OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: Henri Wilson on 20 Aug 2005 20:29 On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:08:57 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Odysseus" <odysseus1479-at(a)yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message >news:43078D73.12FF56D2(a)yahoo-dot.ca... >> George Dishman wrote: >>> >> >> I understand a standard error of 0.89 mas given for a parallax of >> 2.09 mas to imply that there's a 68% chance that the true distance of >> RT Aurigae is between 1100 and 2700 light-years, assuming the error >> distribution to be symmetrical. So I think as far as this measurement >> is concerned "a great deal of uncertainty" is a fair assessment -- no >> more than one can expect from so small a parallax. >> >> However, the cepheid period-luminosity relation is capable of >> considerably more reliable estimates than this; I believe the >> expected error in distances calculated in this manner is less than >> 10%. Derived distances cited here and there fall in the 1300-1600 LY >> range (somewhat biased toward the lower side, tending to cluster >> around 1400 LY), so I think the uncertainty is very much less, in >> light of all the available information, than implied by the parallax >> alone -- especially considering that RT Aur is of the >> well-characterized 'classical' cepheid type. > >I'm not sure if you are aware of the context. Henri >is suggesting that RT Aur is not a cepheid but that >it is part of a binary system with an unseen >companion and that a Ritzian model for light >propagation produces the light curve. > >To do that, he needs (IIRC, it was some time ago) a >distance of about 120LY. A rough estimate without >calculation would be an order greater than 2.09 mas >(since that is circa 1200) so around 21 mas or about >20 standard deviations from the measured value. It >may not be significant though because he can adjust >various other parameters (e.g. eccentricity and >inclination) so may be able to match any value. George, distance and maximum radial velocity are conjugate ( I think that's the right word). I can produce almost the exact curve for RT Aur using maximum radial velocity of 0.0001c, eccentricity=0.26, yaw angle -140 and distance about 1400 LYs. My brightness is now shown on a log scale, which increases the distance accordingly. I was using a linear output before. The blue curve is the radial velocity. It differs from the published one by about 90 degrees. I am working on that. The authors admit their velocity curve is very vague. see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/georgeceph.jpg > >best regards >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: George Dishman on 21 Aug 2005 06:46 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:2kgfg1936kpv9pgn977d37bvkjpj4msjek(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:08:57 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: .... >>I'm not sure if you are aware of the context. Henri >>is suggesting that RT Aur is not a cepheid but that >>it is part of a binary system with an unseen >>companion and that a Ritzian model for light >>propagation produces the light curve. >> >>To do that, he needs (IIRC, it was some time ago) a >>distance of about 120LY. A rough estimate without >>calculation would be an order greater than 2.09 mas >>(since that is circa 1200) so around 21 mas or about >>20 standard deviations from the measured value. It >>may not be significant though because he can adjust >>various other parameters (e.g. eccentricity and >>inclination) so may be able to match any value. > > George, distance and maximum radial velocity are conjugate ( I think > that's the > right word). > I can produce almost the exact curve for RT Aur using maximum radial > velocity > of 0.0001c, eccentricity=0.26, yaw angle -140 and distance about 1400 LYs. Without having done a proper analysis, I suspected something like that. The key her is that for a greater distance, you have to reduce the velocity. That would show up in the velocity curve as a simple scaling factor hence won't change the shape but might cause a discrepancy if you show the vertical scale on the axes. That why I aked you to add them some time ago, it is really important. > My > brightness is now shown on a log scale, which increases the distance > accordingly. I was using a linear output before. If you are comparing against the published curves, you obviously need to use the same format. > The blue curve is the radial velocity. It differs from the published one > by > about 90 degrees. I am working on that. The authors admit their velocity > curve > is very vague. "Very vague" in scientific terms may mean noisy but of the correct phase, or it might mean a phase relationship that is only known to a few degrees :-( Or maybe they haven't a clue and it could be 90 degrees out. ;-) You need to put some limits on what "Very vague" means before I can comment. Perhaps mail the authors? > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/georgeceph.jpg That's a much clearer picture than I got before, nice. However, without the numbers on the axes it doesn't tell me anything. Can you add them please. George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 21 Aug 2005 16:04 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:20:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>Anyone who can conclude that little planet Earth is the centre of the universe >>>as far as all starlight is concerned should be able to conclude just about >>>anything. >> >>I see. >>So you have come to the conclusion "that little planet Earth is >>the centre of the universe as far as all starlight is concerned", >>and think that you might as well believe in WCHs. >> >>You are living in Wonderland, aren't you? > > Message ignored. > > Andersen obviously drunk again! So why are you the one who are raving? Listen Henry. YOU wrote: " Anyone who can conclude that little planet Earth is the centre of the universe as far as all starlight is concerned should be able to conclude just about anything." I have never ever seen anyone but YOU conclude that the invariance of light imply that: "Little planet Earth is the centre of the Universe". This conclusion is YOURS. I don't think you can find even another crank who would agree that the invariance of light imply that there is a preferred frame of reference - the Earth frame. It is just too stupid. But your ignorance and stupidity never cease to amaze. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Aug 2005 18:55 On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:04:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:20:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>Anyone who can conclude that little planet Earth is the centre of the universe >>>>as far as all starlight is concerned should be able to conclude just about >>>>anything. >>> >>>I see. >>>So you have come to the conclusion "that little planet Earth is >>>the centre of the universe as far as all starlight is concerned", >>>and think that you might as well believe in WCHs. >>> >>>You are living in Wonderland, aren't you? >> >> Message ignored. >> >> Andersen obviously drunk again! > >So why are you the one who are raving? > >Listen Henry. >YOU wrote: >" Anyone who can conclude that little planet Earth > is the centre of the universe as far as all starlight > is concerned should be able to conclude just about > anything." > >I have never ever seen anyone but YOU conclude that >the invariance of light imply that: >"Little planet Earth is the centre of the Universe". > >This conclusion is YOURS. > >I don't think you can find even another crank who would >agree that the invariance of light imply that there is >a preferred frame of reference - the Earth frame. >It is just too stupid. The idea is indeed very stupid...and it is obviously hard for you to accept the fact that such stupidity underlies your own belief system. You have ben fooled Paul, by the world's greater ever hoaxer. > >But your ignorance and stupidity never cease to amaze. That is a quote you stole from Seto. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Aug 2005 19:04
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:46:50 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:2kgfg1936kpv9pgn977d37bvkjpj4msjek(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:08:57 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>To do that, he needs (IIRC, it was some time ago) a >>>distance of about 120LY. A rough estimate without >>>calculation would be an order greater than 2.09 mas >>>(since that is circa 1200) so around 21 mas or about >>>20 standard deviations from the measured value. It >>>may not be significant though because he can adjust >>>various other parameters (e.g. eccentricity and >>>inclination) so may be able to match any value. >> >> George, distance and maximum radial velocity are conjugate ( I think >> that's the >> right word). >> I can produce almost the exact curve for RT Aur using maximum radial >> velocity >> of 0.0001c, eccentricity=0.26, yaw angle -140 and distance about 1400 LYs. > >Without having done a proper analysis, I suspected >something like that. The key her is that for a >greater distance, you have to reduce the velocity. >That would show up in the velocity curve as a >simple scaling factor hence won't change the shape >but might cause a discrepancy if you show the >vertical scale on the axes. That why I aked you >to add them some time ago, it is really important. Consider two stars in separate orbits with the same eccentricity and yaw. Let one have maximum velocity 0.0001c and the other 0.0002c. Orbit planes are both edge on. The second will have the same brightness curve as the first but at twice the distance. Incidentally, if the orbit plane is rotated around an axis perpendicular to the LOS, the distance blows out by a simple cosine factor. >> My >> brightness is now shown on a log scale, which increases the distance >> accordingly. I was using a linear output before. > >If you are comparing against the published curves, >you obviously need to use the same format. 'Apparent magnitude', the standard measure, is a log scale. 1 unit difference is a five fold increase in actual observed brightness. I use a base e, with 1 representing zero brightness.....but that is OK becasue the height of the curves is pretty arbitrary anyway. > >> The blue curve is the radial velocity. It differs from the published one >> by >> about 90 degrees. I am working on that. The authors admit their velocity >> curve >> is very vague. > >"Very vague" in scientific terms may mean noisy >but of the correct phase, or it might mean a >phase relationship that is only known to a few >degrees :-( > >Or maybe they haven't a clue and it could be >90 degrees out. ;-) No, I think my own presentation is out of phase. The starting point of the two curves is not the same. I am looking into it. >You need to put some limits on what "Very vague" >means before I can comment. Perhaps mail the >authors? > >> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/georgeceph.jpg > >That's a much clearer picture than I got before, >nice. However, without the numbers on the axes it >doesn't tell me anything. Can you add them please. It's the shape that matters. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |