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: Randy Poe on 20 Oct 2005 11:53 Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message > news:dj84jj$6r3$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > | 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. Can you tell me how you can agree that star rotation causes a predictable amount of broadening of spectral absorption lines, but you can't use broadening of spectral absorption lines to measure star rotation? How can you agree that A = k*B, but measurement of A can't be used to determine B? (I realize I'm on Androcles' pretend-to-plonk list, but every once in awhile his illogical proclamations goad me to throw a question out in the ether anyway). - Randy
From: Henri Wilson on 20 Oct 2005 18:24 On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:03:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:05:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>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. Have you considered that the K2 spectrum might be coming from a different layer of the B8 star. >>> >>>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? The BaTh predicts willusions. Note: a "willusion" defines a subgroup of phenomena that are generally classified as "illusions". It applies specifically to observed images of very distant objects such as stars. These images and all data associated with them are distortions of reality due to the fact that information travels from the object to the observer at different speeds. Thus, the information reaching an observer at a particular instant is not generally that which left the star at ONE particular instant. >> 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. That is decidedly wrong. Please admit to that in your next post. Every part has the same angular velocity. Different layers within the star have different radial velocities...and that includes gaseous layers far beyond the extremities of the main body. >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. Correct. > >>>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. Oh, have you been there? > >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. No Paul, its not lost...just way ahead of you. >>>>>>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. Why not? > >> 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. Not everything you don't understand is mindless babble Paul. > >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 20 Oct 2005 18:28 On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:05:06 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > >"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. > Rating: 1 flaggon 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 21 Oct 2005 07:04 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:03:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:05:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> > > >>>>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. > > > Have you considered that the K2 spectrum might be coming from a different layer > of the B8 star. Definitely not. :-) Henri, do you really not understand how incredible idiotic this question is? > >>>>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? > > > The BaTh predicts willusions. > > Note: a "willusion" defines a subgroup of phenomena that are generally > classified as "illusions". It applies specifically to observed images of very > distant objects such as stars. These images and all data associated with them > are distortions of reality due to the fact that information travels from the > object to the observer at different speeds. Thus, the information reaching an > observer at a particular instant is not generally that which left the star at > ONE particular instant. You are babbling. Please answer: Does, or does not the BaT predict what the observed light curve should be? If it does, does it then predict this 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. If it does not, what does it then predict? Nothing? Don't let us forget what your now snipped claim was: | That [the brigtness variation is less in IR than in visible] | 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. >>>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. > > > That is decidedly wrong. Please admit to that in your next post. > > Every part has the same angular velocity. Which is zero if the star is not rotating. > Different layers within the star have different radial velocities...and that > includes gaseous layers far beyond the extremities of the main body. This is caused by the rotation _only_. The orbital motion has nothing to do with it. >>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. > > > Correct. Of course. So according to you, a rotating star should not emit a black body spectrum. It does. >>>>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. > > > Oh, have you been there? > > >>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. > > > No Paul, its not lost...just way ahead of you. > > >>>>>>>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. > > > Why not? > > >>>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. > > > Not everything you don't understand is mindless babble Paul. I know that this is mindless babble because I understand it. Paul
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 21 Oct 2005 08:11
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:df6gl1lqli7jjgjq31r2nkha578rqb1227(a)4ax.com... | On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:05:06 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | | > | >"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. | > | | Rating: 1 flaggon You are drinking too much, WCF. Androcles. |