"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message 
news:r2jok1h0hk5bvnina46g8ohtc73bmsoe48@4ax.com...
| On 10 Oct 2005 23:46:29 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote:
|
| >Androcles wrote:
| >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
| >> news:1128982791.314599.156180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >> | Androcles wrote:
| >
| >> | > Noise is noise. It's present in every observation;
| >> | > OJ Simpson's defence team amplified it and presented
| >> | > a very spiky graph to the jury, who allowed a murderer
| >> | > to go free.
| >> | > I've yet to see anyone present a perfect curve, all curves
| >> | > have error bars on them.
| >> | > Focus on the noise and that's what makes you
| >> | > a typical troll, I have no intention of explaining noise.
| >> |
| >> | The period noise present in the R Draconis light curve
| >> | is far beyond any conceivable error bars.
| >>
| >> Then it's data, not noise.
| >
| >"Period noise" is the accepted technical term for the
| >observed deviations in variable star light curves from
| >perfect regularity.
|
| So what is the Einsteinian reason for it?

Notice the phuckwit is handwaving?
Quit wasting time and plonk the troll!

|
| >
| >> | Take a look again at Henri's fit to this star:
| >> | http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
| >>
| >> Sure. A three-body (or more) system, could be type Sun-Earth-Moon,
| >> could be type Sun-Jupiter-Saturn. There are no analytical solutions to
| >> three-body systems.
| >> http://www.physics.cornell.edu/sethna/teaching/sss/jupiter/Web/Rest3Bdy.htm
| >> http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~megraw/CR3BP_html/cr3bp_bg.html
| >> "The three body problem is one of the oldest problems in dynamical
| >> systems."
| >
| >Old, yes. However, there are general rules of thumb as
| >to what might or might not be a stable configuration.
| >For instance, two close orbiting bodies, with a third
| >body orbiting the first two at a distance such that its
| >period is greater than 20 times that of the first two,
| >can generally be considered to be a stable system without
| >need for further analysis. Closer in, and you have to
| >examine each configuration on a case-by-case basis.
|
| So what is the Einsteinian explanation?

Notice how the phuckwit says "closer in"?
How the fuck is anyone supposed to get closer to R Drac?
Killfile the troll!

|
| >
| >> Given the number of planets and moons in our own solar system
| >> I would not expect H's solution to agree perfectly, or R Draconis to be
| >> a two-body system that he's modelled.
| >
| >The huge irregularities in orbital parameters that
| >would be implied by the observed light curves cannot
| >possibly correspond to a stable solution. Such an unstable
| >system would in all likelihood suffer rapid mass ejection.
|
| So what is the Einsteinian explanation?

Notice the troll is guessing? "would in all likelihood"...
Killfile the troll!

|
| >
| >> More interesting is the Lyra,
| >> http://www.astro.washington.edu/morgan/MRO/home.page/mro.observations/graphics/Figure2.html
| >> which I gave to Henri to model. He still owes me a bottle
| >> of Glenlivet on that.
| >> He doesn't have enough oscillations. I've been researching
| >> that "ringing" myself, but there is not enough data
| >> available in the plot. Henri is  hiding what I gave him.
| >>
| >>
| >> | R Draconis is a Mira-type variable which fluctuates between
| >> | 6.7 to 13.2 magnitudes over a period of 245 days. That is
| >> | a 160-fold ratio between maximum brightness and minimum
| >> | brightness!
| >>
| >> No need for the exclamation point, I understand magnitude.
| >> When slow light is actually passed by fast light emitted
| >> later, a NINE magnitude jump is quite easy to obtain.
| >> Observation:
| >> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
| >> Explanation:
| >> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm  (fig 3)
| >>

NOTICE NO ANSWER?
Perfect evidence, the troll ignores it completely.
PLONK the troll!



| >> | R Draconis is an extremely well studied variable.
| >> | AAVSO records 3000+ observations over the last five years,
| >> | so each recorded cycle is the result of an average of about
| >> | 400 estimates by dozens of observers. Averaged errors should
| >> | amount to less than a couple tenths of a magnitude, i.e.
| >> | less than 5% of the total min-max variation.
| >> |
| >> | The period noise visible in Henri's fit to R Dra corresponds
| >> | to a 30 day phase shift. It is impossible that this shift
| >> | could represent an artifact of a few incorrect observations.
| >>
| >> Correct. Another planet is not an artefact, nor are you seeing noise.
| >
| >Again, "period noise" is the accepted technical term, and no,
| >I do not buy the idea that what you propose could represent
| >a long-term stable configuration.
|
| So what is the Einsteinian explanation?

Who cares what the troll handwaves, buys, refuses to listen to
 reason, is willfully ignorant about?
Killfile the troll!

|
| >
| >> | Mira variables are well-known for exhibiting unstable light
| >> | curves.
|
| So what is the Einsteinian explanation?
|
| >
| >> Mira itself is a ghost image:
| >> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010121.html
| >>
| >> This explanation is nonsense, the product of a wild imagination:
| >> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050505.html


NOTICE NO ANSWER?
Why waste time on a troll?

| >>
| >> | > Put two children on a carousel and have them move with
| >> | > constant speed clockwise and counterclockwise.
| >> | > Start them off where you are standing beside the carousel
| >> | > and note where they meet again. You'll have the angle alpha.
| >> | > Ask them to walk slowly at carousel speed so that one child
| >> | > remains where you are and the other circumnavigates the
| >> | > carousel, the angle alpha will be zero.
| >> | > Pay for my trip to Disneyland and I'll demonstrate for you.
| >> | > I expect you are totally happy with Santa Claus as well.
| >> | > Since you are not permitted to observe the speed of light
| >> | > to be anything other than c, looking at Sagnac will stop
| >> | > your watch and your heartbeat; it is extremely dangerous.
| >> | >
| >> | > Dishman is of course a phuckwit, like Einstein. I'm just
| >> | > an ordinary crank. Best you listen to what phuckwits tell you
| >> | > instead of thinking. Typical troll, aren't you?
| >> |
| >> | Your handwaving analogy does nothing to advance your
| >> | case.

And if that doesn't finish it off, I don't know what does.
It WANTS to believe in fantasies, so let it.
Androcles.


| >>
| >> Not only are you a troll, you are a fuckwit as well.
| >> *plonk*
| >> Androcles.
| >
| >What does this "plonk" supposed to represent? It's the
| >second "plonk" that you've given me.
| >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c95e9301d3771533
| >
| >Jerry