Impossible Variable Star Curves Predicted by BaTh.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 11 Jul 2010 02:56 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jul 10, 5:28�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 06:02:27 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > >> >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" >> >> Those are not my statements. What are you trying to achieve? > >No, those are not direct quotes, but they capture the essence >of some of your changed beliefs over the years. > >I forgot to mention that when I first started corresponding >with you, you held the position >"Cepheid periods are so regular and steady that you can set a >clock by them" That's right. Many ARE orbiting stars.....not huff-puffs. >Why are you complaining? -YOU- regularly make up absolutely >ridiculous made up nonsense quotes and ascribe them to Einstein. >I on the other hand have tried to document your changed beliefs >with some degree of accuracy. Crank, you have made a complete fool of yourself recently in every one of my posts. Why do you coninue to do so? >Do you deny that you at one time or another have held the >various utterly mistaken beliefs that I have ascribed to you? > >Do you claim, for instance, to have been successful in modeling >a ternary system with three closely interacting bodies of >comparable mass, such as would be necessary to model a bump >Cepheid? Crank, you are too brainwashed to understand any of this. Our sun has seven planets. If you consider only Saturn and Jupiter, its motion around the barycentre would constitute a three body situation. Seen from a vast distance, our sun would appear to vary in brightness mainly due to Jupiter but with an advancing 'secondary dip' due to Saturn. >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 11 Jul 2010 04:11 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > > Crank, you have made a complete fool of yourself recently in every one of > my posts. Why do you coninue to do so? You keep posting here despite having posted forged degrees. [snip rest]
From: Jerry on 11 Jul 2010 04:58 On Jul 11, 1:56 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > >I forgot to mention that when I first started corresponding > >with you, you held the position > >"Cepheid periods are so regular and steady that you can set a > >clock by them" > > That's right. Many ARE orbiting stars.....not huff-puffs. If you wish to believe that, and since you agree that stellar orbits are randomly oriented with respect to the Earth, then you -MUST- be able to cite as many stars with "regular dipping burster" luminosity curves as you can Cepheids whose luminosity curves result from their orbits. Name ONE such star. ONE. ONE. ONE. Only ONE. That is all that I ask. > >Why are you complaining? -YOU- regularly make up absolutely > >ridiculous made up nonsense quotes and ascribe them to Einstein. > >I on the other hand have tried to document your changed beliefs > >with some degree of accuracy. > > Crank, you have made a complete fool of yourself recently in every one of my > posts. Why do you coninue to do so? The truth, of course, is exactly the opposite. > >Do you deny that you at one time or another have held the > >various utterly mistaken beliefs that I have ascribed to you? > > >Do you claim, for instance, to have been successful in modeling > >a ternary system with three closely interacting bodies of > >comparable mass, such as would be necessary to model a bump > >Cepheid? > > Crank, you are too brainwashed to understand any of this. > > Our sun has seven planets. If you consider only Saturn and Jupiter, its motion > around the barycentre would constitute a three body situation. > > Seen from a vast distance, our sun would appear to vary in brightness mainly > due to Jupiter but with an advancing 'secondary dip' due to Saturn. What you have described is NOT a bump Cepheid luminosity curve. Try and model one as a ternary system with a STABLE orbit. Hint: You won't be able to. Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 11 Jul 2010 18:27 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jul 11, 1:56�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > >> >I forgot to mention that when I first started corresponding >> >with you, you held the position >> >"Cepheid periods are so regular and steady that you can set a >> >clock by them" >> >> That's right. Many ARE orbiting stars.....not huff-puffs. > >If you wish to believe that, and since you agree that stellar >orbits are randomly oriented with respect to the Earth, then you >-MUST- be able to cite as many stars with "regular dipping burster" >luminosity curves as you can Cepheids whose luminosity curves >result from their orbits. I didn't say all cepheids were orbiting stars. I said many of them COULD BE. The same applies to 'eclipsing' stars...although here, I would say the majority are just STARS with a large orbiting planet in a moderately elliptical orbit.. >Name ONE such star. > >ONE. > >ONE. > >ONE. > >Only ONE. That is all that I ask. Try using JUST ONE BRAIN CELL. That's all I ask. >> >Why are you complaining? -YOU- regularly make up absolutely >> >ridiculous made up nonsense quotes and ascribe them to Einstein. >> >I on the other hand have tried to document your changed beliefs >> >with some degree of accuracy. >> >> Crank, you have made a complete fool of yourself recently in every one of my >> posts. Why do you coninue to do so? > >The truth, of course, is exactly the opposite. > >> >Do you deny that you at one time or another have held the >> >various utterly mistaken beliefs that I have ascribed to you? >> >> >Do you claim, for instance, to have been successful in modeling >> >a ternary system with three closely interacting bodies of >> >comparable mass, such as would be necessary to model a bump >> >Cepheid? >> >> Crank, you are too brainwashed to understand any of this. >> >> Our sun has seven planets. If you consider only Saturn and Jupiter, its motion >> around the barycentre would constitute a three body situation. >> >> Seen from a vast distance, our sun would appear to vary in brightness mainly >> due to Jupiter but with an advancing 'secondary dip' due to Saturn. > >What you have described is NOT a bump Cepheid luminosity curve. > >Try and model one as a ternary system with a STABLE orbit. There are plenty. Any star that has two orbiting planets would have the brightness curve of a ternary system. >Hint: You won't be able to. It is simple. You simply don't understand what is involved here. ...but don't try...This subject is way beyond you... >Jerry > > > > >� Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 11 Jul 2010 21:25
On Jul 11, 5:27 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > > > > > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On Jul 11, 1:56 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > >> >I forgot to mention that when I first started corresponding > >> >with you, you held the position > >> >"Cepheid periods are so regular and steady that you can set a > >> >clock by them" > > >> That's right. Many ARE orbiting stars.....not huff-puffs. > > >If you wish to believe that, and since you agree that stellar > >orbits are randomly oriented with respect to the Earth, then you > >-MUST- be able to cite as many stars with "regular dipping burster" > >luminosity curves as you can Cepheids whose luminosity curves > >result from their orbits. > > I didn't say all cepheids were orbiting stars. I said many of them COULD BE. > The same applies to 'eclipsing' stars...although here, I would say the majority > are just STARS with a large orbiting planet in a moderately elliptical orbit.. > > >Name ONE such star. > > >ONE. > > >ONE. > > >ONE. > > >Only ONE. That is all that I ask. > > Try using JUST ONE BRAIN CELL. That's all I ask. ....meaning, of course, that you cannot find even a single example of such a system. Why don't you wake up and ponder the implications of that fact? > >> >Why are you complaining? -YOU- regularly make up absolutely > >> >ridiculous made up nonsense quotes and ascribe them to Einstein. > >> >I on the other hand have tried to document your changed beliefs > >> >with some degree of accuracy. > > >> Crank, you have made a complete fool of yourself recently in every one of my > >> posts. Why do you coninue to do so? > > >The truth, of course, is exactly the opposite. > > >> >Do you deny that you at one time or another have held the > >> >various utterly mistaken beliefs that I have ascribed to you? > > >> >Do you claim, for instance, to have been successful in modeling > >> >a ternary system with three closely interacting bodies of > >> >comparable mass, such as would be necessary to model a bump > >> >Cepheid? > > >> Crank, you are too brainwashed to understand any of this. > > >> Our sun has seven planets. If you consider only Saturn and Jupiter, its motion > >> around the barycentre would constitute a three body situation. > > >> Seen from a vast distance, our sun would appear to vary in brightness mainly > >> due to Jupiter but with an advancing 'secondary dip' due to Saturn. > > >What you have described is NOT a bump Cepheid luminosity curve. > > >Try and model one as a ternary system with a STABLE orbit. > > There are plenty. Any star that has two orbiting planets would have the > brightness curve of a ternary system. Uh, Ralph... The two planets will orbit the star with different periods. To model a bump Cepheid using BaTh, what you need is a stable configuration of two MASSIVE planets in independent orbits (i.e. not orbiting around each other) with the SAME period. That is an impossible scenario. (If you DARE try to mention Lagrangian points, that will only establish your stupidity.) Didn't you once establish that fact yourself, with your own orbital simulator? Jerry |