FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Physics is dead!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 7 of 7 [98 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:26 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

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

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> 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.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:k2bpb21ejd88eh44tf3of42rcjdka30n12@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:17:25 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> 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.
|
|
| >|
| >| 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.

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.

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

|
| >| >
| >| >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.

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

| >|
| >| 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?

You and Lowell have something in common. You both want your own theory
and you are both shitheads. For Lowell it was canals on Mars, for you it's
unifuckation.

|
| >| >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.

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.
|
|
| >| 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.



|
|
| >| 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?

These people are as sane as tobacco farmers. Money talks, never mind who
gets cancer, grow the crop. That's what it's about, Wilson. Money.

|
| >| >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.
|
| >| 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.
|
| > 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.

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.



|
| >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.

I don't mind them. It's just a pain downloading the reader the first time.


| >
|
| >| 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?


|
| >| >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.

Tell it to the tick fairies, I'm not listening anymore. You are a fucking
lunatic.

|
|
| >
| >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.


|
|
| >|
| >| 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.

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.

| >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.

| 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.

|
| >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.
|
|
|
| >|
| >| 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.
|
| >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.


| >| >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.

That's ok, I'm no extrovert. I'm a team player, but the fucking team
has to be sane.

|
| >| 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.

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.



|
| >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.

|
|
| >| >
| >| >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.

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.


|
| >| >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.
|
| >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.



|
| >
| >| >|
| 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!


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.


|
|
| >| >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.

It doesn't need eccentricity because there is no way eccentricity can be
determined for a point source.
It doesn't need distance because there is no way distance can be
determined for a point source.
It doesn't need major axis because there is no way major axis can be
determined for a point source.
It doesn't need period because there is no way period can be
determined for a point source.
It doesn't need yaw because a point source passes through 360 degrees.
Science doesn't need Wilson because Wilson is a fuckhead.




|
| >| >| >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..

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?

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


| >|
| >| 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..
|
| >Androcles.
| >
| >
| >
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
|
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

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

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> 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
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.

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...
Your ACL's are bloody useless.

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.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:prnqb2h67qgoe93r4s6luutikrn41i88kn@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:54:54 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> 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.

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.


| 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.

Sheesh... you are such a cretin... actually, it doesn't matter whether
I advertently or inadvertently realize anything, all that matters is that
the computer runs the correct model. All "realizing" comes later.

You computed a curve as you move the observer away, HW rev 1.
That idea was fine but the program had bugs.
Instead of just fixing the bugs, HW rev 2 changed the fucking model and
took out pitch, because Wilson had confused pitch with roll and Androcles
had said roll wasn't needed. Now Wilson is digging a hole, trying to justify
his stupidity instead of simply fixing the model.

If it had been me I'd have said..."Oops, you are right"... and fixed it.
Then we could go forward. But you want to fuckin' argue for a year, you
cretin, and I will fuckin' BURY you in the fuckin' hole you dug.

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.


| >
|
| >| '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.

Argumentative old cunt. You are fucked.

|
|
| >| >
| >| >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.

Of course it isn't, but we plot apparent magnitude. Absolute mag is at
10 parsecs, 33 LY. not 0.3 LY.




|
| >| >| 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.

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.

|

| >| 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.

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".

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.

|
| >| >| 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.

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


|
| >| 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....

A stupid comment. I'm not a musician, but I recognise Beethoven was.


|
| >| >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.

Of course it does, shithead. You taking it out means your distance is 0.3
LY.

|
|
| >| 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.

Period is easy, but you have no idea of max radial velocity. 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.

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.
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.



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.




| 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.




|
| >| >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.


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.

|
| 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.


|
| >| 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.

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.

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

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

|
| >| >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?

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.

| >|
| >| 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.

It doesn't need eccentricity because there is no way eccentricity can be
determined for a point source. FFAAAAARRRKKK! You even argue
when I agree with you.



|
| >| >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.

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.

|
| >|
| >| 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.

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.

|
| >| >
| >| >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.

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.


|
|
| >| >
| >| >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.

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?

|
| >|
| >| 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.


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

<shrug>


|
| >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.

<shrug>

|
| >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.



|
| >It doesn't need yaw because a point source passes through 360 degrees.
|
| 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.



| 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.


|
| >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.



|
|
| >| >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?

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.

|
| 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?
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.

|
| >You are as self - contradictory as Phuckwit Duck, gawd knows why I even
| > talk to you.
|
| he's a fucking moron...

Yep.. You are just like him, a mirror image. The cunt will never agree
a point when it is thrust under his two noses. So he plays silly fucking
games of troll, all physicists do. That's why I'm an engineer and not a
canal building lobster. I like a joke too, but I can't stand egotistical
stupidity.
Androcles
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:24 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

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

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> 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.

I would need more info

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.
Back to top
androc1es@hotmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 132

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:38 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

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


"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> 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).
The speed of light is added to that. Too bad, Wilson, your unifuckation
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
place your comments / questions at the end.

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
a program instead.






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
shithead like Einstein. Are you sure your name isn't Albert?

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.

I don't buy into Wilsoniana.
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.
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.



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.
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

"Sorcerer" <androc1es@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153395480.986530.186900@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
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.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:34 am    Post subject: Re: Physics is dead! Reply with quote

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" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
wrote:


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



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).
The speed of light is added to that. Too bad, Wilson, your unifuckation
is bullshit.

'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
have to worry about it.

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.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 7 of 7 [98 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:03 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Compare and contrast physics and chemistry parent Chem 0 Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:26 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 235) John Baez Research 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:32 pm
No new posts Writing physics for the public and other matters - parano... Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:29 pm
No new posts (OT) Moderator Vacancy Announcement: sci.physics.plasma Martin X. Moleski, SJ Relativity 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:05 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 1.0417s ][ Queries: 16 (0.7978s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]