Re: SR theory is simplistic

On Jan 31, 12:04 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 30 Jan 2007 16:05:15 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 30, 2:48 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 30 Jan 2007 06:18:34 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The program answers (a and b) and prints out a result as a graph of brightness
versus time.

Your lack of ability to read a simple sentence noted. I did not ask
for the RESULTS of the computer program. I did not ask for a verbal
sketch of what the program does. I asked for a MATHEMATICAL EXPOSITION
of the theory that informs the code. You seem profoundly unable to
understand what is being requested. Are you dense, Henri?

The radial velocity of an orbiting star is v cos(theta).

OK, most of the time, physicists begin by defining their terms. You
have not defined what v is, what theta is, and what the radial
direction is.

You are becoming quite an embarrassment to the relativity fraternity Draper.

The speed of its emitted light in the direction of Earth is c+(v cos theta).

The program initially draws the orbit (ellipse or circle) and calculates the
values of peripheral velocity

nor have you defined peripheral velocity

use your own fucking brain Draper.

and angle for about 30000 equi-temporal points
around the orbit. Yaw angle can be added to theta. Pitch angle is already
included in the observed radial velocity values.

Yaw and pitch being defined as what? You haven't even defined your
coordinate axes, Henri.

Forget it Draper. It's obviously far too hard for you.

The arrival 'density' of the pulses at the observer is an indication of the
observed brightness of the star.

OK, you should be able to derive a simple formula for the density of
the the pulses at the observer in terms of the rate of pulses emitted
at the star, and your terms v, theta, yaw, and pitch. Please provide
that formula.

Why the fucking hell would I want an equation when the computer will give me
the answer in seconds.

dn/dt=dn/dx.dx/dt, where dx/dt is close to c and dn/dx is the spatial
distribution.

This formula does not seem to do it, Henri. There's no dependence on
theta, yaw and pitch, and it's not immediately obvious that you mean
dx/dt to be v. Are you sure you know what you're doing? Is this the
extent of the math? Are you ashamed to be putting this up here in
public view, Henri?

You obviously haven't a clue what I'm talking about Draper.

I described the method quite explicitly. If you can't understand it that's your
problem.

Why, Henri, it isn't explicit at all. You haven't explicitly included
eccentricity, pitch or yaw in any of the "calculations" listed at all.

You're a liar, Henri. You've been caught. You've been caught before,
and you've been caught again.

What's sad is that you don't care. Your integrity doesn't matter to
you at all, possibly because you don't have any to begin with.

Why you pursue this in the light of such blatant transparency is
beyond me. For someone who is apparently aspiring to some sort of
legacy, you are producing exactly the opposite effect -- a lasting
laughing-stock.


Androcles' program uses the same principle and gets the same results.

My unification theory says that the relative movement between fast and slow
pulses effectively ceases after a certain distance, a distance that depends on
orbit period.

Please provide the math.

Also, you've provided no theory behind the Wilson Density Threshold.
Whatsoever.

that's a different matter.

One must have a model before one can provide the maths or the simulation.

Your consecutive dodges are quite illuminating, Henri. Sort of like,
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

If you understand how computer programs operate Draper you should know that
complicated equations aren't necessary.
The program does all the integrations etc., with iterative numerical
methods...and prints out the answers.

You should also understand that any competent programmer knows the
equation he's using a computer to numerically solve, especially if
it's as bonehead simple as this one is. You apparently are not a
competent programmer either. What exactly ARE you competent at, Henri?
Besides designing fans, I mean...

Draper, you are a born loser...don't blame me..

The best aspect is that the values of all relevant parameters can be changed
easily....yaw angle and eccentricity being the main determinants of brightness
curve shape.

Gee, and I see neither of those parameters in the math you attempted
(feebly) to lay out above. I wonder why...

The way the two are incorporated should be obvious to any physicist.

Somebody like De Sitter would have plodded for years doing what my program will
do in seconds.

Don't flatter yourself, Henri.

Well, it happens to be true.
There are literally billions of calculations involved in producing star
brightness curves.



Oh, never mind. I forgot. That's all you do.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Quantcast