Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 01:36:22 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" <hw@..> wrote in message
news:hj7qt41clj5mch809gka8l8tpvuqcu20c5@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:23:03 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" <hw@..> wrote in message
news:215ot4t1b7fammb1i7fo9vqoffqvvmjkg0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:51:06 +0100, "Androcles"


Sure, but what it does mean is c+v is correct and constant and explains
recurrent novae by APPARENT retrograde motion. Slow light is passed
by faster light, contrary to your stupid unifuckation bull***. V
1493Aql
isn't the first nova with that type of curve, there are hundreds on
record.

My unificaTION THEORY DOES NOT RULE OUT fast light overtaking slow
light.

Then it isn't needed for anything at all.

If your program required a velocity figure you would soon realise why it
is
necessary.

It doesn't so it isn't. <shrug>



merely offers an explanation of why that phenomenon is not commonly
observed...

Distance is all the explanation needed, and that's fucking obvious.

The distance must match the observed Hipparcos one.

You can multiply by all the constants you want, my speed of light is one
and my semimajor axis is one and my period is 100. I've given one
concession, degrees instead of radians, but then I had to convert that.
It won't change my graphs, just the numbers written beside them.

The curve means little if you don't match it with known parameter values.


Nice try, but the image appears to go backwards for part of the orbit, as
shown by Sekerin. The actual velocity curve we see has to fold back on
itself. In practical terms that means the spectral lines split, although
I'm
not asking you to model that. I did that in Copernicus.exe.
I've already told you, set the parameters to 0.67, 67, 6.7, 670, 67
and that's the light curve.
Set the distance to zero and that's the TRUE velocity curve (nothing like
yours),

Have another look at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/vaql.jpg
The velocity curve at the star is shown in blue. (Distance = 0)

What use it that? What we need is the apparent velocity curve to match
against empirical data. You've matched the light curve fairly well, seen
at a distance, but your velocity is curve is as seen up close and can't
be matched to anything.

YOU just told me to set the distance at zero. I did. The blue curve is what a
close observer should measure.
I know it is of little value.

and if you increase the distance gradually you'll see the velocity develop
and
show a fold back.

If you are relying on conventional doppler shift, that is true. Do you
have the
observed curve for VAql?

Of course not, I don't have access to HST and neither do amateurs. I only
got the luminosity curve from the British Astronomical Society, nobody
got the changing spectrum. I did see a spectrum of a 1934 nova
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...410..357H
back in 1987 when I was first interested in the subject, that was described
by the professional as "nebulous" (meaning all the spectral lines blurred).

There is fair amount of data around now. You can get both oserved velocity and
brightness curves for many stars. One problem is to match the phases of the two
curves. YOU will never be able to do that with YOUR program.

I have discovered a second doppler effect that is based on the
acceleration of
the source. That would be significant at high eccentricities.

Oh yeah... <yawn>
Doesn't take much for you to get back to cloud cuckoo land, does it?

Let's see you match some V and B phases, eh.


Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

......
.

Quantcast