at the same instant as
light from periastron, and that is exactly what happens.
If we don't pitch the orbit, we get a different curve.

Now take your time and think about it. Better yet, model it:
T_apastron = 0
T_periastron = 1
T_arrive = 10
Dist = 10
Speed_apastron = Dist/ (T_arrive - T_apastron)
Speed_periastron = Dist/ (T_arrive - T_periastron)

Compute:
Speed_apastron = 10/(10-0) = 1
Speed_peristron = 10/(10-1) = 1.1

Now change Dist to 20 and T_arrive to 20

Speed_apastron = 20/(20-0) = 1
Speed_peristron = 20/(20-1) = 1.05

The speed changes. Simple!
If you keep the speeds the same, there will be two different times
of arrival and that changes the shape of the light curve.
Leavitt-Swan's discovery has now been explained, by ME.

------------------------------------
NOW you can comment.

 Quote: There is still the assumption that period is accurately related to the cepheid's size and absolute brightness. We can no longer rely on that.

Ok, you are correct, but remember, Leavitt-Swan is NOT saying all
cepheids are identical. She was assuming a huff puff star and a group
of them with SIMILAR curves and a short period is called a cepheid.
They do not all have the same period. A longer period WILL make the
change in magnitude greater. For example, you complained about the
magnitude of S-Boo being 7 magnitudes, thinking it should be 1 - 1.5
mags, but you overlooked the period. S-Boo is a variable, but it is not
considered a cepheid, it's period is 32 cycles in 22 years, or 8.25
MONTHS,
not 8 DAYS. S-Boo's Jovian sized planet is in orbit roughly where
Venus is in our solar system, but it has to be much further away than
d-Ceph AND have a bigger tilt.
I'm not going to name it, I own them all anyway and there are too many
for me. You can have it, I don't seek glory.
So there IS a period-magnitude relationship, and that is ANOTHER
"proof" of the vector addition of velocities, as an ACCURATE computer
model will show.
Seven years ago I was hoping you'd improve on my work, but you've
fucked up and want your own crazy theory, you fucking egotistical glory
grabbing bastard with two noses. You really should study Sekerin's
sketches. Mine were on the back of an envelope and I never saved them,
I wrote

 Quote: I then vary eccentricity and yaw until I get the right shaped | curve. The distance is then adjusted until the correct magnitude change is | achieved. Changing distance changes the shape of the curve, see Henri Wilson's first attempt. That was a better model, but it always crashed. Changing distance, velocity or sec(pitch) all have the same effect.

YES! You get the same shaped curve when you increase distance and
increase pitch, and Androcles' law says S Boo has the same curve as R
And, W And, because they have similar orbits which are like similar
triangles with sides Period, Distance, SemiMajorAxis (or radius,
approx) . The fly in the ointment is that I don't know the pitch.

W Boo is this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/period.gif
(last frame)
ALL light curves are MINE.

 Quote: | I can import any published curve into my program and adjust the vertical and | horizontal scales to get the best fit. While doing this I also fine tune the | yaw angle and eccentricity. It's a slow process but it works. It took me one minute to match the curve, 10 minutes for this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif Most of that was stretching the window to fit and creating the gif. I match ANY distance. I gave you all the parameters...so the rest was easy..

Of course it is easy. I know the distance, 0.3 LY.
What's the period, major axis, pitch, eccentricity and longitude
of periastron? You forgot to give me those.
BTW, eccentricity = 0.25, not 0.8

 Quote: | >There are no eclipsing binaries, and you've never modelled one. | | There must be some. It is a purely statistical thing. Nope. There ARE binaries, Sirius is a binary, but it has a 50 year period. It looks like this: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001006.html You can see both stars. There are no CLOSE binaries. Andersen is right about one thing, the tidal effect (Roche limit) would break the fucking things up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit Close binaries violate the laws of physics. You live close enough to the sea to know about tides. Get off that golf course and spend a day on the beach, drive some balls into the ocean. Watch the fuckin' water level change. Eclipsing binaries are pure imagination, the work of an 18-year-old with a wooden trelescope and no golf clubs. There will be some eclipsing binaries...but very few. ..and they probably wont remain eclipsing for very long due to external gravity effects and galactic rotations etc.

You and your fucking probables. THERE ARE NO CLOSE BINARIES.
CLOSE BINARIES VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

 Quote: | No. I've never bothered to model one because the result is pretty obvious. Good thing Michelson and Morley were a scientists. Michelson's result was pretty obvious until it wasn't. What you've just said shows you are not a scientist, you don't even think like one. Morley was a chemist, btw. Stick to golf, Wilson, you'll never be scientist. Get fucked you useless engineer..

I will when I find a woman interested in science.

 Quote: | What's that supposed to mean? | The planet's orbit has the same eccentricity and yaw (opposite) as the star. Yep. The star yaws through 360 degrees, yaw always changes like the hands of a clock. The angle to the line of sight that is periastron I called "yaw"... I knew what I meant, sorry for misleading you. My mistake. That's kinda like the hour hand, it has a yaw angle, the minute hand being the planet that goes all the way around while the hour hand moves slowly from 5 o'clock to 6 o'clock. That's advance of periastron. Your non-Keplerian model does that, but you only make half an orbit so you can't see it. You can actually see it in Bob Fritzius's model, and this one where a third body is involved, Jupiter. Now wait a minute. This advance - if it occurs at all - is usually pretty slow and wont be noticed over a hundred years.

Yeah, Jupiter's effect on Mercury is quite small, the sun always wins,
being bigger and closer.
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
It's quite easy to program, though, all you need to do is accumulate
error. Mathematicians understand error accumulation. Even Your Basic
Moron pointed it out to you, and he's as thick as two short planks.
Pity Einstein wasn't a mathematician, he left out Jupiter and came up
with a crackpot theory. Kinda like you leaving out pitch and coming up
with unifuckation or unifiction or whatever you call it.
Stick to golf, Wilson, you'll never be scientist, you are another

 Quote: Also, in the case of a WCH, it wony happen at all because the planet might be as big as the star.

Fucking might bes and probables. You are full of s**t. ALL stars are
ordinary. ALL light curves are MINE.

 Quote: Frankly I don't see why any advance should occur unless gravity has a finite speed or external factors apply.

Real advance of perihelion of Mercury is caused by Jupiter. Computed
advance that Bob has and you have is by error accumulation. A tiny
error at one point is added to the next point, then that has further
error added to it and the error grows. It's easy to prove, because your
method has a short STRAIGHT line between points. No matter how short
you make them, they are not curves. That's why we professionals use
Kepler's equation and you amateurs do not.

 Quote: This is total load of crap based on Einsteiniana. http://www.schulphysik.de/physik/perihel/Perihel.htm (no mention of Jupiter is made) Of course it's crap.

Yes, but did you read it? Leaving out pitch and putting in aninfection
or unifiction or unifuckation is Wilsoniana.

 Quote: The advance is primarily a remnant consequence of the way the planet was captured in the first place. My three body program shows that...nobody else has realised it.

You couldn't program a piss-up in a brewery, Wilson. You advance
perihelion WITHOUT a third body.

 Quote: This is modelling: http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html doesn't come up...

Does now.. Russian computer reliability.

 Quote: | >How fucking fast do think a comet is going as it passes through | >perihelion? | >You are fucking clueless, Wilson. | | What's the OBSERVED maximum radial velocity of Algol? Ask Andersen for the spectrum, or search the net. Happy hunting. I'm not driving for 4 hours on the M25 to get it for you when you are too lazy to put in pitch. I'm not even going to do it if you did put in pitch. Anyway, you don't need it because there is no way velocity can be determined for a point source. Haven't engineers heard of doppler shift?

No, of course not.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm

 Quote: | | >I dunno about life. | | Of course there's fucking life ....and a lot of it far more advanced than ours. | | You sound like a fucking christian. | Homo sapiens is nothing special. You reckon there are intelligent lobsters on Mars, then, that built the canals to get around the way we build roads? You sound like a fuckin' lunatic, probably because you are one. If I say I don't fuckin' know, I don't fuckin' know. f*** you and your "of course". Of course there a bright green flying elephants out there. There are at least 10 billion galaxies each with at least ten billion stars, all with planets, many with H2O. Why would anyone believe we are alone in the universe?

It's not a question of belief. I said I don't FUCKING KNOW!

 Quote: | I didn't say it WAS 0.3 lys. I said after about 0.3 LYs the fast light no | longer catches up with the slower light. I know you did. Fucking lunatic wants to leave out pitch to have his own theory. Almost as good as your red lobsters building canals on Mars. Lobsters are only red when you cook 'em. Then they are dead lobsters, but far more advanced than us. Beam me up, Scottie, there is no intelligent life down under. Fucking senile old dope.

There may be red lobsters in Mars, they could have built the canals
Lowell saw. Anyway, it's a red planet. There definitely are lobsters,
probably there are lobsters on Mars, which means there definitely are
lobsters on Mars. Fucking senile old wabo.
If I say I don't KNOW, then I DON'T know. I'm fucked if I'm going to
seriously attempt a theory, you raving lunatic. I work with data, not
conjecture.

 Quote: | >That's the curve you say can't happen because you've got your head up | >your own arse with your unifuckation. | | I can model V 1493Aql....but there's very little curve to go on. No you can't, unifuckation says it isn't possible for fast light to pass slow light. | | There are probably two stars involved. Or it could be from a double image. You and your probables and could bes. It could probably be you are fuckhead. It IS a double image, one behind the other, of the same star. That's why you have two noses and four eyes. I would need more info

This is simple:

Fast light passes slow light emitted earlier.
Therefore the image of the star by slow light is in a different
position to the image of the star by faster light (and all images in
between). Computation shows the trailing image has the faster
light, and that will be evident in spectral line broadening, which two
velocities (and all velocities in between) in the same spectrum.
Plain as the two noses in your face.
http://www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk/nova2z.jpg

It's a photograph, raw data, so it isn't a fake, and it kicks
unifuckation in the can, but reading a spectrum takes knowledge that
you lack.

 Quote: | Ah! That explains why you are obsessed with this curve. Yep.. I love curves, especially on women. Devil lobster worshipping I don't go in for, even if they are more advanced than us and build canals. England used Irish navvies (navigational labourers) to get its canals then we deported them because we ate all the lobsters. Oz, I think... Was your grandfather Irish, or just a labourer? I did have an Irish great grandfather actually....one, Patrick O'Neill....apparently he built one of Australia's first wineries...

Typical... couldn't get Guinness, I suppose.

 Quote: | >| It doesn't need pitch because there is no way pitch can be determined for | >a | >| point source. | | >It doesn't need eccentricity because there is no way eccentricity can be | >determined for a point source. | | That's not entirely true. THe radial velocity curve, if sufficiently accurate, | will indicate eccentricity. Find the spectrum then, or model it. What's the point in my finding the spectrum, feeding its details into my program then generating the spectrum again?

Oh come on! That's what modelling is all about. If you can match the
real thing then you have a worthwhile model. That's what you did with
WR20. You matched the real data, so your model is fair, but it has the
wrong distance because you have no pitch. All I'm bitching about is the
quality, not the concept.
Program in only the lines for hydrogen from Altair,
http://www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk/nova2z.jpg
then you can change velocity and see what happens.
Here's mine, and it is NOT very good. I was hoping you'd
improve on it.
void CreateHydrogenLines()

{

//Upper limit corresponds to 400 nm, lower limit 750 nm

// these are mapped to pixels at 10 and 246 on the screen for a 256
wide spectrum

//For Balmer series, k = 2

int a, k = 2;

double line;

for (a = 3; a<13; a++) // Balmer series

{

line = (double)(a*a - k*k)/((a*a)*(k*k));

line *= RYDBERG_H;

line = 1.0/line; // meters

line = line*1000000000.0; // nanometers to meters

series[a-3] = line;

}

You won't see any spectral shift for Algol, which is why I MAGNIFY the
shift. You can set the magnification to 1 and run again.

 Quote: | | >It doesn't need period because there is no way period can be | >determined for a point source. | | It does need period and the period of a variable star is known. Nope. It's a huff puff point source. It doesn't need an orbit, let alone a period. How does an engineer define 'period'?

The time for one complete orbit. Huff puff stars don't orbit, they huff
puff.

 Quote: | What's that supposed to mean? What is says. The minute hand of a clock goes though 360 degrees of yaw if you look at it edge-on and 360 degrees of roll if you look at it face-on. Nobody pitches clocks. Irrelevant.

It's an analogy. Your unifuckation is ridiculous, you can't model a
recurrent nova.

 Quote: | It doesn't need yaw...although again, an accurate velocity curve can throw some | light on yaw angle. | Yaw is found by matching the observed brightness curve with a predicted one. The brightness curve is for 360 degrees of yaw. You don't need yaw for a point source huff puff star. The brightness curve is for one PARTICULAR YAW ANGLE. Yaw angle doesn't change much with time.

The luminosity curve is for one particular LONGITUDE OF PERIASTRON.
Each point is a different yaw, you have 20,000 points and they all
change with time, from one to the other.

 Quote: | >Science doesn't need Wilson because Wilson is a fuckhead. | | Science certainly needs Wilson to drag it out of the muckheap.. You mean IN to the muck heap. Science needs intelligent, highly advanced canal building lobsters more than it needs Wilson... Hmm... I've never tried steamed Wilson with crab sauce. Fucking senile old dope.

Fucking stupid Wilsoniana, worse than Einsteiniana.

 Quote: | >close to the star, and HUGE velocities are not allowed, are they, fuckhead? | | Why do you think the planet must be small compared with the star? Because the star's velocity would be HUGE if it were the same size and I've seen the spectrum of Algol. Search the net for the spectrum of WR20 and tell me how HUGE it is. You can see it, I can't. It is supposed to consist of two identical stars.

That doesn't change the fact that the star's velocity would be HUGE,
and it doesn't show in the spectrum that you can't model.

 Quote: | WCH's can include dead stars, and large planets. ...really BIG... | Your ACL's are bloody useless. Then you'll have a really BIG velocity for the star, won't you? No.

Model the spectrum then.

Mercury nips along at 47 km/sec, that's faster than Earth.It should be,
it's closer to the sun.
That's a HUGE velocity. If it orbited in 70 hours instead of 88 days
then HUGE would become
ENORMOUS. An eclipsing binary has to have an ENORMOUS velocity, Algol
and WR20 do not.

 Quote: Read it off the spectrum from WR20 and tell me the mass of your WCH. You could use Kepler's third law. Wait... no you couldn't. You are fucking clueless, you can't count backwards from 12 and think there 24 inches between your 2 noses, you can only count forwards. I'll find a canal building lobster instead, they are more advanced than life down under. Fucking senile old dope. Stop writing these huge messages. You are becoming worse than Dishman and P(h)D combined.

Quit interrupting, then. Snip your s**t out and leave mine alone.

If you responded sensibly at the end of a paragraph without your ifs,
maybes, could bes, probablys and other fucking speculations and stuck
to facts it would become readable.

Androcles.
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:24 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead!

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:36:23 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

 Quote: "Henri Wilson" wrote in message news:prnqb2h67qgoe93r4s6luutikrn41i88kn@4ax.com... | >Funny how I matched your curve exactly. | | it is easy to match the curve. It is fucking hard to prove I multiplied by cos(pitch) twice without saying I multiply by yaw twice, I do both in one routine. Call me names, Wilson, I don't give a s**t. But don't call me a liar or you'll be the one sued in court. | Trouble is the distance required is much smaller | than the actual. It doesn't need [distance/eccentricity/major axis/period/longitude of periastron/pitch] because there is no way [pitch/distance/eccentricity/major axis/period/longitude of periastron] can be determined for a point source. ( I left out yaw, the orbit passes through 360 degrees - I only called it yaw in my data entry, it is really longitude of periastron). A SCIENTIST attempts to discover these values. A fuckin' ignoramus like you says they don't exist.

You can do it the hard way of you like.

 Quote: What you don't realize is that my model doesn't use peripheral speed at all. It uses distance and time. The time is dt and the distance is dx. Rotate(&x,&y,&z); // pitch and yaw a point on the ellipse delta_x = old_x-x; // distance source moves toward observer old_x = x; // save for next computation v=delta_x/interval; // velocity source moves toward observer The set {dx, dy} gives me the distance to the next point. That happens to be a different velocity between all pairs of points. I don't treat pitch any differently to the way I treat yaw or roll. I'm a PROFESSIONAL, Wilson. You are an amateur (and a fuckhead). | | | >I don't need to cheat, Wilson, I'm an engineer, not a phuckwit physicist | >with "theories". | | There wouldn't be ANY engineers if physicists hadn't taught them the ropes.. | There wouldn't be ANY physicists if mathematicians (Newton first) hadn't taught them, and you are not a scientist, you are an amateur. Old rope is all you are good for.

Being a physicist and not an engineer, I was able to devise a much easier way
to program this problem.

 Quote: | >Hopeless at distance. | >The magnitude at 0.3 LY would be about -2 or -3. Fucking bright, | >there's an inverse square law to consider. | | The fucking absolute magnitude is not affected by the unification distance. Of course it isn't, but we plot apparent magnitude. Absolute mag is at 10 parsecs, 33 LY. not 0.3 LY.

You just don't get it do you?

Light from the star initially moves at c+v+u and c-v+u towards us from various
parts of the orbit.
In this instance, the + and - v's approach zero at about 0.3 LYs, for reasons
unbeknown to me at this stage. I cal the process speed unifiction.
This has nothing to do with the average brightness of the star anywhere.

 Quote: | >My grandson would say that. You can't model a spectrum, Wilson. | | I can easily model a spectrum if I want to. My grandson would say that. I expect it from a child's mentality, but then he'd soon come around and ask me how it do it. Then I'd smile and show him. You can't model a spectrum, Wilson, and you are too senile to try, but you know you'd f*** up anyway, and so do I.

I model the radial velocity vs time curves as they would appear near the source
and the prediction of the BaTh here on Earth. The spectral shift vs time curve
is simply a consequence of this. Why bother? Its value are what I use as data
anyway.

 Quote: | >to 6th magnitude with the naked eye, dimmer than 6th and it's trelescope | >time. | >1 magnitude is about the smallest change the average person can detect by | >naked eye. | | Yes, I think the figures are bullshit. | Most variables change by less than about 1.5 magnitudes. I know that, but you are not an observer of faint stars, you've no trelescope, so you don't know it first hand and can't check. You are certainly not a mathematician. Hipparchus listed the stars that could be seen in each constellation, described their positions, and rated their brightness on a scale of 1 to 6, the brightest being 1. This method of describing the brightness of a star survives today. Of course, Hipparchus had no telescope, and so could only see stars as dim as 6th magnitude, but today we can see stars with ground-based telescopes down to about 22nd magnitude. When astronomers began to accurately measure the brightness of stars using instruments, it was found that each magnitude is about 2.5 times brighter than the next greater magnitude. This means a difference in magnitudes of 5 units (from magnitude 1 to magnitude 6, for example) corresponds to a change in brightness of 100 times. With equipment to make more accurate measurements, astronomers were able to assign stars decimal values, like 2.75, rather than rounding off to magnitude 2 or 3. There are stars brighter than magnitude 1. The star Vega (alpha Lyrae) has a visual magnitude of 0. There are a few stars brighter than Vega. Their magnitudes will be negative. Astronomers usually refer to "apparent magnitudes", that is, how bright a star appears to us here at Earth. Apparent magnitudes are often written with a lower case "m" (like 3.24m). The brightness of a star depends not only on how bright it actually is, but also on how far away it is. For example, a street light appears very bright directly underneath it, but not as bright if it's 1/2 a mile away down the road. Therefore, astronomers developed the "absolute" brightness scale. Absolute magnitude is defined as how bright a star would appear if it were exactly 10 parsecs (about 33 light years) away from Earth. For example, the Sun has an apparent magnitude of -26.7 (because it's very, very close) and an absolute magnitude of +4.8. Absolute magnitudes are often written with a capital (upper case) "M".

Yes I have studied all htat...and I canot imagine why astronomers stick with
such a stupid outmoded system....but then, they still believe that all
starlight travels to little planet Earth at c. The bible told them so.

 Quote: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/MAG.HTML f*** knows how Ptolemy managed to increase the number of stars in Hipparchus's catalogue from 1080 to 1022, that looks like a decrease to me. Maybe Ptolemy couldn't see as well as Hipparchus. Certainly Wilson can't see a thing.

I can look into the sky any night and see the whole layout of the Milky way,
complete with spiral arms. The sky is usually so clear here, I can even see
galaxies with a pair of binoculars.

 Quote: | >you left out pitch. How could anyone be that stupid? | | But photometric methods are widely used these days. | They can't be that far out. These are amateurs, like you, but they have telescopes, you have golf clubs and a bottle of wine. Even NASA calls a change from 1080 to 1022 an increase. They've got golf clubs and wine bottles too. http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/golf.html

Nah! This is how we play:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/funnies.doc

 Quote: | >Tell it to the tick fairies, I'm not listening anymore. You are a fucking | >lunatic. | | ....Takes one to recognise another.... A stupid comment. I'm not a musician, but I recognise Beethoven was.

Beethoven was a cranky old bastard who wrote boring fucking music.
I'm listening to one of his sonatas right now. Too fucking serious.

 Quote: | >| CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT THE PUBLISHED RADIAL VELOCITY FIGURES TAKE PITCH INTO | >| ACCOUNT? | | >There are no radial velocities. | >We see c+v.cos (yaw).cos (pitch) and v is the tangential speed. | | That's right. | What we measure has pitch included. Of course it does, shithead. You taking it out means your distance is 0.3 LY.

I didn't take it out f*** YOU.

 Quote: | The major axis doesn't matter either. All I need is the period, and the maximum | radial velocity. Period is easy, but you have no idea of max radial velocity.

Of course I know the maximum radial velocity. That is given in the published
curves I use.

If I know the maximum velocity and the eccentricity, then I also know the
velocity at every point around the ellipse. The distribution of velocities
around an ellipse doesn't change with its size. That comes from Kepler's
second law.

After selecting a particular eccentricity, I set up arrays which contain both
the peripheral velocity around the ellipse and the angle of the velocity vector
in the orbit plane. For edge on orbits, I can rotate the major axis and easily
calculate the velocity component towards Earth by just adding the yaw angle to
each element of the 'direction' array. Having set a yaw angle, I then add pitch
by rotating the ellipse around an axis perpendicular to the LOS, in the edge on
orbit plane. That multiplies all my velocity values by cos(pitch).
I can get any orbit configuration in this way, remembering that rotation of the
observer around the LOS is not important as far as brightness curves are
concerned.
The important point is that measured and published radial velocity curves
automatically include the unknown cos(pitch) factor....so I don't need it in
the program.

All I need is the maximum OBSERVED radial velocity and I can perform all the
calculations I need.

I accept that my 'yaw' and 'pitch' are not the conventional ones...but that
doesn't matter.

 Quote: To find it, you need to measure the speed of light and subtract 300,000 km/sec. How are you going to do that? Heck, you don't even know what "take away" means, you have two noses and four eyes, there are 24 inches between your noses and a mirror halfway between them.

Fucking senile old dope. Doesn't even know what a virtual image is.

 Quote: Now calm down... all kidding aside, let me explain something to you, very simply. *** READ CAREFULLY** and do not knee jerk or interrupt. Comment or ask questions after you've read it all. If you butt in I'm going to plonk you, and I mean that. Now LEARN. Suppose light from apastron reaches Earth at the same instant as light from periastron, with zero pitch. The light left apastron earlier. Suppose this orbit is 10 parsecs (33 LY) away. Now... if the orbit is moved to 20 parsecs away, and it is then pitched to 60 degrees (cos 60 = 0.5), light from apastron will reach Earth at the same instant as light from periastron. So... the light curves will be identical. The only difference is apparent magnitude, because of the inverse square law. Absolute magnitude is the same. Same curve, same period, same absolute magnitude, different distance.

That's right. If we double the distance and halve the velocity, we get the same
curve.

 Quote: This is what Leavitt-Swan FOUND. This is why a cepheid is a standard candle. It has the same curve as a nearby cepheid, but its apparent magnitude gives us the distance.

Assuming those with similar periods are similar in brightness and size.

 Quote: The distance divided by the time is the velocity, and it HAS to reduce for light from apastron to get here at the same instant as light from periastron, and that is exactly what happens. If we don't pitch the orbit, we get a different curve.

Well I don't have to pitch the orbit, I merely halve the speed, same thing
really...except a value for SPEED is data we have...and it includes pitch.

 Quote: Now take your time and think about it. Better yet, model it: T_apastron = 0 T_periastron = 1 T_arrive = 10 Dist = 10 Speed_apastron = Dist/ (T_arrive - T_apastron) Speed_periastron = Dist/ (T_arrive - T_periastron) Compute: Speed_apastron = 10/(10-0) = 1 Speed_peristron = 10/(10-1) = 1.1 Now change Dist to 20 and T_arrive to 20 Speed_apastron = 20/(20-0) = 1 Speed_peristron = 20/(20-1) = 1.05 The speed changes. Simple! If you keep the speeds the same, there will be two different times of arrival and that changes the shape of the light curve. Leavitt-Swan's discovery has now been explained, by ME.

There is still the assumption that period is accurately related to the
cepheid's size and absolute brightness. We can no longer rely on that.

 Quote: I then vary eccentricity and yaw until I get the right shaped | curve. The distance is then adjusted until the correct magnitude change is | achieved. Changing distance changes the shape of the curve, see Henri Wilson's first attempt. That was a better model, but it always crashed.

Changing distance, velocity or sec(pitch) all have the same effect.

 Quote: | I can import any published curve into my program and adjust the vertical and | horizontal scales to get the best fit. While doing this I also fine tune the | yaw angle and eccentricity. It's a slow process but it works. It took me one minute to match the curve, 10 minutes for this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif Most of that was stretching the window to fit and creating the gif. I match ANY distance.

I gave you all the parameters...so the rest was easy..

 Quote: | >There are no eclipsing binaries, and you've never modelled one. | | There must be some. It is a purely statistical thing. Nope. There ARE binaries, Sirius is a binary, but it has a 50 year period. It looks like this: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001006.html You can see both stars. There are no CLOSE binaries. Andersen is right about one thing, the tidal effect (Roche limit) would break the fucking things up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit Close binaries violate the laws of physics. You live close enough to the sea to know about tides. Get off that golf course and spend a day on the beach, drive some balls into the ocean. Watch the fuckin' water level change. Eclipsing binaries are pure imagination, the work of an 18-year-old with a wooden trelescope and no golf clubs.

There will be some eclipsing binaries...but very few. ..and they probably wont
remain eclipsing for very long due to external gravity effects and galactic
rotations etc.

 Quote: | No. I've never bothered to model one because the result is pretty obvious. Good thing Michelson and Morley were a scientists. Michelson's result was pretty obvious until it wasn't. What you've just said shows you are not a scientist, you don't even think like one. Morley was a chemist, btw. Stick to golf, Wilson, you'll never be scientist.

Get fucked you useless engineer..

 Quote: | What's that supposed to mean? | The planet's orbit has the same eccentricity and yaw (opposite) as the star. Yep. The star yaws through 360 degrees, yaw always changes like the hands of a clock. The angle to the line of sight that is periastron I called "yaw"... I knew what I meant, sorry for misleading you. My mistake. That's kinda like the hour hand, it has a yaw angle, the minute hand being the planet that goes all the way around while the hour hand moves slowly from 5 o'clock to 6 o'clock. That's advance of periastron. Your non-Keplerian model does that, but you only make half an orbit so you can't see it. You can actually see it in Bob Fritzius's model, and this one where a third body is involved, Jupiter.

Now wait a minute. This advance - if it occurs at all - is usually pretty slow
and wont be noticed over a hundred years. Also, in the case of a WCH, it wony
happen at all because the planet might be as big as the star.

Frankly I don't see why any advance should occur unless gravity has a finite
speed or external factors apply.

 Quote: This is total load of crap based on Einsteiniana. http://www.schulphysik.de/physik/perihel/Perihel.htm (no mention of Jupiter is made)

Of course it's crap.
The advance is primarily a remnant consequence of the way the planet was
captured in the first place.
My three body program shows that...nobody else has realised it.

 Quote: This is modelling: http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html

doesn't come up...

 Quote: | >How fucking fast do think a comet is going as it passes through | >perihelion? | >You are fucking clueless, Wilson. | | What's the OBSERVED maximum radial velocity of Algol? Ask Andersen for the spectrum, or search the net. Happy hunting. I'm not driving for 4 hours on the M25 to get it for you when you are too lazy to put in pitch. I'm not even going to do it if you did put in pitch. Anyway, you don't need it because there is no way velocity can be determined for a point source.

Haven't engineers heard of doppler shift?

 Quote: | | >I dunno about life. | | Of course there's fucking life ....and a lot of it far more advanced than ours. | | You sound like a fucking christian. | Homo sapiens is nothing special. You reckon there are intelligent lobsters on Mars, then, that built the canals to get around the way we build roads? You sound like a fuckin' lunatic, probably because you are one. If I say I don't fuckin' know, I don't fuckin' know. f*** you and your "of course". Of course there a bright green flying elephants out there.

There are at least 10 billion galaxies each with at least ten billion stars,
all with planets, many with H2O. Why would anyone believe we are alone in the
universe?

 Quote: | I didn't say it WAS 0.3 lys. I said after about 0.3 LYs the fast light no | longer catches up with the slower light. I know you did. Fucking lunatic wants to leave out pitch to have his own theory. Almost as good as your red lobsters building canals on Mars. Lobsters are only red when you cook 'em. Then they are dead lobsters, but far more advanced than us. Beam me up, Scottie, there is no intelligent life down under.

Fucking senile old dope.

 Quote: | >That's the curve you say can't happen because you've got your head up | >your own arse with your unifuckation. | | I can model V 1493Aql....but there's very little curve to go on. No you can't, unifuckation says it isn't possible for fast light to pass slow light. | | There are probably two stars involved. Or it could be from a double image. You and your probables and could bes. It could probably be you are fuckhead. It IS a double image, one behind the other, of the same star. That's why you have two noses and four eyes.

 Quote: | Ah! That explains why you are obsessed with this curve. Yep.. I love curves, especially on women. Devil lobster worshipping I don't go in for, even if they are more advanced than us and build canals. England used Irish navvies (navigational labourers) to get its canals then we deported them because we ate all the lobsters. Oz, I think... Was your grandfather Irish, or just a labourer?

I did have an Irish great grandfather actually....one, Patrick
O'Neill....apparently he built one of Australia's first wineries...

 Quote: | >| It doesn't need pitch because there is no way pitch can be determined for | >a | >| point source. | | >It doesn't need eccentricity because there is no way eccentricity can be | >determined for a point source. | | That's not entirely true. THe radial velocity curve, if sufficiently accurate, | will indicate eccentricity. Find the spectrum then, or model it.

What's the point in my finding the spectrum, feeding its details into my
program then generating the spectrum again?

 Quote: | | >It doesn't need period because there is no way period can be | >determined for a point source. | | It does need period and the period of a variable star is known. Nope. It's a huff puff point source. It doesn't need an orbit, let alone a period.

How does an engineer define 'period'?

 Quote: | What's that supposed to mean? What is says. The minute hand of a clock goes though 360 degrees of yaw if you look at it edge-on and 360 degrees of roll if you look at it face-on. Nobody pitches clocks.

Irrelevant.

 Quote: | It doesn't need yaw...although again, an accurate velocity curve can throw some | light on yaw angle. | Yaw is found by matching the observed brightness curve with a predicted one. The brightness curve is for 360 degrees of yaw. You don't need yaw for a point source huff puff star.

The brightness curve is for one PARTICULAR YAW ANGLE. Yaw angle doesn't change
much with time.

 Quote: | >Science doesn't need Wilson because Wilson is a fuckhead. | | Science certainly needs Wilson to drag it out of the muckheap.. You mean IN to the muck heap. Science needs intelligent, highly advanced canal building lobsters more than it needs Wilson... Hmm... I've never tried steamed Wilson with crab sauce.

Fucking senile old dope.

 Quote: | >close to the star, and HUGE velocities are not allowed, are they, fuckhead? | | Why do you think the planet must be small compared with the star? Because the star's velocity would be HUGE if it were the same size and I've seen the spectrum of Algol. Search the net for the spectrum of WR20 and tell me how HUGE it is. You can see it, I can't.

It is supposed to consist of two identical stars.

|
 Quote: | WCH's can include dead stars, and large planets. ...really BIG... | Your ACL's are bloody useless. Then you'll have a really BIG velocity for the star, won't you?

No.

 Quote: Read it off the spectrum from WR20 and tell me the mass of your WCH. You could use Kepler's third law. Wait... no you couldn't. You are fucking clueless, you can't count backwards from 12 and think there 24 inches between your 2 noses, you can only count forwards. I'll find a canal building lobster instead, they are more advanced than life down under.

Fucking senile old dope.

Stop writing these huge messages. You are becoming worse than Dishman and P(h)D
combined.

 Quote: Androcles

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Henri Wilson
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead!

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:54:54 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

 Quote: "Henri Wilson" wrote in message news:k2bpb21ejd88eh44tf3of42rcjdka30n12@4ax.com... | | >It's automatically included in Nature, Wilson takes it out so he can have | >his crackpot unifuckation theory and all worbits are wedge-on. Nutty as | >Lowell. | | You fucking cheated with Algol. You multiplied by cos (pitch) twice. I must have multiply by yaw twice, then: void Rotate(double *x,double *y, double *z) { double tx,ty,tz; tx = (*x) * CosYaw + (*y) * SinYaw + (*z) * 0.0; //rotation around z-axis ty = (*x) * -SinYaw + (*y) * CosYaw + (*z) * 0.0; tz = (*x) * 0.0 + (*y) * 0.0 + (*z) * 1.0; (*x) = tx; (*y) = ty; (*z) = tz; tx = (*x) * CosPitch + (*y) * 0.0 + (*z) * SinPitch; //rotation around y-axis ty = (*x) * 0.0 + (*y) * 1.0 + (*z) * 0.0; tz = (*x) * -SinPitch+ (*y) * 0.0 + (*z) * CosPitch; (*x) = tx; (*y) = ty; (*z) = tz; tx = (*x) * 1.0 + (*y) * 0.0 + (*z) * 0.0; //rotation around x-axis ty = (*x) * 0.0 + (*y) * CosRoll + (*z) * SinRoll; tz = (*x) * 0.0 + (*y) * -SinRoll + (*z) * CosRoll; (*x) = tx; (*y) = ty; (*z) = tz; } Funny how I matched your curve exactly.

it is easy to match the curve. Trouble is the distance required is much smaller
than the actual.
I acept the fact and create a new theory.
YOU on the other hand simply introduce cos(pitch) to make the distance equal to
the observed one without realising that you are inadvertently reducing your
radial velocities by the same factor.

 Quote: I don't need to cheat, Wilson, I'm an engineer, not a phuckwit physicist with "theories".

There wouldn't be ANY engineers if physicists hadn't taught them the ropes..

 Quote: | 'c' is SPECIAL. It is a universal constant and the speed of light wrt is | source. No more special than the muzzle velocity of a rifle. You've been indocrinated, and this says you are wrong anyway: http://www.physorg.com/news64851319.html http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm

It's wrong.

 Quote: | | >No it doesn't, yours has 0.3 LY clearly marked. Mine works at | >any distance. You have the wrong magnitude. | | I always match the published magnitude changes. Hopeless at distance. The magnitude at 0.3 LY would be about -2 or -3. Fucking bright, there's an inverse square law to consider.

The fucking absolute magnitude is not affected by the unification distance.

 Quote: | >| Mine shows the predicted 'observed' radial velocity/time curves as against | >the | >| true ones at the source. I don't need the spectrum, that's the easy part. | | >You can't model a spectrum, Wilson. | | I can if I want to...but I don't. My grandson would say that. You can't model a spectrum, Wilson.

I can easily model a spectrum if I want to.

 Quote: | to change by 6-9 according to the britastro site. | | I tried to email them but can't seem to get through for sme reason. Would you | mind asking them to clear this up. It's an amateur outfit, like the AAVSO. The thing is, magnitude isn't linear. A change of 9 to 16 is still dim to even dimmer, whereas a change from 1st to 2nd is bright to not quite bright and easier to measure. You can see 1st to 6th magnitude with the naked eye, dimmer than 6th and it's trelescope time. 1 magnitude is about the smallest change the average person can detect by naked eye.

Yes, I think the figures are bullshit.
Most variables change by less than about 1.5 magnitudes.

 Quote: | >| Instead of raving, why don't you have a look at that. | | >It's just a musunderstanding of magnitude Nobody is bothered except you, | >and you don't observe. | | How could it be that far out? 9 magnitudes is a change of about 2000x. The eye is logarithmic. You've never tried seriously observing. Sheesh, you left out pitch. How could anyone be that stupid?

But photometric methods are widely used these days.
They can't be that far out.

 Quote: | Bullshit. I have matched many curves and they ALL require that the distance is | much less than the Hipparcos one. | | This kind of consistency leads directly to a theory...a THEORY that light | speeds are unified after a certrain distance. Tell it to the tick fairies, I'm not listening anymore. You are a fucking lunatic.

.....Takes one to recognise another....

 Quote: | >Agreed simpler is better, but not without pitch. That's too simple. | >Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. | | f*** pitch.. | | | >| I told you, my use of pitch is not the conventional one. | | >Well, it should be, otherwise your distance os 0.3 LY. | | CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT THE PUBLISHED RADIAL VELOCITY FIGURES TAKE PITCH INTO | ACCOUNT? There are no radial velocities. We see c+v.cos (yaw).cos (pitch) and v is the tangential speed.

That's right.
What we measure has pitch included.

 Quote: | It is. But we only have (radial velocity x pitch) to go on. | We never know the pitch. | You just pick one out of the air to make your curves match. Too bad, you never know the distance, you never know the eccentricity, you never know the Major axis, all you know is the period and the magnitude. Tough beans, but there it is. All orbits with light curves are face on, Wilson.

The major axis doesn't matter either. All I need is the period, and the maximum
radial velocity. I then vary eccentricity and yaw until I get the right shaped
curve. The distance is then adjusted until the correct magnitude change is
achieved.
I can import any published curve into my program and adjust the vertical and
yaw angle and eccentricity. It's a slow process but it works.

 Quote: | >Look... you can make all curves at 0.3 LY. Then use the magnitude | >to approximate the true distance. That is what Leavitt-Swan | >did, in essence. She said "That's a cepheid curve - I'll use the | >magnitude to find the distance." | >I'm saying that "eclipsing binaries" are really cepheids and the same | >technique can be used on those as well. | | Eclipsing binaries aren't fucking cepheids....and cepheids aren't fucking | eclipsing binaries. There are no eclipsing binaries, and you've never modelled one.

There must be some. It is a purely statistical thing.

No. I've never bothered to model one because the result is pretty obvious.

 Quote: | Cepheids have typical yaw angles of 125-140. Fucking idiot, the planet goes all around 360 degrees, only the angle of periastron is 125-140.

What's that supposed to mean?
The planet's orbit has the same eccentricity and yaw (opposite) as the star.

 Quote: | >the surface.) " | | Load of crap based on Einsteiniana. | | >That's fuckin' ridiculous, a star cannot be a disc and also eclipse another. | >All this BS when the solution is c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch) where v is | >the tangential (peripheral) speed... it's fuckin' amazing the lengths people | >will go to to make idiots of themselves. | >What the f*** did an 18-year-old know about Roche limits? Roche | >wasn't born when Goodricke died. | >Algol remains an enigma because it is a star with planet "Androcles" | >in orbit around it, the orbit is face-on to us. | | No it isn't. If it were, its real tangential speed would be huge. The tangential speed of the Earth is 2pi * 93,000,000 miles / 1 year. 66,660 mph. 1111 miles/minute, 18.5 miles per second. Venus and Mercury are faster. That's huge. HST is doing 5 miles a second right now. Jupiter crawls along taking 12 years for an orbit, 8 miles a second. How fucking fast do think a comet is going as it passes through perihelion? You are fucking clueless, Wilson.

What's the OBSERVED maximum radial velocity of Algol?

 Quote: | | FFAAARRRKKK! You even argue when I agree with you. There are no special stars and no close orbit binaries. I can turn Algol into d-Ceph like this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif just by changing the longitude of periastron, eccentricity and pitch. The real stars have slightly different periods.

Yes I can do that just by changing the yaw angle and eccentricity. Having
established a basic shape using an edge on orbit, pitch (my definition) merely
reduces the height of the curve by the cosine factor.

 Quote: | >There are a LOT of planets, though. Our solar system is typical and far | >from unique. | | Of course. There is plenty of life out there. I dunno about life.

Of course there's fucking life ....and a lot of it far more advanced than ours.

You sound like a fucking christian.
Homo sapiens is nothing special.

 Quote: | | You KNOW the pitch of an aeroplane, you cannot determine the pitch of a point | source. And you can't determine the distance, but it's a fucking sight more that 0.3 LY. Pitching the orbit gets rid of your unifuckation.

I didn't say it WAS 0.3 lys. I said after about 0.3 LYs the fast light no
longer catches up with the slower light.

 Quote: | | >It's fuckin' impossible. A star with ANY movement in the line of | >sight has to vary in magnitude. | | Yes. | | >Here it is for increasing speed: | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/period.gif | | What the f*** is that??? The light curve of a star as its period is gradually reduced, making the orbit faster and faster, all other parameters remaining the same. The yellow frame shows V1493Aql modelled. I'll not live long enough to find the true period, it's around 200 years, like Pluto's. Sekerin and I were lucky enough to predict it a year before you attempted to program it and didn't succeed. That's the curve you say can't happen because you've got your head up your own arse with your unifuckation.

I can model V 1493Aql....but there's very little curve to go on.

There are probably two stars involved. Or it could be from a double image.

 Quote: | | >Got that, Wilson? Ya gotta have pitch! | | f*** gawd, Noah and his pitch! Ya gotta have pitch, lots and lots of lovely pitch. V 1493Aql is a long way off with no pitch, so the fast light passes the slow light and makes a double-horned nova. Now I see the breasts of a woman reclining, but you'd see the horns of the devil.

Ah! That explains why you are obsessed with this curve.

 Quote: | | It doesn't need pitch because there is no way pitch can be determined for a | point source. It doesn't need eccentricity because there is no way eccentricity can be determined for a point source.

That's not entirely true. THe radial velocity curve, if sufficiently accurate,
will indicate eccentricity.

 Quote: It doesn't need distance because there is no way distance can be determined for a point source.

It doesn't need distance.

 Quote: It doesn't need major axis because there is no way major axis can be determined for a point source.

It doesn't need the actual size of the major axis.

 Quote: It doesn't need period because there is no way period can be determined for a point source.

It does need period and the period of a variable star is known.

 Quote: It doesn't need yaw because a point source passes through 360 degrees.

What's that supposed to mean?
It doesn't need yaw...although again, an accurate velocity curve can throw some
light on yaw angle.
Yaw is found by matching the observed brightness curve with a predicted one.

 Quote: Science doesn't need Wilson because Wilson is a fuckhead.

Science certainly needs Wilson to drag it out of the muckheap..

 Quote: | >Not possible. All they can see is the same star going away and coming | >forward, | >it's a Martian canal again. | | A double image, maybe.. Who gives a f***? They won't show the raw data for it anyway. I could tell you why, but you are a fuckhead. Ask Andersen for the spectrum of Algol instead. That's been studied more and is the star that kicked all this aether and constant speed s**t off in the first place. Or find it yourself, you've got the 'net, you don't need a trelescope. I've seen it. | | | >| I would like to see more detail. If it is true, the second one could only | >be | >| refletion from the WCH because the brightness curve is that of a single | >star | >| orbiting a barycentre. | | >There isn't a second one. | | No. but there has to be a big WCH. I call it a planet, but even a WilsonCoolLight has a HUGE velocity when it is close to the star, and HUGE velocities are not allowed, are they, fuckhead?

Why do you think the planet must be small compared with the star?

WCH's can include dead stars, and large planets. ...really BIG...

 Quote: You are as self - contradictory as Phuckwit Duck, gawd knows why I even talk to you.

he's a fucking moron...

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Henri Wilson
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:26 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead!

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:17:25 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

 Quote: "Henri Wilson" wrote in message news:t78ob2dce07d9hebio2cr35e5fgu70e2td@4ax.com... | | >Ever wondered why HST wasn't called the Lowell Space Trelescope? | >It won't be called the Wilson Space Trelescope either. | | It would have to be called Wilson2 because there is already as Mt Wilson | telescope. That was not named after me incidentally, in case you thought it | waqs.. That's the name of the fuckin' mountain, not a trelescope. The point is, Lowell was a generally recognised scientist in his day and a general shithead afterwards.

Unlike you and I.

 Quote: | | That's right. | .and that is the speed that must be added to c in our programs. Like I said, | pitch is automatically included. It's automatically included in Nature, Wilson takes it out so he can have his crackpot unifuckation theory and all worbits are wedge-on. Nutty as Lowell.

You fucking cheated with Algol. You multiplied by cos (pitch) twice.

 Quote: | | >Oh, so you think the canals of Mars are at the wrong angles. | >I've got news for you. | >They don't exist, and neither do radial velocities, SHITHEAD. | | f*** the canals on mars. Nutty as Lowell. Take out pitch and replace it with unifuckation. You can't give up aether because Einstein has everyone indoctrinated with c (except me). Fuckin' 'c' this and 'c' that, like it was something special.

'c' is SPECIAL. It is a universal constant and the speed of light wrt is
source.

 Quote: | | I realise the truth is hard for you to accept. The truth is orbits are tilted, not seen edge-on so that Wilson can have his canals on Mars and unifuckation. 60 degrees, Wilson. cos 60 = 0.5. That's c + 0.5v Same curve at double the distance. That's the truth you find hard to accept. Fuckin' stupid old wabo. The orbit of WR20 is face-on, just a fraction of a degree is enough to make a light curve because of the enormous distance, you moron.

What the fucking hell have canals on Mars got to do with the pitch of a point
soiuource?

 Quote: | >that's my only reason for magnifying it, you cunt. | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algolspectrum.GIF | | How come my 'shitty' program gets the same curves as yours? No it doesn't, yours has 0.3 LY clearly marked. Mine works at any distance. You have the wrong magnitude.

I always match the published magnitude changes.

 Quote: | Mine shows the predicted 'observed' radial velocity/time curves as against the | true ones at the source. I don't need the spectrum, that's the easy part. You can't model a spectrum, Wilson.

I can if I want to...but I don't.

 Quote: | true. | Unfortunately not enough of this curve is given. Gotta live with the data available. http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/mizar.html Two doubles my arse. Certainly two stars both with planets, the rest is BS.

Yes. It sounds like bullshit to me. Why would any sane person think that all
starlight travels to Earth at c?

 Quote: | >One axiom is worth all the fucking theories you can muster. | >Dumbbell stars (WR20, Algol) huff-puff stars (d-Cep), recurrent novae, | >flare stars, all have their own theory. The principle of relativity is an | >axiom. | >That's why my program is called "Copernicus" and yours is called | >"Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty". | | ...but mine is a thousand times better than yours... And all worbits are wedge-on with points on them.

Perfect ellipses ..and 30000 points is enough.

 Quote: | a whole group of stars that are claimed to vary by about 7-9 magnitudes. Yet | their brighness curves are basically sinusoidal with no sharp peaks. eg, S Cas, | R Boo. LOL! Yeah, I see what you mean. Those numbers are fucked, though.

Yes. I think they might be. Maybe they forgot to take the logarith.

 Quote: 6 magnitudes is a nova, I'd be looking at novae every night. I'm sure I'd would have noticed it by now. Remember magnitude is logarthmic, a first mag star is bright, a 6th mag star is dim. The sun is about -27 mag. You cannot see a 16th mag without a trelescope.

Most variables change by less than 1 magnitude. ..but a smal group is claimed
to change by 6-9 according to the britastro site.

I tried to email them but can't seem to get through for sme reason. Would you
mind asking them to clear this up.

 Quote: There is a period of V 1493 Aql reported at http://www.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/Summary/v1493aql.html This is guessing: http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/rmaa/RMxAC..20/PDF/RMxAC..20_adobrotka2.pdf (They use pdf when they want to look more important)

....knowing that most of us hate pdfs and wont bother to look.
 Quote: | Instead of raving, why don't you have a look at that. It's just a musunderstanding of magnitude Nobody is bothered except you, and you don't observe.

How could it be that far out? 9 magnitudes is a change of about 2000x.

 Quote: | >You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory. | >You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch. | | You faked the bloody thing by adding pitch twice. I add pitch once, and I matched your curve. You confuse yaw with pitch. You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch. All pitch does is correct the same curve for distance. I have all distances, you only have one so you have to fake your lucky heather and produce Wilson's crackpot theory.

Bullshit. I have matched many curves and they ALL require that the distance is
much less than the Hipparcos one.

This kind of consistency leads directly to a theory...a THEORY that light
speeds are unified after a certrain distance.

 Quote: Agreed simpler is better, but not without pitch. That's too simple. Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.

f*** pitch..

 Quote: | I told you, my use of pitch is not the conventional one. Well, it should be, otherwise your distance os 0.3 LY.

CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT THE PUBLISHED RADIAL VELOCITY FIGURES TAKE PITCH INTO
ACCOUNT?

 Quote: | | I can produce ALL possible orbit configurations in this way. ..and yes, yaw | angle DOES change with pitch in my method. ...but that doesn't matter. Until you can account for distance, it matters. It's too bad we don't know exactly, but that's science, Nature doesn't give up her secrets easily. The trouble is I have to spend a month telling you how wrong you are and calling you names, because you are one of those cunts that think you are never wrong. You are WRONG, Wilson. Real orbits are further away than 0.3 LY and are pitched to the line of sight. Same curve, twice as far, 60 degrees pitch, cos 60 =0.5 Same curve, 4 times as far, 75 degrees pitch, cos 75 = 0.25 It's fuckin' simple.

It is. But we only have (radial velocity x pitch) to go on.
We never know the pitch.
You just pick one out of the air to make your curves match.

 Quote: Look... you can make all curves at 0.3 LY. Then use the magnitude to approximate the true distance. That is what Leavitt-Swan did, in essence. She said "That's a cepheid curve - I'll use the magnitude to find the distance." I'm saying that "eclipsing binaries" are really cepheids and the same technique can be used on those as well.

Eclipsing binaries aren't fucking cepheids....and cepheids aren't fucking
eclipsing binaries.
Cepheids have typical yaw angles of 125-140.

 Quote: That is something BIG, Wilson, something you've always wanted. There's a Nobel Prize in it if that's what you want. It doesn't bother me, I'm not seeking accolades, I seek truth about Nature.

Nobel prizes aren't much use where I'm heading...maybe P(h)D would like one.

 Quote: | | How do you know the pitch of Algol? I've no fuckin' idea what it is... if I did I'd know the exact distance. It's about 85 degrees, almost a face-on orbit. That's the best I can do. What it isn't is an eclipsing binary, that would violate all of physics. The tusselad cannot see the contradiction, he computes: "But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8. That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn. (This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) "

Load of crap based on Einsteiniana.

 Quote: That's fuckin' ridiculous, a star cannot be a disc and also eclipse another. All this BS when the solution is c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch) where v is the tangential (peripheral) speed... it's fuckin' amazing the lengths people will go to to make idiots of themselves. What the f*** did an 18-year-old know about Roche limits? Roche wasn't born when Goodricke died. Algol remains an enigma because it is a star with planet "Androcles" in orbit around it, the orbit is face-on to us.

No it isn't. If it were, its real tangential speed would be huge.

 Quote: | | >You've got your worms mixed up and pismounciated "radial". | >"Radial" is for huff puff, "tangential" (that you call "peripheral") is for | > worbits, you illiterate old goat, and you don't know roll from pitch. | > http://tinyurl.com/qs8bs | | I got nuttin' mixed up. I know what I'm doing. | | You include pitch twice. Bollocks. You are a Lowell, seeing canals on Mars that are not there, except you see foggy aether. It's amazing the lengths you'll go to justify your crackpot theory. Typical physicist, build one thing on top of another when you started out with a f***-up, just like Einstein.

Radio Engineers always did have an inferiority complex.

 Quote: | There could be stars that genuinely vary in brightnerss......but I doubt if | there are many of them. For one thing, the period wouldn't be dead constant as | it is with most observed ones. That type of constancy could only be obtained | with direct connection to an orbit period. Typical physicist, build one thing on top of another when you started out with a f***-up, just like Einstein. You'll never be a scientist. The brightness of a star will vary with it's AGE, there are no special stars.

FFAAARRRKKK! You even argue when I agree with you.

 Quote: There are a LOT of planets, though. Our solar system is typical and far from unique.

Of course. There is plenty of life out there.

 Quote: | | >Yes. We measure the tangential velocity, which is pitched to the line of | >sight. | >Put back pitch that you once called roll. | | You are totally confused. I don't confuse pitch with yaw or roll, Wilson. I was a flight simulation engineer and robotics engineer, I've lived with them throughout a career. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RotationMatrix.html That's second nature to me and a nice array of dots to you.

You KNOW the pitch of an aeroplane, you cannot determine the pitch of a point
source.

 Quote: | >f*** the tusselad, he's a moron. Of course it is in the direction of the | >Earth, that's the only line of sight we have. | | >Huff puff stars expand radially and are as big as worbits. They have to | >be to get the same shift. It's like our sun expanding out like a balloon | >to reach Mercury and back again in 5 days, totally stupid, and created | >by the aether with its controlling speed. It's Bullshit with a capital B. | | I agree it sounds very unlikely. It's fuckin' impossible. A star with ANY movement in the line of sight has to vary in magnitude.

Yes.

 Quote: Here it is for increasing speed: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/period.gif

What the f*** is that???

 Quote: | >| ger than others, | >some are older than others, but that's the only difference. What we see is | >illusion (or willusion as you call it). | | I agree. Then put in the fucking pitch! Sheesh, you are almost there after 6 years, why spoil the ship for a pot of tar? Stop up the leaks and it'll float. Gawd said to Noah: Make thee an ark of gopher-wood: rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. Got that, Wilson? Ya gotta have pitch!

f*** gawd, Noah and his pitch!

 Quote: | >shithead, he had nobody to teach him. The problem is, we die too soon. | >Newton | >would have straightened his arse out. I can't because Goodricke is dead too, | >and I can't straighten yours because you don't listen. | | > Now all the fucking stars are binaries, but we can only see | >the bright one. The dark one eclipses it, but it is just as fucking big, and | >cepheids are huff-puff stars and sticks in water are really bent. | >Physics is as dead now as its always been, only Newton shone briefly. | | ..now Wilson is taking over. Your wrongram sinks like a lead balloon. It needs pitch, otherwise it won't float on the Martian canals. Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.

It doesn't need pitch because there is no way pitch can be determined for a
point source.

 Quote: | >| >I'm asking you that. I can't see WR20 from here. | >| | >| It is WR20a | | >'a' for bright, 'b' for dark companion , but only one star. | >Show me WR20b if you can, it doesn't exist. The 'a' is bullshit. | >Show me the velocity curve of WR20, WCH's do not emit light, they are kewl. | | It is claimed that two identical spectra are observed, 180 out of phase. Not possible. All they can see is the same star going away and coming forward, it's a Martian canal again.

A double image, maybe..

 Quote: | I would like to see more detail. If it is true, the second one could only be | refletion from the WCH because the brightness curve is that of a single star | orbiting a barycentre. There isn't a second one.

No. but there has to be a big WCH.

 Quote: | | I fixed that. It was only a scaling error anyway. | | >I don't need a magnifying glass, you provided it. | >Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty are bent, just like | >real sticks in real water and Wombat Wilson's neuron. | | My orbits are elliptical to better than 0.01% Is that all? Sloppy. With 32 bit precision they should be better than that. No wonder you have points on them. | | It makes little difference to brightness curve predictions anyway even if they | are out by a few percent. I've tried it, I should know...so don't claim that is | bullshit. It makes a huge difference to the spectrum. 0.01% of 675,000,000,000,000 Hz. wow.. enormous error, you'll never succeed in finding the velocity.

It makes f*** all difference to the curve..

 Quote: Androcles.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Henri Wilson
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:28 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead!

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:33:18 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

 Quote: "Henri Wilson" wrote in message news:qdjmb2hjkeapc830q4l601tl1rcfv9315h@4ax.com... http://astro.nineplanets.org/twn/types.html Early in this [20th] century, there was a great debate as to the nature of the nebulae like this one which at that time could not be resolved into individual stars. Thanks in large part to the work of Edwin Hubble whose famous paper "The Realm of the Nebulae" finally put the issue to rest, we now know that these are really vast conglomerates billions of stars which are very much more distant from the Earth than other nebulae. Our own Milky Way galaxy is just one of the billions of galaxies now known to exist. A typical galaxy is 100,000 light-years in diameter. Ever wondered why HST wasn't called the Lowell Space Trelescope? It won't be called the Wilson Space Trelescope either.

It would have to be called Wilson2 because there is already as Mt Wilson
telescope. That was not named after me incidentally, in case you thought it
waqs..

 Quote: | >| No it's the 4D equivalent of a Klein bottle.....known as a 'Wilson | >manifold'. | | >I see. How very informative. | | Mobius strip -. Klien bottle -> Wilson manifold. I see. How very informative. The shithead that never learnt negative numbers, leaves out pitch and roll and thinks stars are spots is now an expert in topology. Pray tell us, expert, which metric are you using? Is it the Euclidian, the manhattan, the trelescopian... ah, of course... the wabonian. Please remind us once again what the wabonian metric is?

It spins around and comes back to you.

 Quote: | | The radial velocity is determined through observed doppler shifts. | Even I believe they are basically true. It is cos(pitch) multiplied by tangential velocity that is observed, stupid wabo.

That's right.
..and that is the speed that must be added to c in our programs. Like I said,
pitch is automatically included.

 Quote: | >Yes, cepheids puff up and down like blowfish, don't they, shithead? | >They are nice huff-puff stars with a radial velocity. | | Well I'm not convinced what they are. I cannot get decent radial velocity | curves. If you haven't got a trelescope, you won't have a sprectometer. I don't own a spectrometer either, but I know someone that does. But then, you can't even program a spectrum, can you? "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative positions and intensities of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a Doppler shift." --Tusselad http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/algols.gif | The only one I have, published by an obvious relativist crackpot, is | about 60 degrees out from what I would expect. Oh, so you think the canals of Mars are at the wrong angles. I've got news for you. They don't exist, and neither do radial velocities, SHITHEAD.

f*** the canals on mars.

 Quote: | | >You don't know the pitch, Wilson. | | I don't have to know the pitch. That is the beauty of my method. Yeah... the beauty of bullshit... lovely, isn't it? I am getting so fucking tired of you, cunt. I want some real criticism, not the word of a jackass.

I realise the truth is hard for you to accept.

 Quote: | No. Andersen said so. I will not be convinced until I get decent velocity | curves. You haven't programmed a spectrum. Mine isn't real, it's a teaching spectrum. Set it to x1 as it should be. The fucking pixels are too big, that's my only reason for magnifying it, you cunt. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algolspectrum.GIF

How come my 'shitty' program gets the same curves as yours?

Mine shows the predicted 'observed' radial velocity/time curves as against the
true ones at the source. I don't need the spectrum, that's the easy part.

 Quote: | Certainly, cepheid brightness curves can be matched with BaTh predictioed ones | but so can huff-puff stars. You can't match V1493 Aql. with huff puff.

true.
Unfortunately not enough of this curve is given.

 Quote: One axiom is worth all the fucking theories you can muster. Dumbbell stars (WR20, Algol) huff-puff stars (d-Cep), recurrent novae, flare stars, all have their own theory. The principle of relativity is an axiom. That's why my program is called "Copernicus" and yours is called "Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty".

....but mine is a thousand times better than yours...

There is one big problem with all of this, that I haven't solved yet. There is
a whole group of stars that are claimed to vary by about 7-9 magnitudes. Yet
their brighness curves are basically sinusoidal with no sharp peaks. eg, S Cas,
R Boo.

According to our method of determining brightness curves, there is no way this
can happen with just c+v and an ellliptical orbit. Either the observations are
grossly wrong or another factor is coming into play.

Instead of raving, why don't you have a look at that.

 Quote: | | >How do I change it, then? | | I dont have to. It is automatically included in the radial velocity data. I know *you* don't. I asked how do *I*, as the (sole) user of your wrongram, change it? You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory. You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch.

You faked the bloody thing by adding pitch twice.

 Quote: | >Yes, it is far too hard. I can't find it's combo box in your wrongram | >to change it. Where did you hide it? | | It is in my old program, www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe That had to be scrapped, it wasn't readable and came up with run-time errors.

I think they are now fixed...but the simple version is better anyway.

 Quote: BUT... The curve did not change when you set ROLL to 90 because Wombat Wilson didn't know the correct names for pitch and roll. When a plane rolls, wabo, it doesn't pitch into the ground, it also yaws. Rework your old program, take out the fucking dark colours, rename the Combo box called "ROLL" to "PITCH" and run it again. Or just use mine.

I told you, my use of pitch is not the conventional one.
I apply yaw angle to an edge-on orbit then tilt that around an axis which lies
in the orbit plane and is perpedicular to the LOS.

I can produce ALL possible orbit configurations in this way. ..and yes, yaw
angle DOES change with pitch in my method. ...but that doesn't matter.

 Quote: | >| fuckkkkkkkkk! | >Yep, you are fucked. | | >| Pitch is included, idiot. | | >I want to change it so that I get the right distance. Where is the combo | >box? | | Look, velocity, pitch and distance are linearly related. Program in the pitch, you had it before but called it roll. Then I'll look.

How do you know the pitch of Algol?

 Quote: | Changing any will have the same effect. | Like I said, all we have to go on are brightness curves and RADIAL velocity vs | time. You've got your worms mixed up and pismounciated "radial". "Radial" is for huff puff, "tangential" (that you call "peripheral") is for worbits, you illiterate old goat, and you don't know roll from pitch. http://tinyurl.com/qs8bs

I got nuttin' mixed up. I know what I'm doing.

You include pitch twice.

 Quote: | Hiuf-puff stars will behave very like stars in orbit. They don't refute the | BaTh even if they aARE huff-puffing. They actually support OUR theory. There are no huff puff stars, flare stars, eclipsing binaries, recurrently exploding stars, canals on Mars or foggy heather, and stick in water are not bent; but you are, you murderer of physics. Fortunately you can't murder mathematics, no matter how hard you try.

There could be stars that genuinely vary in brightnerss......but I doubt if
there are many of them. For one thing, the period wouldn't be dead constant as
it is with most observed ones. That type of constancy could only be obtained
with direct connection to an orbit period.

 Quote: | | >And senile. Huff-puff stars have radial velocities. Radial velocity along | >the star's radius. Worbits have tangential velocities. Tangent to the | >worbit. | | And that''s what we measure. Yes. We measure the tangential velocity, which is pitched to the line of sight. Put back pitch that you once called roll.

You are totally confused.

 Quote: f*** the tusselad, he's a moron. Of course it is in the direction of the Earth, that's the only line of sight we have. Huff puff stars expand radially and are as big as worbits. They have to be to get the same shift. It's like our sun expanding out like a balloon to reach Mercury and back again in 5 days, totally stupid, and created by the aether with its controlling speed. It's Bullshit with a capital B.

I agree it sounds very unlikely.
 Quote: | | I accept that definition, even though he is usually wrong. Great definition... the velocity of light we measure is along the line of sight. Where the f*** else could it be?

...and it automatically includes cos(pitch).

 Quote: | >Experience. First hand knowledge. Appreciation of the work involved. Fun. | >You can't see Algol, but you've got WR20 that I can't see, Carina is a | >southern hemisphere constellation. But, senility has set in. | | You should know... I do know. I even know the difference between radial velocity and tangential velocity, a huff puff star and an orbit. ALL stars behave the same. Boring, but true. Some are bigger than others, some are older than others, but that's the only difference. What we see is illusion (or willusion as you call it).

I agree.

 Quote: | | The whole of astrophysics is wrong, WRONG WWRROONNGG!!!!!!!!!!!! | Yes, it is, and it always has been. The problem has always been some shithead with his own theory, who cannot adhere to the principle of v+c, and that goes back to Ptolemy for whom the speed of light was infinite. More recently it was John Goodricke, 18 years old with a wooden telescope, pronouncing Algol was a binary. He was just a kid, for f***'s sake. Of course he was a shithead, he had nobody to teach him. The problem is, we die too soon. Newton would have straightened his arse out. I can't because Goodricke is dead too, and I can't straighten yours because you don't listen. Now all the fucking stars are binaries, but we can only see the bright one. The dark one eclipses it, but it is just as fucking big, and cepheids are huff-puff stars and sticks in water are really bent. Physics is as dead now as its always been, only Newton shone briefly.

...now Wilson is taking over.

 Quote: | >I'm asking you that. I can't see WR20 from here. | | It is WR20a 'a' for bright, 'b' for dark companion , but only one star. Show me WR20b if you can, it doesn't exist. The 'a' is bullshit. Show me the velocity curve of WR20, WCH's do not emit light, they are kewl.

It is claimed that two identical spectra are observed, 180 out of phase.
I would like to see more detail. If it is true, the second one could only be
refletion from the WCH because the brightness curve is that of a single star
orbiting a barycentre.

 Quote: | | >You get points on your worbits. | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG | >That's because you are half-arsed. | >Your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you won't | >use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch. | | Have a look at my orbits. They are produced on the screen every time | eccentricity is changed. If you believe they are not ellipses then go see an | optometrist. I can see this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG

I fixed that. It was only a scaling error anyway.

 Quote: I don't need a magnifying glass, you provided it. Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty are bent, just like real sticks in real water and Wombat Wilson's neuron.

My orbits are elliptical to better than 0.01%

It makes little difference to brightness curve predictions anyway even if they
are out by a few percent. I've tried it, I should know...so don't claim that is
bullshit.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Henri Wilson
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:14 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead!

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:29:33 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

 Quote: "Henri Wilson" wrote in message news:fdflb2dlbd82vmq6lvbcfra2n8qt5n3o4f@4ax.com... | >| I don't own a telescope. I can see enough stars here with my naked eye. | >They | >| look the same through a trelescope. Didn't you know that? | | | >Star through telescope: | > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060716.html | | That's not a star. The 12,258th on the left, 6,335th down from the top is most definitely a star. So are the other 997,343 of them. Didn't you count them? "In infrared light, however, dust glows more and obscures less, allowing nearly one million stars to be recorded in the above photograph." Perhaps you can't read either.

So what? All I can see is a lot of spots.

 Quote: | | > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060707.html | | that's not a star. Phuckwit Duck is very good at saying what things are not, too. What do you think it is, green cheese?

It's a fucking galaxy.

 Quote: | >You must be one of those astromomers without a telescope that | >thinks the universe is flat, | | No it's the 4D equivalent of a Klein bottle.....known as a 'Wilson manifold'. I see. How very informative.

Mobius strip -. Klien bottle -> Wilson manifold.

 Quote: | >I'm talking about your wrongram not allowing me to enter pitch. | | You can enter it if you like. You have to subtract it again later. Only if the universe is two dimensional.

Fucking stupid old bastard..

 Quote: | | >| It allows you to change fifteen different parameters. | | >Only 6 are essential. | >Distance | >Period | >Eccentricity | >SemiMajorAxis | >Yaw | >Pitch. | | You left out the most important....radial velocity. The angular velocity is approximately 2pi/period radians per day, and never constant. The radial velocity is approximately zero.

The radial velocity is determined through observed doppler shifts.

Even I believe they are basically true.

 Quote: | >You left out pitch because your universe is two-dimensional. | >You are a fucking moron. | | The available star data includes just radial velocity vs time and brightness | variation vs time. | The former includes pitch. Yes, cepheids puff up and down like blowfish, don't they, shithead? They are nice huff-puff stars with a radial velocity.

Well I'm not convinced what they are. I cannot get decent radial velocity
curves. The only one I have, published by an obvious relativist crackpot, is
about 60 degrees out from what I would expect.

 Quote: | >| (The only one I can find) doesn't match my predictions. This could be | >because | >| the author faked the bloody thing. He admitted to there being great | >| uncertainty. | | >There is a problem with a two dimensional universe and missing pitch. | | >v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch), Wilson. | | That's right. | I use edge on orbits to adjust yaw angle and then rotate around an axis | perpendicular to the LOS to adjust for pitch. You don't know the pitch, Wilson.

I don't have to know the pitch. That is the beauty of my method.

 Quote: | Thus, pitch and radial velocity are related directly by the cosine. | The observed radial velocities are (actual x cos(pitch)). | | All orbits can be obtained in this way. No no, cepheids are huff puff stars with radial velocity, Wilson. You said so.

No. Andersen said so. I will not be convinced until I get decent velocity
curves.
Certainly, cepheid brightness curves can be matched with BaTh predictioed ones
but so can huff-puff stars.

 Quote: | | | >X, Y and Z, Wilson. | > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatx.gif | > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmaty.gif | > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatz.gif | | >You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory. | >You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch. | | I don't leave out the pitch. How do I change it, then?

I dont have to. It is automatically included in the radial velocity data.

 Quote: | It is automatically included in the observed radial velocity data. | ....far too hard for an old pommie radio engineer... Yes, it is far too hard. I can't find it's combo box in your wrongram to change it. Where did you hide it?

It is in my old program, www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

 Quote: | >| >Forget fucking physics, physics is dead. Wilson killed it so he could | >| >promote | >| >his fucking MORON theory. | >| | >| It's all coming together now. I might publish it soon. I've only got about | >| another ten good years. | | | >You'll love to be laughed at on your death bed, you've wasted the last 6 | >bad years, what make you think you have 10 good ones? | | You're a waste of space as well as time. I'm sure. How do I change the pitch in your wrongram?

Forget it.You don't need it. Just plug in the maximum radial velocity.

 Quote: | >You are fucked. You faked the bloody thing. | > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely | >irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif | >Yours says: D= 0.3 LY | >Mine matches the data, but mine has pitch, I can match at ANY distance. | >You faked the bloody thing, you fucking STOOOPID drunken wabo. | | fuckkkkkkkkk! Yep, you are fucked. | Pitch is included, idiot. I want to change it so that I get the right distance. Where is the combo box?

Look, velocity, pitch and distance are linearly related.

Changing any will have the same effect.
Like I said, all we have to go on are brightness curves and RADIAL velocity vs
time.

 Quote: | | >ALL light curves are MINE, Wilson. I own them ALL. | >All planets discovered from light curves are mine too, including "Wilson's | >folly". | | My program can match ALL brightness curves. Yours is a heap of s**t.. I matched yours in a second and I got approximately the right distance. Where is the combo box for pitch, oh inventor of foggy aether?

f*** pitch.

 Quote: | >infinity. | >You should check for senility and sanity. | | 'c' is a universal constant. It is also the speed of light wrt its source. Yeah, sure. Wilson foggy aether keeps it that way, and cepheids are huff puff stars with radial velocity. We don't need pitch, no worbits needed either. Huff puff stars don't have worbits.

Hiuf-puff stars will behave very like stars in orbit. They don't refute the
BaTh even if they aARE huff-puffing. They actually support OUR theory.

 Quote: | >| Yes I know.... | | >of the computer is enormous. 2,500 cepheids is nothing to a computer. | >I've just installed a gigabyte of RAM and a 300 Gigabyte hard drive on | >my daughter's machine. My granddaughter fill the old one with pictures | >of herself, she's of that age now (in the middle of puberty, needs a | >tiny bra that will last about two months). It's great being a grandfather. | >I'll be building a second computer for my grandson soon. | | I'm already a great grandfather. And senile. Huff-puff stars have radial velocities. Radial velocity along the star's radius. Worbits have tangential velocities. Tangent to the worbit.

And that''s what we measure.

 Quote: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WorbitHuffPuff.bmp Physics is definitely dead.

Radial velocity, as defined by Andersen, is the component of orbital velocity
in the direction of Earth.

I accept that definition, even though he is usually wrong.

 Quote: | | Why do I want a fucking telescope when everything I need is on the 'net. Experience. First hand knowledge. Appreciation of the work involved. Fun. You can't see Algol, but you've got WR20 that I can't see, Carina is a southern hemisphere constellation. But, senility has set in.

You should know...

 Quote: The Astrophysical Journal 610 L109 (2004) Despite much theoretical and observational progress, there is no known firm upper limit to the masses of stars. Our understanding of the interplay between the immense radiation pressure produced by massive stars in formation and the opacity of infalling material is subject to theoretical uncertain ... Comment: ApJL, accepted MON.NOT.ROY.ASTRON.SOC. 316 143 (2000) We present new radio and optical observations of the colliding-wind system WR146 aimed at understanding the nature of the companion to the Wolf-Rayet star and the collision of their winds. The radio observations reveal emission from three components: the WR stellar wind, the non-thermal wind-wind ... Comment: 9 pages, 5 figures, ftp://fto.drao.nrc.ca/pub/smd/wr146/accepted.ps.gz To be published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society In other words they are fucking lost, groping in the dark, like you.

Bullshit.

I would burn ALL astronomy books that assume starlight travels at c to little
planet Earth.

The whole of astrophysics is wrong, WRONG WWRROONNGG!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Quote: | >| | >| >I'll leave it there. Physics is dead. Wilson murdered it. | >| | >| .....says the jealous radio engineer.... | | >It's true. Your curve is good enough for | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif | | where is the ''''''observed''''' doppler curve? I'm asking you that. I can't see WR20 from here.

It is WR20a

 Quote: | >use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch. | | I don't need Kepler's equations because I derive my ellipes straight from | Newton. You get points on your worbits. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG That's because you are half-arsed. Your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you won't use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch.

Have a look at my orbits. They are produced on the screen every time
eccentricity is changed. If you believe they are not ellipses then go see an
optometrist.

 Quote: | >I expect 10 bad years from you, just like the last 6. Physics is dead, | >Wilson, Roberts, Baez and Einstein murdered it. | | You will end up in a defamation court one of thhese days... Not when I can prove what I say. Your lawyer won't go near it unless you pay him a fat fee up front, and then you'd lose anyway. Fuckin' radial velocity... ROFLMAO! Dig a deeper hole, Wilson. You might make it to England yet.

f*** England. Too bloody cold for me... .and overrun with 'colonials'.

 Quote: Androcles.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Henri Wilson
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead!

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:04:28 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

 Quote: "Henri Wilson" wrote in message news:qb3kb211m5go8a4df059jaarkjdjis9gqf@4ax.com... | >In agreement with experience we further assume Wilson doesn't even own a | >telescope | >and has never investigated a star in his life. | | I don't own a telescope. I can see enough stars here with my naked eye. They | look the same through a trelescope. Didn't you know that? Star through telescope: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060716.html

That's not a star.

 Quote: They look different to me. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060707.html

that's not a star.

 Quote: You must be one of those astromomers without a telescope that thinks the universe is flat,

No it's the 4D equivalent of a Klein bottle.....known as a 'Wilson manifold'.

 Quote: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.PNG You should join FECES.

You ARE FECES.

 Quote: | Anyway, stars are boring unless one has the right gear and know what one is | looking for. | Anyway, grapes are sour unless one has the right gear and know what one is looking for, you jealous old fart.

f*** off pommie bastard...

 Quote: | | >Lying moron. There is nowhere in your program for me to enter a value. | >It's bad enough that you are a shithead without you having to justify it. | | What the f*** are you talking about? I'm talking about your wrongram not allowing me to enter pitch.

You can enter it if you like. You have to subtract it again later.

 Quote: | It allows you to change fifteen different parameters. Only 6 are essential. Distance Period Eccentricity SemiMajorAxis Yaw Pitch.

You left out the most important....radial velocity.

 Quote: You left out pitch because your universe is two-dimensional. You are a fucking moron.

The available star data includes just radial velocity vs time and brightness
variation vs time.
The former includes pitch.

 Quote: | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe | | | >Why don't you leave out eccentricity as well, Wilson? There is no way | >you can obtain a value for eccentricity, major axis, longitude of | >periastron, | >angle of inclination, period or distance when dealing with a point source. | >Cepheids are point sources that expand and contract, Wilson. We can see they | >do. | | There is a problem with cepheids. The claimed radial velocity curve of RT Aur | (The only one I can find) doesn't match my predictions. This could be because | the author faked the bloody thing. He admitted to there being great | uncertainty. There is a problem with a two dimensional universe and missing pitch. v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch), Wilson.

That's right.
I use edge on orbits to adjust yaw angle and then rotate around an axis
perpendicular to the LOS to adjust for pitch.
Thus, pitch and radial velocity are related directly by the cosine.
The observed radial velocities are (actual x cos(pitch)).

All orbits can be obtained in this way.

 Quote: X, Y and Z, Wilson. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatx.gif http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmaty.gif http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatz.gif You faked the bloody thing, the bloody thing being your crackpot theory. You faked the bloody thing by leaving out pitch.

I don't leave out the pitch.
It is automatically included in the observed radial velocity data.
.....far too hard for an old pommie radio engineer...

 Quote: | >Forget fucking physics, physics is dead. Wilson killed it so he could | >promote | >his fucking MORON theory. | | It's all coming together now. I might publish it soon. I've only got about | another ten good years. You'll love to be laughed at on your death bed, you've wasted the last 6 bad years, what make you think you have 10 good ones?

You're a waste of space as well as time.

 Quote: | >If I'm caught with my pants down, Wilson, I get red in the face and pull | >them up, laugh about it and get on with the job. | > What I don't understand is when you are caught with your pants down, you | > actually bend over to be fucked. You must be a masochist. | | >There is no way you can obtain a value for distance for a point source, | >so pitch is zero and the distance is 0.3 ly.-- Shithead Wilson. | | Don't lie. I didn't say anything like that....you fucking drunken pomm.... You are fucked. You faked the bloody thing. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif Yours says: D= 0.3 LY Mine matches the data, but mine has pitch, I can match at ANY distance. You faked the bloody thing, you fucking STOOOPID drunken wabo.

fuckkkkkkkkk!

Pitch is included, idiot.

 Quote: There is no way you can obtain a value for distance for a point source, so pitch is zero and the distance is 0.3 ly.-- Shithead Wilson, inventor of foggy aether. "Foggy aether" is trademark of Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty. ALL light curves are MINE, Wilson. I own them ALL. All planets discovered from light curves are mine too, including "Wilson's folly".

My program can match ALL brightness curves. Yours is a heap of s**t..

 Quote: | >You and I know that cepheids are ordinary stars with planets,and the only | > other people in the world that *know* it are Sekerin and Fritzius. | >I am the only person in the world that has pinpointed where | >Einstein's f*** up is, and you can't see it because you never learned | >negative numbers and think light has to go back to it's source | >to be a velocity. | | In recent posts, you have claimed both that 'c = 0' and 'c = infinity'. Yep, c is undefined in SR. 'c' is not the speed of light, 'C' is. | have you been checked for Alzheimer's recently? I don't need to, I still know what "undefined" means. c = 0 and c = infinity. You should check for senility and sanity.

'c' is a universal constant. It is also the speed of light wrt its source.

 Quote: | Yes I know.... | Do you beleive it? Androcles' Law? Of course I do, it's mine. Leavitt-Swan provided the real data for it. Her approximate distances can be refined from my law and the shape of the curve. That will really prove something BIG. Someday someone is going to do as big a task as the human genome project, building a huge database of light curves, professional and amateur, find best fit curves to them and KNOW distances within within one stellar unit (3.9 light years to Proxima Centauri). The power of the computer is enormous. 2,500 cepheids is nothing to a computer. I've just installed a gigabyte of RAM and a 300 Gigabyte hard drive on my daughter's machine. My granddaughter fill the old one with pictures of herself, she's of that age now (in the middle of puberty, needs a tiny bra that will last about two months). It's great being a grandfather. I'll be building a second computer for my grandson soon.

 Quote: | >observation I've turned into Androcles' law. | >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/Alaw.GIF | >This is really quite simple, mathematically. | >What Leavitt didn't know was that a cepheid is a star and planet. | >We know from Kepler's 3rd law that there is a relation between the | >period and the size of the orbit. | | ...and the mass of the central star... Ok... that too. The point is I can crunch data from a database to provide distances, but I don't have the database and damned if I'm doing data entry. As you know, the light curves have huge error bars on them, that needs cleaning up first. Most of it is from amateur astronomers anyway. Some are good, some not so good. You dont even have a telescope, let alone a calibration of the brightness of a star.

Why do I want a fucking telescope when everything I need is on the 'net.

 Quote: | >The shuttle has a period of about | >an hour and a half, a geosynchronous satellite has a period of | >a day and the moon has a period of a month. If you know the period, | >you know the size of the orbit.If you have those two parameters, | >you have the third from the shape of the light curve and Androcles' law. | >So we can find distance just from the period, because that gives us | >the size of the orbit, and finding distance is something BIG -- except-- | >it is fucked by the inclination of the orbit. Back to the drawing board. | | >Find a cepheid in another galaxy and you can estimate the distance to | >that galaxy. M31 is somewhere between 1.8 and 2.5 light years away. | >There are no observed distances, nobody has a tape measure that long. | | >If you find an observed distance, you've found a BIG tape measure, | >proving you a BIG idiot. | | >I'll leave it there. Physics is dead. Wilson murdered it. | | .....says the jealous radio engineer.... It's true. Your curve is good enough for http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MatchWilson.gif

where is the ''''''observed''''' doppler curve?

 Quote: but your distance is 0.3 LY, you can't match V 1492 Aql with it, you won't use Kepler's equation because you don't know how, and you killed pitch.

I don't need Kepler's equations because I derive my ellipes straight from
Newton.

 Quote: I expect 10 bad years from you, just like the last 6. Physics is dead, Wilson, Roberts, Baez and Einstein murdered it.

You will end up in a defamation court one of thhese days...

 Quote: Androcles.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 7 [98 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:12 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Compare and contrast physics and chemistry parent Chem 0 Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:26 pm WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 235) John Baez Research 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:32 pm Writing physics for the public and other matters - parano... Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:29 pm (OT) Moderator Vacancy Announcement: sci.physics.plasma Martin X. Moleski, SJ Relativity 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:05 pm