Impossible Variable Star Curves Predicted by BaTh.
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 7 Jul 2010 21:01 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > >>BaTh is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. > > Hardly!. > Rather, the whole of modern astronomy needs to be rewritten after 100 > years of devastation caused by the hoaxer Einstein and his obsequious > followers. Considering you haven't stepped foot inside an observatory for nearly a half century, you are pretty goddamn sure about what needs to be done. > >>Jerry > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 9 Jul 2010 03:24 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. Jerry
From: Jerry on 9 Jul 2010 04:06 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. (snicker) Let's see now... 1) You agree that Cepheids are pulsators. 2) In order to explain their luminosity curves, BaTh requires that their surface layers have surface velocities on the order of several tens of kilometers per second. 3) This implies that that over the course of of a cycle, a typical Cepheid should vary in size by several million kilometers. 4) In other words, BaTh requires that a typical Cepheid should vary in diameter by something on the order of 30% or so. Yet you deny that these pronounced changes in Cepheid diameter have anything at all to do with their luminosity changes? That you actually NEED BaTh to explain anything at all??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Jerry
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 14:41 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. > > Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 9 Jul 2010 18:09
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 00:24:47 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> 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. hahahahhaha! Why don't you read up on the subject. It seems every astronomer has a different theory about cepheids. >BaTh is totally unnecessary and totally USELESS. Well it would be if it were not true. >> 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. One needs more than a count of individual photons to obtain cyclically curves, sometimes over many decades.. >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |