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: George Dishman on 30 Sep 2005 15:54 "Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:20051001042019.E47661(a)emu.uq.edu.au... > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, George Dishman wrote: > >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote: >>> >>> I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of >>> elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. >> >> You also need to find out why the Lyman Alpha line is >> very important in astronomy, and in particular why it >> creates a hard edge to spectra of high redshift objects. >> >>> I would suggest even the composition of the earth at depth is educated >>> guess work, and to claim detailed analysis of objects of which we only >>> see the top micron, or its atmosphere, may have astronomers wrongfully >>> believing that they know exactly the composition of a distant object, >>> due to mistaken analysis of the temp, velocity, gravitational pull >>> (mass), chemical composition of the emmitting object of the emr >>> reaching us. >> >> You can always say that but it is just baseless >> hand-waving. We don't know everything but we do >> have a good idea of how far we trust our models >> and it is vastly more reliable than you imagine. > > Worth pointing out that "vastly more reliable than you imagine", while > probably correct (but depends on Jim Greenfield's imagination), > astronomers generally don't believe that they know exactly the composition > of a distant object. There is a healthy respect for the uncertainties > inherent in such measurements, even for such nearby well-studies objects > such as the sun. Alas, I don't have a list of uncertainties in solar > abundances of elements at hand, but I can offer the observation that I > once measured the cobalt content of the sun to +/- 25%, and that > uncertainty was as good as the best published results I could find. > > Jim might find it educational to read about the fluctuating opinions on > the iron content of the sun (no, not the iron sun stuff, but the real > controvery with abundances varying significantly between different workers > for quite some time). I think Jim is at the stage of saying well maybe the Sun has some helium in it and maybe it doesn't, whatever he has to believe to avoid accepting anything that isn't to his liking. George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 30 Sep 2005 15:54 Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message > news:dhhek9$cbg$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > > From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)deletethishia.no> > Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:00:34 +0200 > Local: Wed, Sep 14 2005 1:00 pm > Subject: Re: Spectrum! > "But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and > density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit > of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8. > That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass > is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there > is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn. > (This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient > disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface > of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) " > > Being a B8, the surface the accretion disk bounces off looks like this: > http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c2w.gif > > Of course a B8 is much gentler than our own sun, isn't it, tusselad? Algol is indeed known to have giant flares, much stronger than those of the Sun. http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/objects/stars/algol_lc.html It is the K2 and not the B8 that is responsible for these flares, though. The reason is that the K2 is spinning ten times faster than the Sun, and thus has a much stronger magnetic field. But I am sure it will be flares from the B8 as well. Stars flare. I suppose your point was that there should be radiation from the accretion disk as well. There is, but this radiation isn't very strong in the case of Algol. The radiation from accretion disks around white dwarfs and neutron stars is usually stronger. That is because these stars are so small that the diameter of the accretion disk is much less, and it is thus spinning much faster around these stars. The radiation is mainly caused by friction in the disk. But a knowledgeable guy like you surely new this, didn't you, Androcles? Paul
From: jgreen on 2 Oct 2005 02:07 Eric Gisse wrote: > jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > > George Dishman wrote: > > > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > > > news:1127891216.712904.161860(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > George Dishman wrote: > > > >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > > > >> news:1127814856.490827.50300(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some > > > >> posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There > > > >> is another example today: > > > >> > > > >> http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/full/ > > > >> > > > >> I said some time ago I thought we were going to see > > > >> mounting evidence that our ideas of galaxy formation > > > >> need an overhaul and this is leading the same way. > > > >> If galaxies formed by slow aggregation then this > > > >> would be problematic. There is mounting evidence > > > >> that supermassive black holes are a key component and > > > >> I wonder whether we are seeing evidence that they and > > > >> dark matter clump first and pull in large masses of > > > >> gas that then forms stars very quickly so galaxies > > > >> start large and shrink rather than starting small > > > >> and growing, at least in the earliest epochs. > > > >> > > > >> George > > > > > > > > Thanks for the link. Sure enough, I note that the data was FIRST > > > > subjected to analysis under the assumption that the universe is > > > > expanding, > > > > > > I have no idea where you get that from. > > > > Read the paragraph in that link beginning "Mobasher and his...." > > It is obvious that the analysis of ALL collected data is subjected to > > the assumptions that 1) c is constant 2) the universe is expanding > > "Those who believe they have the truth in their hand, will not find > > it." > > That is called the abstract, you asshat. > > If you have any questions about the analysis, you read the paper. > Though I question what effect the paper would have on you, considering > the amazing amount of misunderstandings you have about pretty much > everything. > > > > > > > > and therefore frequencies were looked at in that "light". > > > > > > Of course, that's how all stellar work is done. How > > > else do you work out what the temperature is, or > > > what the composition is or the age of the stars? > > > > Hopefully, by maintaining an open and questioning mind as to what may > > influence _apparent_ observations, from being the real situation > > (temp/composition) > > FI: In that link, blue light is claimed to have been absorbed by free > > intergalactic H- no mention of it being redshifted out of contention. > > > > > > > So > > > > long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. > > > > > > There is no "bias", looking at the spectrum and intensity > > > is the only way to find out anything. What else do you > > > think they could do with the light? > > > > I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of > > elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. > > I would suggest even the composition of the earth at depth is educated > > guess work, and to claim detailed analysis of objects of which we only > > see the top micron, or its atmosphere, may have astronomers wrongfully > > believing that they know exactly the composition of a distant object, > > due to mistaken analysis of the temp, velocity, gravitational pull > > (mass), chemical composition of the emmitting object of the emr > > reaching us. > > Yess....spectrocopy obviously only deals with the top micron of the > object in question, even gas clouds! I would indeed suggest you get a > book instead of making uneducated guesses about how science works. Bible? Qu'ran? Other "faith" based tomes? They certainly have more chance than AE's scribbles J > > [snip]
From: Eric Gisse on 2 Oct 2005 02:32 jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: [snip] > > > > > > I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of > > > elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. > > > I would suggest even the composition of the earth at depth is educated > > > guess work, and to claim detailed analysis of objects of which we only > > > see the top micron, or its atmosphere, may have astronomers wrongfully > > > believing that they know exactly the composition of a distant object, > > > due to mistaken analysis of the temp, velocity, gravitational pull > > > (mass), chemical composition of the emmitting object of the emr > > > reaching us. > > > > Yess....spectrocopy obviously only deals with the top micron of the > > object in question, even gas clouds! I would indeed suggest you get a > > book instead of making uneducated guesses about how science works. > > Bible? Qu'ran? Other "faith" based tomes? > They certainly have more chance than AE's scribbles You will die ignorant. The only sad part is that it is willful. > > J > > > > [snip]
From: jgreen on 3 Oct 2005 00:22
Timo Nieminen wrote: > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, George Dishman wrote: > > > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote: > >> > >> I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of > >> elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. > > > > You also need to find out why the Lyman Alpha line is > > very important in astronomy, and in particular why it > > creates a hard edge to spectra of high redshift objects. > > > >> I would suggest even the composition of the earth at depth is educated > >> guess work, and to claim detailed analysis of objects of which we only > >> see the top micron, or its atmosphere, may have astronomers wrongfully > >> believing that they know exactly the composition of a distant object, > >> due to mistaken analysis of the temp, velocity, gravitational pull > >> (mass), chemical composition of the emmitting object of the emr > >> reaching us. > > > > You can always say that but it is just baseless > > hand-waving. We don't know everything but we do > > have a good idea of how far we trust our models > > and it is vastly more reliable than you imagine. > > Worth pointing out that "vastly more reliable than you imagine", while > probably correct (but depends on Jim Greenfield's imagination), > astronomers generally don't believe that they know exactly the composition > of a distant object. There is a healthy respect for the uncertainties > inherent in such measurements, even for such nearby well-studies objects > such as the sun. Alas, I don't have a list of uncertainties in solar > abundances of elements at hand, but I can offer the observation that I > once measured the cobalt content of the sun to +/- 25%, and that > uncertainty was as good as the best published results I could find. > > Jim might find it educational to read about the fluctuating opinions on > the iron content of the sun (no, not the iron sun stuff, but the real > controvery with abundances varying significantly between different workers > for quite some time). If astronomers can't even agree on the chemistry of the sun, do you not think it is pulling the long bow to claim accurate "knowlege" of the composition (read age) of bodies at 12Gya ? I do not suggest that they have no idea, but I object to spectra and data from distant objects being claimed as "evidence" for BB, UNTIL it contradicts. Then BigBangers rush to "review models of galaxy formation" Jim G c'=c+v |