Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: bz on 18 Oct 2005 10:11 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in news:dj2ltk $drm$1(a)dolly.uninett.no: >> black body curves don't cross each other. > > Nobody said they do. > > They can appear to when they have been 'normalized' in some way. It is only if they are plotted on the same absolute magnitude scale that one would expect them not to cross each other. Add in emission lines and you could have crossings, even then. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Oct 2005 18:01 On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:22:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:03:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>So we can conclude that the spectral class is a very good >>>indication of the temperature >> >> >> I doubt it. > >Facts are facts even if you doubt them. > >>>It is generally much easier to determine the spectral class >>>of a star, than it is to determine where the spectrum peaks. >>>And the difference is more pronounced the fainter the star is. >>> >>>I will not insist that determining the spectral class by >>>recognizing the pattern of the absorption lines is >>>the only used way to determine a star's temperature, though. >>>The most used way is probably to measure the colour index, >>>also called B-V value. This is found by measuring the apparent >>>magnitude with a blue passband filter (B), and comparing this >>>to the apparent magnitude with a passband filter in the middle >>>of the visual range (green-yellow) (V). >>> >>>The reason why this method is much used is that it is >>>easy to do. Just take two pictures with two filters. >>> >>>I assume you will understand why this is a good indication >>>of temperature. It is nicely explained here: >>>http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys445/lectures/colors/colors.html >> >> >> That's bullshit. > >OK. >I overestimated you. >You do not understand why the (V-B) value is >a good indication of the stellar temperature >even when it is explained to you. > >> black body curves don't cross each other. > >Nobody said they do. The above paper seems to think they do. The B-V value is based on the fact that the red end of the cool stars has more energy per unit wavelength than the hot stars...and vice versa. >>>This method doesn't take the Doppler shift into consideration, though. >>>But few stars are so heavily Doppler shifted that it will affect >>>the measurements much. >>> >>>There are other methods as well. >>>Most are variations of the colour index method. >> >> >> All highly suspect. >> >> >>>But determining the position of the peak is very seldom >>>used, simply because it is practically difficult to do >>>with any precision. >> >> >> It should be quite OK for hot stars. >> >> >>>>>Thus you were wrong when insinuating that a spectral class >>>>>can appear different because of Doppler >>>> >>>> >>>>I think you are refering to chemical classifications rather than plain >>>>temperature. >>> >>>No. >>>A - say - G2 star can have different chemical compositions >>>and still be a G2 star. Sure the spectra of a population I >>>(metal rich) and a population II (metal poor) star are different, >>>that's how we can discriminate between them. >>>But the differences are small compared to what they have in common, >>>so if they have the same temperature, the spectral class will >>>still be the same. >>> >>>You cannot flee from the fact that you were wrong >>>when insinuating that a spectral class >>>can appear different because of Doppler >> >> >> Well I think the whole process is very suspect and even theoretically unsound. > >Your opinion of the "process" does not change the fact >that you were wrong when insinuating that a spectral class >can appear different because of Doppler I was referring to the doppler shift of the peak of the Planckian curve. You will have to ask Androcles about the other. You seem to have your colours all wrong. >>>spectrum is a B8 spectrum reflected off a planet. >> >> >> Strange things can happen >> You canot judge the whole universe by what we see in OUR solar system. > >Strange things can happen, but a planet will never >reflect a K2 spectrum when it is illuminated by a B8 star. It might be illuminated by a B8 star. >>>>This is what it really looks like: >>>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/alg2.jpg >>> >>>Thanks for confirming my words. >>>You cannot show the light curve which is "distinctly >>>downwardly concave between the two major dips", >>>because it only exists in your imagination. >> >> >> Hey tusselad, the one I gave here showed how the inclusion of molecular source >> speeds could make curve fitting rather difficult. Concave could be 'drawn' >> convex. >> >> Have a look at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/pa1.jpg >> for typical BaTh prediction for stars in highly eccentric orbits. >> >> The curve on the right is interesting. >> A second dip can be produced if a small second star is present in the primary >> orbit but following 180 degrees behind the main star. >> The lower curves show the type of spread produced when source speeds averaging >> 1000m/s are included. > >The fact remains: >You claimed that the light curve of Algol is "distinctly >downwardly concave between the two major dips", >but you cannot show the light curve which is "distinctly >downwardly concave between the two major dips", >because it only exists in your imagination. Are you stupid or something? Have another look. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/pa1.jpg All these curves distinctly dip concavely down between the two main dips. the one you referred me to has a rise between the two main dips. I showed how thermal source speeds could cause such a mistaken interpretation...particularly in situations where the author knew the answer he 'wanted' beforehand. >>>Can you please explain in what way this light curve is illusory? >> >> >> It is willusory by definition. >> Because light is used for gaining information about the star, it is a >> willusion. >> The task is to find te truth that causes the willusion. > >If light curves are illusory by definition, why are you >then so eager to make your program produce those illusions? > >You know you are babbling nonsense now, of course. Paul, you cannot grasp the logic behind all this. Maybe all Norwegians lack something. The whole idea is to construct a model that will use presumed REAL data to produce the willusion. The willusion is all we have to go on. >>>>>The ballistic theory does NOT predict such a difference. >>>>> >>>>>The ballistic theory is thus falsified. >>>>>Again. >>>> >>>> >>>>The ballistic theory WILL always predict what is observed. >>> >>>Isn't it rather stupid to keep asserting what is proven false? >> >> >> Paul, I will have to remind you again that the christian belief about the Earth >> being the centre of the universe is not true. >> All starlight DOES NOT travel towards little planet Earth at precisely c. Why >> should it? >> >> If you think it does, then please tell us why. > >And the reason why you "will have to remind" me about an irrelevant >triviality is that you are desperate to divert the attention from >the fact that the BaT predicts no difference in the visible light >curve and the 10um light curve and thus is proven wrong. Where did you get that idea. I have explained this before. In the case of 'Miras' for instance, the brightness variation is considerably less in the IR than the visible. That is expained by the fact that the visible is produced in the surface of the stars whereas the IR comes from lower levels where the radial velocities are smaller. Most of these brightness curves are the result of a star being orbited by a WCH, which might be a large planet like "Androcles". The stars wobble around the barycentre of the pair. The IR wobbles less than the visible. >>>>However it involves a great deal of trial and error as well as some initial >>>>speculation about what might be really happening. It also provides opportunity >>>>for discovery. >>>> >>>>I don't think we can model the rest of the universe on our own solar system. >>> >>>You are babbling. >>>You know very well that the ballistic theory does not predict >>>a frequency dependent light curve. >>>But the light curve of Algol IS frequency dependent >>>exactly as predicted by conventional theory. >> >> >> I don't understand what you mean by 'frequency' here. >> If you mean light frequency, then that is easy to explain. > >So explain it. > >Why is the secondary minimum practically unobservable >in visible light, while it is 0.35 magnitudes deep at 10um, >exactly as the conventional theory predicts they should be? Who said that? > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Oct 2005 18:05 On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:11:27 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in news:dj2ltk >$drm$1(a)dolly.uninett.no: > >>> black body curves don't cross each other. >> >> Nobody said they do. >> >> > >They can appear to when they have been 'normalized' in some way. In a way that suits the SRians? > >It is only if they are plotted on the same absolute magnitude scale that >one would expect them not to cross each other. > >Add in emission lines and you could have crossings, even then. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Oct 2005 18:09 On 17 Oct 2005 22:39:15 -0700, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:37:56 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> >news:vth5l19e1f1v7s4pfq4c2bun0et9p4n6lc(a)4ax.com... >> >No, Ritz is supposed to be a scientific theory >> >for light propagation which means I can apply >> >it to any situation I like. Those are the rules. >> >> Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source. >> >> LET accepts that light can move at c+v wrt an observer BUT that the observer >> will always MEASURE the speed of that light as 'c' because his meassuring >> equipment will physically change tom make that happen. >> >> SR says the same... with the proviso that every observer carries his own >> 'personal aether frame' around with him. >> This is just a mathematical trick. > >When questioned privately whether a 10m coil tape would physically >change between ground zero, and high speed (uncoiled on the rocket), >George says no! >DHR's just can't seem to comprehend that observers MAKE MISTAKES; that >what you see, isn't necessarily what IS Because they can usually 'believe our eyes' on Earth, they think the same should apply to stellar observations. They just cannot get it I'm afraid, Jim. All distant observations are willusions. > >Jim G c'=c+v >> >> >> > >> >George >> > >> >> >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >> >> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: bz on 18 Oct 2005 20:18
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:f7sal1pi5o1gh214v2c1cdmdm2pisv4jed(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:11:27 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in >>news:dj2ltk $drm$1(a)dolly.uninett.no: >> >>>> black body curves don't cross each other. >>> >>> Nobody said they do. >>> >>> >> >>They can appear to when they have been 'normalized' in some way. > > In a way that suits the SRians? Normalizing two spectra has nothing to do with SRians or BaTers, it is the process of making the max and min values of both plots equal to some predetermined values so that both plots are the same 'size'. Typically, normalization makes the max equal to 1 and the min equal to zero. This has nothing to do with ones philosophy or faith. It is just a way to allow seeing both plots at the same time. > >> >>It is only if they are plotted on the same absolute magnitude scale that >>one would expect them not to cross each other. >> >>Add in emission lines and you could have crossings, even then. > -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |