Impossible Variable Star Curves Predicted by BaTh.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 9 Jul 2010 18:10 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:41:51 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Jerry wrote: > >> On Jul 8, 5:19 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 17:39:48 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >>> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >On Jul 7, 5:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 06:33:07 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >>> >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> >> >On Jul 4, 6:41 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >> Many are probably seen but are not regarded as important. Most would >>> >> appear as a one-off event. >>> >>> >Sorry, that "explanation" doesn't work. >>> >There is IMMENSE interest in astronomy in the unusual. >>> >>> >Over 3/4 of your predicted variable star luminosity curves are >>> >totally unrecognizable. For example, even a SINGLE example of >>> >what I might term a "periodic dipping burster" would generate an >>> >enormous number of dedicated studies... yet they do not exist. >>> >>> >What strange forces keep stars from adopting these combinations >>> >of yaw angle and eccentricity? >>> >>> >Your argument is weak and utterly pathetic. >>> >>> Naturally you are ignorant of the facts here. Your negative attitude >>> prevents you from learning anything new. Star orbits are completely >>> random. However 'cepheids' pulsate in a way that causes their surface >>> radial velocities to resemble stars orbiting in smallishly eccentric >>> orbits (e = 0.2-0.3). The apparent 'yaw angle' feature comes about >>> because of the unevenness of the outward and inward surface movements. >> >> Cepheid luminosity curves are COMPLETELY explained by their size >> and temperature changes. >> >> BaTh is totally unnecessary and totally USELESS. >> >>> It is very hard to obtain decent light curves from known periodic >>> variables let alone occasional ones. >> >> Bullshit. >> >> You are still living in the mid 20th century. >> Nowadays, CCDs count individual photons. > >Coincidentally that was the last time he was in an observatory and doing >something useful. > >I don't think he's researched much in physics since the 50's. When are you going to stop whinging and whining and say something intelligent? >> Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 19:26 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] >>Coincidentally that was the last time he was in an observatory and doing >>something useful. >> >>I don't think he's researched much in physics since the 50's. > > When are you going to stop whinging and whining and say something > intelligent? Around the time you apologize for posting forged degrees to me. > >>> Jerry > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 19:29 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] >>Let's see now... >>- >>1) You agree that Cepheids are pulsators. > > Many probably are....those with harmonics almost certainly.... although an > egg-shaped star would produce what appears sa harmonic. You seem pretty certain yet you have no direct observational evidence for this. Why's that? [...]
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 19:36 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > poor boy....just whinges and whines all day.... When are you going to publish your theory, Ralph? You've had more than a decade of USENET posting, and you show absolutely no uncertainty at this point. You've been posting the same programs for 5+ years, with the same explanations. What's the holdup? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 10 Jul 2010 09:02
On Jul 9, 6:29 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > [...] > > >>Let's see now... > >>- > >>1) You agree that Cepheids are pulsators. > > > Many probably are....those with harmonics almost certainly.... although an > > egg-shaped star would produce what appears sa harmonic. > > You seem pretty certain yet you have no direct observational evidence for > this. Why's that? > Hey, at least Henri/Henry/Ralph has shown some progress! In the last half dozen years, he's gone from "Cepheids are binary systems" to "Period noise and amplitude noise don't exist" to "Period noise and amplitude noise implies scintillation" to "Secular period changes don't exist" to "Secular period changes are extinction effects" to "RU Cam resulted from the star moving beyond the extinction distance" to "RU Cam must have resulted from a third star entering the system" to "Duh, the residual period of RU Cam is still the same?" to "OK, OK, secular period changes are real" to "Yeah, Polaris and other Cepheids also show evolution" to "Cepheids with bumps are ternary systems" to "How do YOU know that ternary systems can't be so stable?" to "Hey, Smarty! I've programmed an orbital dynamics simulator" to "Gee whiz, I can't model a stable ternary system with my simulator" to "Well, maybe SOME Cepheids, those with bumps, are pulsators" to "Androcles, I'm NOT being a traitor for admitting the possibility" to "Most Cepheids are pulsators" That's more progress than Androcles or Seto or Porat or... Jerry |