El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a BaTh simulation.
The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large planet.
Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and stop making complete fools of themselves.
There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a couple of days I was getting worried about ya. If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this: www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg
HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
> Here is another typical 'cepheid' brightness curve, easily matched with a > BaTh simulation.
> The apparent brightness variation is caused by changes in the emitted > light's speed towards Earth as the star orbits it barycentre with a large > planet.
Cephids aren't planetary systems.
> Just about ALL 'cepheid' curves can be explained in this way. 'Cepheids' > are not pulsating stars at all. When are astronomers going to wake up and > stop making complete fools of themselves.
>There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a >couple of days I was getting worried about ya. >If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this: > www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg
Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product (distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a particular factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same curve, as you should know.
> >There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a > >couple of days I was getting worried about ya. > >If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this: > > www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg
> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I > haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value > because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different > values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product > (distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a particular > factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same curve, as > you should know.
>> >There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a >> >couple of days I was getting worried about ya. >> >If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this: >> > www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg
>> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I >> haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value >> because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different >> values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product >> (distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a particular >> factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same curve, as >> you should know.
On 2009-11-21, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). <HW@> wrote:
> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I > haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value > because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different > values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively.
I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho catalog does not include parallax.
>>There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a >>couple of days I was getting worried about ya. >>If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this: >> www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg
> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. > I > haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value > because I cannot find reliable figures.
EXACTLY! Distance is the Holy Grail of Astronomy, that's why Hipparcos and Tycho were launched.
> Hipparcos and Tycho give different > values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product > (distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a > particular > factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same > curve, as > you should know.
> On 2009-11-21, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). <HW@> wrote: >> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes >> pitch. I >> haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value >> because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give >> different >> values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively.
> I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it > past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho > catalog does not include parallax.
http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/catalogs/tycho2.html The Tycho-2 positions and magnitudes are based on precisely the same observations as the Tycho-1 Catalogue (ESA SP-1200, 1997) collected by the star mapper of the ESA Hipparcos satellite, but Tycho-2 is much bigger and slightly more precise, owing to a more advanced reduction technique.
I shall ignore Hennessy's farting, he has his head up his arse.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill- filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:51:07 GMT, Greg Hennessy <greg.henne...@cox.net> wrote: >On 2009-11-21, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). <HW@> wrote: >> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I >> haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value >> because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different >> values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively.
>I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it >past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho >catalog does not include parallax.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oaqr0rs5encauipqm7v@4ax.com... >> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
>Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:51:07 GMT, Greg Hennessy <greg.henne...@cox.net> > wrote:
>>On 2009-11-21, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). <HW@> wrote: >>> Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes >>> pitch. I >>> haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured >>> value >>> because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give >>> different >>> values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively.
>>I usually ignore "Henry"'s blathering, but this note somehow made it >>past my kill filter. Henry is talking out his ass again, the Tycho >>catalog does not include parallax.
> > >There you are, you old bugger. When you didn't show for a > > >couple of days I was getting worried about ya. > > >If you want to space in a URL you need "%20", like this: > > > www.scisite.info/R%20Cru2.jpg
> > Note, 'velocity' is true radial velocity towards Earth. It includes pitch. I > > haven't bothered to set either distance or velocity at any measured value > > because I cannot find reliable figures. Hipparcos and Tycho give different > > values for parallax. 1.9 and 3.1 mas respectively. However, the product > > (distance x velocity) is the important factor. Reducing one by a particular > > factor and increasing the other by the same amount produces the same curve, as > > you should know.
On Nov 21, 8:02 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:16:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message > >news:o3afg5p8b70hcj1oaqr0rs5encauipqm7v@4ax.com... > >> Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
> >Except all experimental evidence supports it being correct
> Hey dopey, until now there hasn't been any evidence one way or the other.
>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway. >>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
Seeing you're a total moron and a liar, you could use as much boosting as you can get. Though how being continually shown that you are wrong boost your ego is anyone's guess. But then, you are a moron.
>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway. >>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
It gives me an ego boost to rub your nose in it, dopey. (Not really -- I don't have your ego, Henry Wilson 'D'opey 'Sc'um. ) "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..>
>>>Getting 1 out 3 right isn't the pass mark, and it was Galileo's anyway. >>>Why do you bother with fuckwits?
>> It gives me an ego boost to see how dopey they are.
> You once argued Einstein was correct, the ``time'' required by light to > travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
As the second postulate says the speed from A to B is the same as the speed from B to A, and as the distance is the same for two fixed points, then it must be the same time.
You've never shown it to be otherwise .. and you can't.
Even ballistic theory says that light travelling from A to B and B to A will behave that way (if A is the source) and you get the same time taken.
> It gives me an ego boost to rub your nose in it, dopey.
So .. Ralph was correct once upon a time. Must have been a fluke :)
> (Not really -- I don't have your ego, Henry Wilson 'D'opey 'Sc'um. ) > "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..>
|
