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 20:25 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:guqal1lnsecqs0ovs8dk7hmmcpf066pdf4@ 4ax.com: >>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. > > A B8 star that is only visible by the light reflected from a WHC? So you propose a system with a K2, a Wilson Heavy Cool planet and a B8 star that is somehow hidden from direct view at all times. The inhabitants of the system must have built a huge stellar power plant and hung the mirror between the B8 and the earth, just so that Wilson could discover their secret. Some how I doubt that theory. Perhaps you have a better idea why we don't see the B8 star directly as it orbits the K2. -- 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: Paul B. Andersen on 19 Oct 2005 17:05 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. That's only because you cannot read. If you look at the left you will see "arbitrary scale". The red and the blue curves are obviously not drawn at the same scale, because it is only the intensity variation wrt the wavelength that is of interest, the absolute value is of no consequence. How is it possible to misinterpret that? > 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. Of course. > >>>>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. Of course that was what you were referring to. But a Doppler shift does not change the spectral class. So you were wrong. > You will have to ask Androcles about the other. > You seem to have your colours all wrong. Right. Ask Androcles. :-) > >>>>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. Quite. Like the Earth is illuminated by a G2 star. But a K2 spectrum can never come from anything else than a K2 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. Right. I DID say the distinct concavity exist in your imagination. But you claimed that the _observed_ light curve had such a concavity. That is wrong. > 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. Again - look at the measuring points and not the drawn curve. The measuring precision is not good enough to say that the curve is not flat between the primary dips. And you are right - the athor probably drew the secondary dip because he thought it should be there. But this dip is much to small to be observed with the precision. >>>> Look at the light curve in this again: >>>> http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >>>> or >>>> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>>> And retrieve the full article. >>>>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. You are babbling incoherent nonsense again. Look. You are claiming that the BaT can predict the observed light curves. What do you mean by that? Here is an example of an observed light curve: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf or http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& And retrieve the full article. Are you now telling me that the BaT cannot predict the obdsrved light curve because it is an illusion? What the hell is it then you claim the BaT can predict? >>>>>>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. So the radial velocity of the star is different at different levels? :-) It must be pulsating, then. This is incredible stupid, Henri. If the star is orbiting something, the radial velocity of the whole star will obviously be the same. The BaT predicts no difference in the visible light curve and the 10um light curve and thus is proven wrong. >>>>>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? Are you not paying attention, Henri? I have shown you the calculation. Here it is again, all according to conventional theory: We have two stars. Algol A: temperature Ta = 12000K, radius Ra = 2.88 solar radii Algol B: temperature Tb = 4880K, radius Rb = 3.54 solar radii Their relative brightness at the wavelength lambda will be: Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)2* W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) where W(lambda,T) is Planck's radiation law. Now we have: (Ra/Rb)2 = 0.66 W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) = (exp(C/(lambda*Tb))-1)/(exp(C/(lambda*Ta))-1) where C = 0.00144 m degree In the visible spectrum lambda = 0.5 um. W(0,5um,Ta)/W(0,5um,Tb) = 40 So their relative visual brightness will be: Ba/Bb = 26. That is A is 26 times brigter than B. The binary is 27 times brighter than B. If we assume that the eclipses are 100%, we get the following brightnesses (B as unit): No eclipse = 27 B eclipses A: 1 (primary) A eclipses B: 26 (secondary) The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: Primary: 2.5*log(27) = 3.58 magnitudes Secondary: 2.5*log(27/26) = 0.04 magnitudes. We see that the deepness of the primary minimum fits quite well with what is observed. But the secondary minimum is hardly observable at all in the visible spectrum! So don't we see the secondary minimum, then? Let us calculate what the deepness of the minima would be in the infra-red, lambda = 10um. We use the same method as above: Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)2* W(10um,Ta)/W(10m,Tb) = 1.8 No eclipse = 2.8 B eclipses A: 1 (primary) A eclipses B: 1.8 (secondary) The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: Primary: 2.5*log(2.8) = 1.12 magnitudes Secondary: 2.5*log(2.8/1.8) = 0.48 magnitudes. Observation of the secondary minimum at 10um can be found in; http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf or: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& And retrieve the full article. The observed deepness of the secondary minimum is ca. 0.35. A little less deep than what I calculated it should be. However, since B is larger than A, the eclipse will not be 100%, and the minimum _should_ be less deep. So I repeat my question: 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? You said it was easy to explain. So explain it. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Oct 2005 19:00 On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:05:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:22:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>>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. > >Of course that was what you were referring to. >But a Doppler shift does not change the spectral class. > >So you were wrong. > >> You will have to ask Androcles about the other. >> You seem to have your colours all wrong. > >Right. Ask Androcles. :-) > >> >>>>>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. > >Quite. >Like the Earth is illuminated by a G2 star. > >But a K2 spectrum can never come from >anything else than a K2 star. Except in a willusion where almost anything is possible. >>>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. > >Right. >I DID say the distinct concavity exist in your imagination. >But you claimed that the _observed_ light curve had such a concavity. >That is wrong. > >> 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. > >Again - look at the measuring points and not the drawn curve. >The measuring precision is not good enough to say that the curve >is not flat between the primary dips. >And you are right - the athor probably drew the secondary dip >because he thought it should be there. But this dip is much to >small to be observed with the precision. > >>>>> Look at the light curve in this again: >>>>> http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >>>>> or >>>>> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>>>> And retrieve the full article. >>>>>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. > >You are babbling incoherent nonsense again. >Look. >You are claiming that the BaT can predict >the observed light curves. > >What do you mean by that? > >Here is an example of an observed light curve: >http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf > or >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >And retrieve the full article. > >Are you now telling me that the BaT cannot predict >the obdsrved light curve because it is an illusion? > >What the hell is it then you claim the BaT can predict? ....gord, maybe there is something in the Norwegian water that inhibits normal brain functioning. >>> >>>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. > >So the radial velocity of the star is different at different levels? :-) >It must be pulsating, then. > >This is incredible stupid, Henri. >If the star is orbiting something, the radial velocity >of the whole star will obviously be the same. Quite wrong Paul. The star is wobbling around the barycentre with its orbiting WCH. That centre probably lies within the star. If you draw this, you will see that various layers within the star have different radial velocities wrt a distant observer. The situation is further complicated by the star's rotation around its own axis. Different regions of each spherical shell will have different radial speeds. In the case of Algol, for instance, the radial velocitiy required to produce the willusion is indicative of the main star's rotation around the barycentre with its satellite planet, "Androcles". >The BaT predicts no difference in the visible light >curve and the 10um light curve and thus is proven wrong. As usual, you are talking nonsense. You have completely overlooked the common situation in which the main star is wobbling around an internal barycentre. In that case, IR should have smaller radial speeds than visible. According to my model, that would usually cause smaller brightness variation in IR than visible. >>>> >>>>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? > >Are you not paying attention, Henri? >I have shown you the calculation. > >Here it is again, all according to conventional theory: >We have two stars. >Algol A: temperature Ta = 12000K, radius Ra = 2.88 solar radii >Algol B: temperature Tb = 4880K, radius Rb = 3.54 solar radii > >Their relative brightness at the wavelength lambda will be: >Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)2* W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) > >where W(lambda,T) is Planck's radiation law. >Now we have: >(Ra/Rb)2 = 0.66 >W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) = > (exp(C/(lambda*Tb))-1)/(exp(C/(lambda*Ta))-1) >where C = 0.00144 m degree > >In the visible spectrum lambda = 0.5 um. >W(0,5um,Ta)/W(0,5um,Tb) = 40 > >So their relative visual brightness will be: >Ba/Bb = 26. >That is A is 26 times brigter than B. >The binary is 27 times brighter than B. > >If we assume that the eclipses are 100%, >we get the following brightnesses (B as unit): >No eclipse = 27 >B eclipses A: 1 (primary) >A eclipses B: 26 (secondary) > >The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: >Primary: 2.5*log(27) = 3.58 magnitudes >Secondary: 2.5*log(27/26) = 0.04 magnitudes. > >We see that the deepness of the primary minimum fits >quite well with what is observed. >But the secondary minimum is hardly observable at all >in the visible spectrum! > >So don't we see the secondary minimum, then? > >Let us calculate what the deepness of the minima would >be in the infra-red, lambda = 10um. >We use the same method as above: > >Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)2* W(10um,Ta)/W(10m,Tb) = 1.8 > >No eclipse = 2.8 >B eclipses A: 1 (primary) >A eclipses B: 1.8 (secondary) > >The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: >Primary: 2.5*log(2.8) = 1.12 magnitudes >Secondary: 2.5*log(2.8/1.8) = 0.48 magnitudes. > >Observation of the secondary minimum at 10um can be found in; > >http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >or: >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >And retrieve the full article. > >The observed deepness of the secondary minimum is ca. 0.35. >A little less deep than what I calculated it should be. >However, since B is larger than A, the eclipse will not be 100%, >and the minimum _should_ be less deep. > >So I repeat my question: >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? > >You said it was easy to explain. > >So explain it. Well maybe it is not all that easy but I can offer a suggestion. Do you agree that IR would have its origin inside the star wheras visible is more likely to come from the very outer layers. If so, consider the comparative radial speeds of the IR and visible 'layers' wrt a distant observer FOR DIFFERENT POSITIONS OF THE BARYCENTRE. > >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: Paul B. Andersen on 20 Oct 2005 09:03 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:05:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:22:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> > > >>>>>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. >> >>Of course that was what you were referring to. >>But a Doppler shift does not change the spectral class. >> >>So you were wrong. >> >> >>>You will have to ask Androcles about the other. >>>You seem to have your colours all wrong. >> >>Right. Ask Androcles. :-) >> >> >>>>>>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. >> >>Quite. >>Like the Earth is illuminated by a G2 star. >> >>But a K2 spectrum can never come from >>anything else than a K2 star. > > > Except in a willusion where almost anything is possible. Nothing is impossible in Wonderland. But I live in the real world where the only source of a K2 spectrum is a K2 star. > >>>>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. >> >>Right. >>I DID say the distinct concavity exist in your imagination. >>But you claimed that the _observed_ light curve had such a concavity. >>That is wrong. >> >> >>>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. >> >>Again - look at the measuring points and not the drawn curve. >>The measuring precision is not good enough to say that the curve >>is not flat between the primary dips. >>And you are right - the athor probably drew the secondary dip >>because he thought it should be there. But this dip is much to >>small to be observed with the precision. >> >> >>>>>>Look at the light curve in this again: >>>>>>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >>>>>>or >>>>>>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>>>>>And retrieve the full article. >>>>>>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. >> >>You are babbling incoherent nonsense again. >>Look. >>You are claiming that the BaT can predict >>the observed light curves. >> >>What do you mean by that? >> >>Here is an example of an observed light curve: >>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >> or >>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>And retrieve the full article. >> >>Are you now telling me that the BaT cannot predict >>the obdsrved light curve because it is an illusion? >> >>What the hell is it then you claim the BaT can predict? > > > ...gord, maybe there is something in the Norwegian water that inhibits normal > brain functioning. And why should my alleged abnormal brain functioning inhibit you from answering the question? So I will ask you again: Here is an observed light curve: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf or http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& And retrieve the full article. Can, or can not the BaT predict this observed light curve? Are you telling me that the BaT cannot predict the observed light curve because it is an illusion? If so, what is it then the BaT can predict? >>>>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. >> >>So the radial velocity of the star is different at different levels? :-) >>It must be pulsating, then. >> >>This is incredible stupid, Henri. >>If the star is orbiting something, the radial velocity >>of the whole star will obviously be the same. > > > Quite wrong Paul. > The star is wobbling around the barycentre with its orbiting WCH. That centre > probably lies within the star. If you draw this, you will see that various > layers within the star have different radial velocities wrt a distant observer. > > The situation is further complicated by the star's rotation around its own > axis. Different regions of each spherical shell will have different radial > speeds. > > In the case of Algol, for instance, the radial velocitiy required to produce > the willusion is indicative of the main star's rotation around the barycentre > with its satellite planet, "Androcles". This is so obviously idiotic from a number of different reasons, that I am not sure I will bother to point it out. But OK, here are some of the reasons: 1. All the black body radiation comes from the photosphere, and not from "different layers" of the star. 2. If a star is orbiting, but not rotating, every part of the star will have exactly the same radial velocity relative to a distant observer. The position of the barycentre is of no consequence. 3. The rotation of the star will obviously mean that different parts of the photosphere have different radial velocity, which will not affect the BB radiation, but which will broaden the absorption lines slightly. That's how stellar rotation is measured. >>The BaT predicts no difference in the visible light >>curve and the 10um light curve and thus is proven wrong. > > > As usual, you are talking nonsense. > > You have completely overlooked the common situation in which the main star is > wobbling around an internal barycentre. In that case, IR should have smaller > radial speeds than visible. According to my model, that would usually cause > smaller brightness variation in IR than visible. Utter nonsense. The 10um radiation and the visible light radiation are coming from the same source. To claim that these two parts of the spectrum are coming from two different sources with different radial velocity is so crazy that you must have lost your mind completely. >>>>>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? >> >>Are you not paying attention, Henri? >>I have shown you the calculation. >> >>Here it is again, all according to conventional theory: >>We have two stars. >>Algol A: temperature Ta = 12000K, radius Ra = 2.88 solar radii >>Algol B: temperature Tb = 4880K, radius Rb = 3.54 solar radii >> >>Their relative brightness at the wavelength lambda will be: >>Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)2* W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) >> >>where W(lambda,T) is Planck's radiation law. >>Now we have: >>(Ra/Rb)2 = 0.66 >>W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) = >> (exp(C/(lambda*Tb))-1)/(exp(C/(lambda*Ta))-1) >>where C = 0.00144 m degree >> >>In the visible spectrum lambda = 0.5 um. >>W(0,5um,Ta)/W(0,5um,Tb) = 40 >> >>So their relative visual brightness will be: >>Ba/Bb = 26. >>That is A is 26 times brigter than B. >>The binary is 27 times brighter than B. >> >>If we assume that the eclipses are 100%, >>we get the following brightnesses (B as unit): >>No eclipse = 27 >>B eclipses A: 1 (primary) >>A eclipses B: 26 (secondary) >> >>The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: >>Primary: 2.5*log(27) = 3.58 magnitudes >>Secondary: 2.5*log(27/26) = 0.04 magnitudes. >> >>We see that the deepness of the primary minimum fits >>quite well with what is observed. >>But the secondary minimum is hardly observable at all >>in the visible spectrum! >> >>So don't we see the secondary minimum, then? >> >>Let us calculate what the deepness of the minima would >>be in the infra-red, lambda = 10um. >>We use the same method as above: >> >>Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)2* W(10um,Ta)/W(10m,Tb) = 1.8 >> >>No eclipse = 2.8 >>B eclipses A: 1 (primary) >>A eclipses B: 1.8 (secondary) >> >>The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: >>Primary: 2.5*log(2.8) = 1.12 magnitudes >>Secondary: 2.5*log(2.8/1.8) = 0.48 magnitudes. >> >>Observation of the secondary minimum at 10um can be found in; >> >>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >>or: >>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>And retrieve the full article. >> >>The observed deepness of the secondary minimum is ca. 0.35. >>A little less deep than what I calculated it should be. >>However, since B is larger than A, the eclipse will not be 100%, >>and the minimum _should_ be less deep. >> >>So I repeat my question: >>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? >> >>You said it was easy to explain. >> >>So explain it. > > > Well maybe it is not all that easy but I can offer a suggestion. > Do you agree that IR would have its origin inside the star wheras visible is > more likely to come from the very outer layers. No. > If so, consider the comparative radial speeds of the IR and visible 'layers' > wrt a distant observer FOR DIFFERENT POSITIONS OF THE BARYCENTRE. Mindless babble. Paul
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 20 Oct 2005 11:05
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dj84jj$6r3$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... | Henri Wilson wrote: | > On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:05:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" | > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: | > | > | >>Henri Wilson wrote: | >> | >>>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:22:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" | >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: | >>> | >>> | > | > | >>>>>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. | >> | >>Of course that was what you were referring to. | >>But a Doppler shift does not change the spectral class. | >> | >>So you were wrong. | >> | >> | >>>You will have to ask Androcles about the other. | >>>You seem to have your colours all wrong. | >> | >>Right. Ask Androcles. :-) | >> | >> | >>>>>>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. | >> | >>Quite. | >>Like the Earth is illuminated by a G2 star. | >> | >>But a K2 spectrum can never come from | >>anything else than a K2 star. | > | > | > Except in a willusion where almost anything is possible. | | Nothing is impossible in Wonderland. | But I live in the real world where the only source | of a K2 spectrum is a K2 star. You said Algol has a bouncy K2 accretion disk, but you won't show us the spectrum. Phuckwit Roberts has seen an accretion disk near a black hole, but he won't tell us right ascension and declination so I can see it for myself. Where's the Cheshire cat, still in Cheshire? | | > | >>>>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. | >> | >>Right. | >>I DID say the distinct concavity exist in your imagination. | >>But you claimed that the _observed_ light curve had such a concavity. | >>That is wrong. | >> | >> | >>>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. | >> | >>Again - look at the measuring points and not the drawn curve. | >>The measuring precision is not good enough to say that the curve | >>is not flat between the primary dips. | >>And you are right - the athor probably drew the secondary dip | >>because he thought it should be there. But this dip is much to | >>small to be observed with the precision. | >> | >> | >>>>>>Look at the light curve in this again: | >>>>>>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf | >>>>>>or | >>>>>>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& | >>>>>>And retrieve the full article. | >>>>>>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. | >> | >>You are babbling incoherent nonsense again. | >>Look. | >>You are claiming that the BaT can predict | >>the observed light curves. | >> | >>What do you mean by that? | >> | >>Here is an example of an observed light curve: | >>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf | >> or | >>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& | >>And retrieve the full article. | >> | >>Are you now telling me that the BaT cannot predict | >>the obdsrved light curve because it is an illusion? | >> | >>What the hell is it then you claim the BaT can predict? | > | > | > ...gord, maybe there is something in the Norwegian water that inhibits normal | > brain functioning. | | And why should my alleged abnormal brain functioning inhibit | you from answering the question? Your abnormal brain is unable to comprehend the answer. This inhibits my normal brain from providing it. However, for the sake of Welusional Wilson, I'll post it here. Where are the comparative observations between phase 0.400 and phase 0.450 ? | | So I will ask you again: | | Here is an observed light curve: | http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf | or | http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& | And retrieve the full article. | | Can, or can not the BaT predict this observed light curve? Dunno about BaT, but my program predicts it within the tolerance of the missing error bars and missing data between phase 0.400 and phase 0.450. | Are you telling me that the BaT cannot predict the observed | light curve because it is an illusion? Dunno about BaT, but my program predicts it within the tolerance of the missing error bars and missing data between phase 0.400 and phase 0.450. | If so, what is it then the BaT can predict? Dunno about BaT, but my program predicts it within the tolerance of the missing error bars and missing data between phase 0.400 and phase 0.450. | | >>>>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. | >> | >>So the radial velocity of the star is different at different levels? :-) | >>It must be pulsating, then. | >> | >>This is incredible stupid, Henri. | >>If the star is orbiting something, the radial velocity | >>of the whole star will obviously be the same. | > | > | > Quite wrong Paul. | > The star is wobbling around the barycentre with its orbiting WCH. That centre | > probably lies within the star. If you draw this, you will see that various | > layers within the star have different radial velocities wrt a distant observer. | > | > The situation is further complicated by the star's rotation around its own | > axis. Different regions of each spherical shell will have different radial | > speeds. | > | > In the case of Algol, for instance, the radial velocitiy required to produce | > the willusion is indicative of the main star's rotation around the barycentre | > with its satellite planet, "Androcles". | | This is so obviously idiotic from a number of different reasons, | that I am not sure I will bother to point it out. I will then. You said Algol has a bouncy K2 accretion disk, but you won't show us the spectrum. Phuckwit Roberts has seen an accretion disk near a black hole, but he won't tell us right ascension and declination so I can see it for myself. Where's the Cheshire cat, still in Cheshire? Nothing is impossible in Wonderland. But I live in the real world where the only source of a B8 spectrum is a B8 star. | But OK, here are some of the reasons: | 1. All the black body radiation comes from the photosphere, | and not from "different layers" of the star. Very good. I'll agree with that. Algol is a cepheid. | 2. If a star is orbiting, but not rotating, every part | of the star will have exactly the same radial velocity | relative to a distant observer. The position of the barycentre | is of no consequence. Very good. I'll agree with that. Algol is a cepheid. | 3. The rotation of the star will obviously mean that | different parts of the photosphere have different | radial velocity, which will not affect the BB radiation, | but which will broaden the absorption lines slightly. Very good. I'll agree with that. Algol is a cepheid. | That's how stellar rotation is measured. Can't agree with that. The only star you can measure rotation of is the sun, the easiest way is observance of sun spots. | >>The BaT predicts no difference in the visible light | >>curve and the 10um light curve and thus is proven wrong. | > | > As usual, you are talking nonsense. | > | > You have completely overlooked the common situation in which the main star is | > wobbling around an internal barycentre. In that case, IR should have smaller | > radial speeds than visible. According to my model, that would usually cause | > smaller brightness variation in IR than visible. | | Utter nonsense. | The 10um radiation and the visible light radiation are | coming from the same source. Very good. I'll agree with that. Now you see why I want no truck with BaT. Wilson spouts utter nonsense about fairy dust, Wilson Cool Heavies and now Wilson Slow IR. | | To claim that these two parts of the spectrum are coming | from two different sources with different radial velocity | is so crazy that you must have lost your mind completely. You both have, so it makes no difference. | >>>>>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? | >> | >>Are you not paying attention, Henri? | >>I have shown you the calculation. | >> | >>Here it is again, all according to conventional theory: | >>We have two stars. | >>Algol A: temperature Ta = 12000K, radius Ra = 2.88 solar radii | >>Algol B: temperature Tb = 4880K, radius Rb = 3.54 solar radii | >> | >>Their relative brightness at the wavelength lambda will be: | >>Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)2* W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) | >> | >>where W(lambda,T) is Planck's radiation law. | >>Now we have: | >>(Ra/Rb)2 = 0.66 | >>W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) = | >> (exp(C/(lambda*Tb))-1)/(exp(C/(lambda*Ta))-1) | >>where C = 0.00144 m degree | >> | >>In the visible spectrum lambda = 0.5 um. | >>W(0,5um,Ta)/W(0,5um,Tb) = 40 | >> | >>So their relative visual brightness will be: | >>Ba/Bb = 26. | >>That is A is 26 times brigter than B. | >>The binary is 27 times brighter than B. | >> | >>If we assume that the eclipses are 100%, | >>we get the following brightnesses (B as unit): | >>No eclipse = 27 | >>B eclipses A: 1 (primary) | >>A eclipses B: 26 (secondary) | >> | >>The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: | >>Primary: 2.5*log(27) = 3.58 magnitudes | >>Secondary: 2.5*log(27/26) = 0.04 magnitudes. | >> | >>We see that the deepness of the primary minimum fits | >>quite well with what is observed. | >>But the secondary minimum is hardly observable at all | >>in the visible spectrum! | >> | >>So don't we see the secondary minimum, then? | >> | >>Let us calculate what the deepness of the minima would | >>be in the infra-red, lambda = 10um. | >>We use the same method as above: | >> | >>Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)2* W(10um,Ta)/W(10m,Tb) = 1.8 | >> | >>No eclipse = 2.8 | >>B eclipses A: 1 (primary) | >>A eclipses B: 1.8 (secondary) | >> | >>The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: | >>Primary: 2.5*log(2.8) = 1.12 magnitudes | >>Secondary: 2.5*log(2.8/1.8) = 0.48 magnitudes. | >> | >>Observation of the secondary minimum at 10um can be found in; | >> | >>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf | >>or: | >>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& | >>And retrieve the full article. | >> | >>The observed deepness of the secondary minimum is ca. 0.35. | >>A little less deep than what I calculated it should be. | >>However, since B is larger than A, the eclipse will not be 100%, | >>and the minimum _should_ be less deep. | >> | >>So I repeat my question: | >>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? | >> | >>You said it was easy to explain. | >> | >>So explain it. | > | > | > Well maybe it is not all that easy but I can offer a suggestion. | > Do you agree that IR would have its origin inside the star wheras visible is | > more likely to come from the very outer layers. | | No. | | > If so, consider the comparative radial speeds of the IR and visible 'layers' | > wrt a distant observer FOR DIFFERENT POSITIONS OF THE BARYCENTRE. | | Mindless babble. Produce the spectrum, or produce more of your mindless babble. Androcles. |