Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: bz on 6 Jun 2005 23:29 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:9pt9a15raovijokg18p6kjgm5dntilqn2f(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:21:19 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:5o68a1538p6d4i4s4n1baf8v59ereongvq(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>>> >>>>>>How do you think it looks from a few dozen light years away. >>>>> >>>>> A star with constant brightness. >>>> >>>>How about a 11 year variable with rather small brightness variation? >>> >>> Nobody 300LYs away would even notice it. >> >>300 LYs is considerably more than 'a few dozen'. > > It still would hardly be noticed at any distance. It is noticable at 1 au. I bet it will be at 2 dozen ly too. >>>>> 1 day to 5 years? Same kind of star? >>>> >>>>http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/het611-m18a01.ppt >>> >>> I feel sorry for them. >>> So much work chasing red herrings. >> >>The problem, from your viewpoint, is that they have caught a boatload of >>red herring and they are well salted, preserved and ready for all to >>eat. >> >>Did you find any errors in what they said? > > It's all speculative codswallop. But it is GOOD codswallop AND accepted by those that work in the field. >>>>> (This sounds like the nuclear 'pogo stick' that someone once >>>>> invented) >>>> >>>>I seek truth. You play 'one-upsmanship games'. >>> >>> There is nothing funny about nuclear pogo sticks. They actually work. >>> (in principle) >> >>You build one and I will take the second ride on it. You go first. > > The good thing about them is you don't have to exert any energy as you > do with a spring pogo stick. The 1 cylinder gas powered pogo sticks are like that too. >>>>> Stars that puff and blow every few days would certainly NOT be >>>>> perfect spheres either. >>>> >>>>http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/het611-m18a01.ppt >>> >>> so what? >> >>So, perfect spheres are not required for regular oscillations. > > You need more than a perfect sphere for an oscillation as constant as D > cep. You need Andersen's fairies as well. You need better reasoning to invalidate the theories behind the accepted explaination. Something better than 'I don't believe it'. Poke some real holes in the theory. Find the weakest point and attack it with logic and experimental data to show it can't be true. >>>>Perhaps I need other than default values for other parameters. >>> >>> You do. >>> Try yaw -30, ecc=0.2, velocity 0.0002, distance about 200LYs. >> >>congratulations. A nice looking sawtooth. [with one minor problem, to be >>discussed later] >>So lets understand the terms a little better. >> >> >>ecc=0.2 says the orbit of the star in question is eccentric about the >>center of mass of the system. The orbit is an elipse. Quite an eccentric >>one. Why? > > Plenty of stars are in orbits with ecc between about 1.5 and 3. > > If they have the right yaw angles and distance, they produce the typical > sawtooth like curves and are classified as cephids. Lets look at some real data. You have some good references for variables with all the parameters you have included in your model? >>This will show as a doppler shift. It would be good to plot the doppler >>shift along with the brightness curves and compare them with actual >>doppler shift data along with actual brightness curves. >> >>I suspect that the predictions from SR/GR and BaT will be different. >> >>That could be a good test for BaT. > > Unfortunately, it is hard to find figures for both doppler and > brightness for the same star. That sounds very strange. The data should be there somewhere. > It would be of great asistance to me if I > could. >>There is a problem with your program / BaT per Wilson: >> >>The sawtooth goes away when the yaw is varied from -30 degrees. >> >>I can't believe that most cepheid variables just happen to have their >>eccentric orbits oriented so that they are at -30 degrees wrt earth. > > No they are simply classified as something else. I didn't say variation goes away, just the sawtooth shape. It takes on other shapes in your program. > This is a good example of the way in which astronomoy has been throw > right of the rails by Einsteiniana. Theories do NOT hold back research. When you work with scientists you find that they are always looking for holes in theories. That is where publications can be made. > Most yellow stars that exhibit sawtooth like brightness curves are > ssumed to belong to a particular class when in fact, the only common > features they have are yaw angle and orbit eccentricity. That remains to be seen. > Ther are plenty of identical stars that don't exhibit sawtooth curves. According to your theory. >>Now for the 'minor problem' I mentioned earlier. The phase is wrong on >>the sawtooth. It needs to rise rapidly in brightness and decline slowly. >>At -30 it declines rapidly and increases slowly. You need -160 or 200 >>degrees of yaw to get about the right shape. > > This is interesting because of the way in which star brightness is > expressed. I don't think I am the only one confused. > > Traditionally, there is an 'absolute magnitude' scale, which is an > inverted log scale. First magnitude is brightest, second is dimmer, third is dimmer still... Yep, an inverted scale. A lot like a first class theory, a second class explanation and a third class product. > The brightest stars have small or negative AMs, faint ones have high > values...maybe up to 5 which is about the limit with the naked eye. Yep. > There is also the much more practical 'apparent magnitude' rating, > which I gather is the brightness we actually observe and measure. You are confused. [quote http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#apparentmagnitude] apparent magnitude A measure of how bright a star looks in the sky. The brighter the star, the smaller the apparent magnitude. A star that is one magnitude brighter than another (e.g., +1 versus +2) looks 2.5 times brighter. The brightest star of all, of course, is the Sun, whose apparent magnitude is -26.74, followed by Sirius, whose apparent magnitude is -1.46, Canopus (-0.72), Alpha Centauri (-0.27), Arcturus (-0.04), and Vega (+0.03). Stars of the Big Dipper are fainter, most of them around magnitude +2. On a clear, dark night, the unaided eye can see stars as faint as apparent magnitude +6, and the largest telescopes penetrate to apparent magnitude +30. source: Croswell, K. 1995 The Alchemy of the Heavens, Anchor Books, 2001 09-27 09:33:16.0 [unquote] > My > program portrays apparent magnitude with brightness increasing > downwards. I don't care which way your brightness increases. I took your upside down display into account when I made my statement. > Now, I have read opposite reports about delta cephei's light curve. > > This reference: > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cepheid.html > shows the sawtooth with a slow rise and fast fall. WRONG. Their waveform is 'brighter is up', so their sawtooth has a fast rise and a slow fall. Their magnitude scale is 'Apparent Magnitude'. > Yet at: http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0900.shtml > I read: > > "Nevertheless, observers can expect to see delta Cep's rise to maximum > take place in about a day and a half, while the fall to minimum occurs > over 4 days." That is also correct. > So even the experts are confused. NO. In this case, the confusion is your. > Fortunately, changing the yaw angle in my program can reverse the > sawtooth direction. If you use 'scan on' you will see the whole picture. > It takes a few seconds to run. > Even with an eccentricity of 0.1, a pretty good sawtooth is produced. As I said, a yaw of 200 degrees or -160 give the 'correct' sawtooth on your inverted brightness scale. The reason I point out the yaw problem is that yaw angle will almost certainly be randomly distributed among the stars. (unless you can come up with a mechanism that will make them all line up at -160 degrees +/- about 10 degrees. If you take pictures of the brightness curves predicted by your program, oh say every 10 degrees, and look at brightness curves from variable stars, then one out of every 36 should look like the curve you get at 10 degrees. one out of every 36 should look like the curve you get at 20 degrees. one out of every 36 should look like the curve you get at 30 degrees. and so on. But the 'classic cephieds' all pretty much look like classic sawteeth. We should see as many reverse sawteeth as classics. We don't. I really hate to say this, Henri, but I think this is a MAJOR problem for your program's predictions. I don't see any way around it. -- 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 7 Jun 2005 05:23 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:06:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:40:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On 3 Jun 2005 07:08:42 -0700, paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no (Paul B. Andersen) wrote: >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>In a Cepheid there is a standing acoustic wave. >>>>>>The frequency is determined by the dimension of the star >>>>>>and the speed of sound in it. >>>>>>http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/%7Ebonnieb/Physics.html >>>>>> >>>>>>That's why there is a close relationship between >>>>>>the size of the star/crystal and the period. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Well Paul, you will now have to show me the connection between a resonant >>>>>acoustic wave through a ball of gas and its surface brightness. >>>> >>>>Done before, won't bother to repeat it. >>>>You never read it anyway. >>> >>> >>>How do you explain why stars of the same approximate size and temperature have >>>periods ranging from a few days to five years or more? >> >>Simple. >>They don't. > > > Nearly all cephids are large yellow stars, over the hill. > > They have widely differing brightness periods. You are funny in your desperation, Henri. :-) Have you still not fathomed that the prime characteristic of Cepheids is the very close relationship between their size and period? Look at the four examples I gave you: SU Cas: period = 1.9 days radius = 30 solar radii mass = 4.4 solar masses Delta Cep: period = 5.366270 days radius = 41.6 solar radii mass = 5 solar masses X Cyg: period = 16.5 days radius = 118 solar radii mass = 8 solar masses RS Pup: period = 41.4 days radius = 262 solar radii mass = 13 solar masses The resonance frequency of the standing acoustic wave in a star/crystal depend on the size of the star/crystal. Simple, isn't it? >>>Are the acoustics controlled by fairies too? Since you find it necessary to invoke fairies, you must find this hard to grasp. A bit slow, are you? :-) >>>>>>It is ridiculous to believe that only objects orbiting >>>>>>each other can have a constant period. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If you understood anything about diffusive, random and chaotic processes, you >>>>>wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim. >>>>> >>>>>Here is a statement from a paper on cepheids: >>>>>"When one measures the radial velocity of Cepheids, one finds a cyclic >>>>>variation, which has the same period as their change in brightness. " >>>> >>>>Of course. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Funny that. It's exactly what theBaT expects. >>>> >>>>Yea, right. :-) >>>>Very apparent from the following. :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Cepheids are found in a small strip ("the instability strip") >>>>>>of the HR-diagram. >>>>>>http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/courses/one/NOTES/Garry%20Pilkington/loc.htm >>>>>>Their properties are very similar. >>> >>> >>>no connection. >> >>Another of your fantastic coincidences? :-) > > > It isn't even a coincidence. You sure are right about that. There is obviously no coincidence that Cepheids are found along a line in the HR-diagram. That's where the physical conditions for the pulsation to be sustained are fulfilled. > > >>>>Nobody can parody Henri Wilson like Henri Wilson. :-) >>>>Possibly a bit too absurd to be a real good parody, >>>>but anyway - well done. >>> >>> >>>Thanks for the help. I will give you a mention. >> >>You are dead, Henri. :-) >>You DO understand that much, don't you? >> >>WCH, indeed! :-) > > > ...so how do you explain this quote: > "Delta Cep is one of the few easily-visible variables, its magnitude changing > from 3.5 to 4.3 and back over an amazingly regular period of 5 days 8 hours 47 > minutes and 32 seconds, the star acting like a natural clock. " Senile, Henri? Forgotten about the mechanical resonance? > This period constancy has been around for many years. > Do you really believe the puffing and blowing of a huge gas accumulation could > possibly account for that? > > More fairies, perhaps? Sure, Henri. Since you are more familiar with Wonderland than the physical world and do not understand what a mechanical resonance is, let us call it fairies. :-) > give up Paul. The BaT is the obvious cause of most star brightness variation. Of course, Henri. The correct explanation is obviously: | "The truth is, cepheids are mainly small white stars orbiting neutron stars and | other 'Wilsonian cool heavies' (WCH). The occasional red giant that you mention | is really a small white but, because the mass of the WHC stars is very high, | light is greatly redshifted as it escapes the gravity field of the pair. | | This also explains the period/brightness relationship. | The further away from the WCH the orbiting cepheid is, the less redshift and | the more light energy escapes. Note the plane of the orbit wrt the observer is | a factor here." We all recognize the TRUTH when we see it. Don't you think? :-) Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Jun 2005 06:04 On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 03:29:23 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:9pt9a15raovijokg18p6kjgm5dntilqn2f(a)4ax.com: > >> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:21:19 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:5o68a1538p6d4i4s4n1baf8v59ereongvq(a)4ax.com: >>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>How do you think it looks from a few dozen light years away. >>>>>> >>>>>> A star with constant brightness. >>>>> >>>>>How about a 11 year variable with rather small brightness variation? >>>> >>>> Nobody 300LYs away would even notice it. >>> >>>300 LYs is considerably more than 'a few dozen'. >> >> It still would hardly be noticed at any distance. > >It is noticable at 1 au. I bet it will be at 2 dozen ly too. Noone anywhere is going to stand around waiting for a star to change by a few percent in eleven years. >>>You build one and I will take the second ride on it. You go first. >> >> The good thing about them is you don't have to exert any energy as you >> do with a spring pogo stick. > >The 1 cylinder gas powered pogo sticks are like that too. very dangerous. No good for little old ladies. >>>So, perfect spheres are not required for regular oscillations. >> >> You need more than a perfect sphere for an oscillation as constant as D >> cep. You need Andersen's fairies as well. > >You need better reasoning to invalidate the theories behind the accepted >explaination. Something better than 'I don't believe it'. > >Poke some real holes in the theory. Find the weakest point and attack it with >logic and experimental data to show it can't be true. I have, many times. It is obvious that the establishment physicists are trying anything they can to keep their religion in power. > >>>>>Perhaps I need other than default values for other parameters. >>>> >>>> You do. >>>> Try yaw -30, ecc=0.2, velocity 0.0002, distance about 200LYs. >>> >>>congratulations. A nice looking sawtooth. [with one minor problem, to be >>>discussed later] >>>So lets understand the terms a little better. >>> >>> >>>ecc=0.2 says the orbit of the star in question is eccentric about the >>>center of mass of the system. The orbit is an elipse. Quite an eccentric >>>one. Why? >> >> Plenty of stars are in orbits with ecc between about 1.5 and 3. >> >> If they have the right yaw angles and distance, they produce the typical >> sawtooth like curves and are classified as cephids. > >Lets look at some real data. You have some good references for variables with >all the parameters you have included in your model?] I have done that and they all agree well. Here are some: R Aquilae R Andromedae R Arietis R Aur X Aur R Boo S Boo U Boo* V Boo* V CVn** R Cam V Cam" X Cam Z Cam R Cas* S Cas** t Cas** W Cas S Cep* T Cep* Omicron Ceti R Com R Crb*** S Crb V Crb W Crb R Cyg S Cyg V Cyg W Cyg AF Cyg*** CH Cyg----- Cyg---- Chi Cyg R Dra R Gem S Her* RU Her** SS Her AH her R Hya SU Lac X Oph U ori RU Peg--- GK Per--- R Scuti** R Ser V Tau R Uma S Uma T Uma CH Uma*** S Umi R Vul V Vul* The ones with --- and ** are anomalous. > >>>This will show as a doppler shift. It would be good to plot the doppler >>>shift along with the brightness curves and compare them with actual >>>doppler shift data along with actual brightness curves. >>> >>>I suspect that the predictions from SR/GR and BaT will be different. >>> >>>That could be a good test for BaT. >> >> Unfortunately, it is hard to find figures for both doppler and >> brightness for the same star. > >That sounds very strange. The data should be there somewhere. The SRians have probably hushed it up. If you can find it please tell me. >>>I can't believe that most cepheid variables just happen to have their >>>eccentric orbits oriented so that they are at -30 degrees wrt earth. >> >> No they are simply classified as something else. > >I didn't say variation goes away, just the sawtooth shape. It takes on other >shapes in your program. that's correct. Stars with other shaped brightness curves are classified differently when in fact they might be quite similar. > >> This is a good example of the way in which astronomoy has been throw >> right of the rails by Einsteiniana. > >Theories do NOT hold back research. When you work with scientists you find >that they are always looking for holes in theories. That is where >publications can be made. I worked with scientists for forty years, boy. I should know. > >> Most yellow stars that exhibit sawtooth like brightness curves are >> ssumed to belong to a particular class when in fact, the only common >> features they have are yaw angle and orbit eccentricity. > >That remains to be seen. You can see it on my program. > >> Ther are plenty of identical stars that don't exhibit sawtooth curves. > >According to your theory. The evidence is there. > >>>Now for the 'minor problem' I mentioned earlier. The phase is wrong on >>>the sawtooth. It needs to rise rapidly in brightness and decline slowly. >>>At -30 it declines rapidly and increases slowly. You need -160 or 200 >>>degrees of yaw to get about the right shape. >> >> This is interesting because of the way in which star brightness is >> expressed. I don't think I am the only one confused. >> >> Traditionally, there is an 'absolute magnitude' scale, which is an >> inverted log scale. > >First magnitude is brightest, second is dimmer, third is dimmer still... >Yep, an inverted scale. Sirius is -1.5, the dimmst stars around 5. > >A lot like a first class theory, a second class explanation and a third class >product. > >> The brightest stars have small or negative AMs, faint ones have high >> values...maybe up to 5 which is about the limit with the naked eye. > >Yep. > >> There is also the much more practical 'apparent magnitude' rating, >> which I gather is the brightness we actually observe and measure. >You are confused. Sorry I am...and with good reason. There is another term "apparent brightness' which is what we observe and measure. THAT is what my program predicts and that is what many papers show in their graphs. Others show magniotudes. It is very confusing. > >[quote >http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#apparentmagnitude] > >apparent magnitude A measure of how bright a star looks in the sky. The >brighter the star, the smaller the apparent magnitude. A star that is one >magnitude brighter than another (e.g., +1 versus +2) looks 2.5 times >brighter. The brightest star of all, of course, is the Sun, whose apparent >magnitude is -26.74, followed by Sirius, whose apparent magnitude is -1.46, >Canopus (-0.72), Alpha Centauri (-0.27), Arcturus (-0.04), and Vega (+0.03). >Stars of the Big Dipper are fainter, most of them around magnitude +2. On a >clear, dark night, the unaided eye can see stars as faint as apparent >magnitude +6, and the largest telescopes penetrate to apparent magnitude +30. >source: Croswell, K. 1995 The Alchemy of the Heavens, Anchor Books, 2001 >09-27 09:33:16.0 >[unquote] > >> My >> program portrays apparent magnitude with brightness increasing >> downwards. > >I don't care which way your brightness increases. I took your upside down >display into account when I made my statement. OK, good > >> Now, I have read opposite reports about delta cephei's light curve. >> >> This reference: >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cepheid.html >> shows the sawtooth with a slow rise and fast fall. > >WRONG. Their waveform is 'brighter is up', so their sawtooth has a fast rise >and a slow fall. Their magnitude scale is 'Apparent Magnitude'. OK , once again I was confusing 'apparent magnitude' with 'apparent brightness'. > > >> Yet at: http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0900.shtml >> I read: >> >> "Nevertheless, observers can expect to see delta Cep's rise to maximum >> take place in about a day and a half, while the fall to minimum occurs >> over 4 days." > >That is also correct. OK we now have that settled. So the yaw angle is around 200 not 45-60 > >> So even the experts are confused. > >NO. In this case, the confusion is your. OK. But you will come across positive linear brightness scales in many publications. > >> Fortunately, changing the yaw angle in my program can reverse the >> sawtooth direction. If you use 'scan on' you will see the whole picture. >> It takes a few seconds to run. >> Even with an eccentricity of 0.1, a pretty good sawtooth is produced. > >As I said, a yaw of 200 degrees or -160 give the 'correct' sawtooth on your >inverted brightness scale. Yes, OK. > >The reason I point out the yaw problem is that yaw angle will almost >certainly be randomly distributed among the stars. (unless you can come up >with a mechanism that will make them all line up at -160 degrees +/- about 10 >degrees. > >If you take pictures of the brightness curves predicted by your program, oh >say every 10 degrees, and look at brightness curves from variable stars, then > >one out of every 36 should look like the curve you get at 10 degrees. >one out of every 36 should look like the curve you get at 20 degrees. >one out of every 36 should look like the curve you get at 30 degrees. >and so on. There is a range of about 60 degrees that still gives the typical cepheid sawtooth, bz. So one in six stars will be classified as cepheids. > >But the 'classic cephieds' all pretty much look like classic sawteeth. > >We should see as many reverse sawteeth as classics. >We don't. yes we do... but they are classified differently. I looked at most of the curves at www.Britastro.org/vss/ The 'fast rise/slow fall' curves outnumber the opposite about two to one. I would put this down to the fact that researchers have looked for cepheids and tended to study them more closely. There are certainly plenty of sawtooths going the other way. Have a look at R Sct. The BaT would say it is a ternary system with maybe two partial eclipses. V 1413 Aql would be classified as an eclipsing binary but the BaT shows taht this type of curve can be produced by oine star in 0.4+ eccentricity orbit and with its periheliom closest to observer. (Yaw angle -90). > >I really hate to say this, Henri, but I think this is a MAJOR problem for >your program's predictions. I don't see any way around it. I just told you. 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: tadchem on 7 Jun 2005 10:09 Henri Wilson wrote: > Noone anywhere is going to stand around waiting for a star to change by a few > percent in eleven years. Does this count? - 0.1% variation over an 11-year cycle? The output in ultra-violet wavelengths varies by 'a few percent'. It's been monitored for several cycles: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/S/So/Solar_variation.htm Absolutely *everyone* is watching it. There's nowhere else to go... Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
From: bz on 7 Jun 2005 13:21
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:5unaa1555rjr09vdak36b99jcqev2140gt(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 03:29:23 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:9pt9a15raovijokg18p6kjgm5dntilqn2f(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:21:19 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:5o68a1538p6d4i4s4n1baf8v59ereongvq(a)4ax.com: ..... >>>>300 LYs is considerably more than 'a few dozen'. >>> >>> It still would hardly be noticed at any distance. >> >>It is noticable at 1 au. I bet it will be at 2 dozen ly too. > > Noone anywhere is going to stand around waiting for a star to change by > a few percent in eleven years. We watch some stars that closely and for longer than that. ..... >>You need better reasoning to invalidate the theories behind the accepted >>explaination. Something better than 'I don't believe it'. >> >>Poke some real holes in the theory. Find the weakest point and attack it >>with logic and experimental data to show it can't be true. > I have, many times. I have yet to see that. I see you make some assertions and support them with program simulations, but those simulations don't prove what you think they prove. > It is obvious that the establishment physicists are trying anything they > can to keep their religion in power. Paranoia is such a comforting illusion. >>>>>>Perhaps I need other than default values for other parameters. >>>>> You do. >>>>> Try yaw -30, ecc=0.2, velocity 0.0002, distance about 200LYs. >>>>congratulations. A nice looking sawtooth. [with one minor problem, to >>>>be discussed later] >>>>So lets understand the terms a little better. >>>>ecc=0.2 says the orbit of the star in question is eccentric about the >>>>center of mass of the system. The orbit is an elipse. Quite an >>>>eccentric one. Why? >>> Plenty of stars are in orbits with ecc between about 1.5 and 3. >>> If they have the right yaw angles and distance, they produce the >>> typical sawtooth like curves and are classified as cephids. >>Lets look at some real data. You have some good references for variables >>with all the parameters you have included in your model?] > I have done that and they all agree well. > Here are some: > R Aquilae normal sawtooth. I need the actual distance, yaw, eccentricity, orbital velocity of the star to compare it with your program. Same for all the rest. > R Andromedae NS > R Arietis ?? sine wave? > R Aur ?? complex, binary? > X Aur ?? sine wave? > R Boo ?? complex? sine wave? > S Boo ?? sine wave? > U Boo* ?? complex, binary? > V Boo* oscillator died. > V CVn** oscillator died. > R Cam ?? variable. > V Cam NS > X Cam ?? sine wave? > Z Cam intermittent normal sawtooth. > R Cas* NS > S Cas** NS with quiecent period between teeth. > t Cas** Reverse sawtooth? complex? binary? > W Cas complex > S Cep* complex? RS? > T Cep* complex? RS? > Omicron Ceti NS > R Com NS > R Crb*** strange! > S Crb NS > V Crb NS? > W Crb NS? All of these really need better data analysis than just looking at the curves. We can get the actual data points and fold them at the rep frequency and average to get a single smooth curve. > R Cyg > S Cyg > V Cyg > W Cyg > AF Cyg*** > CH Cyg----- > Cyg---- > Chi Cyg > R Dra > R Gem > S Her* > RU Her** > SS Her > AH her > R Hya > SU Lac > X Oph > U ori > RU Peg--- > GK Per--- > R Scuti** > R Ser > V Tau > R Uma > S Uma > T Uma > CH Uma*** > S Umi > R Vul > V Vul* > > The ones with --- and ** are anomalous. Better data analysis needed, as above >>>>This will show as a doppler shift. It would be good to plot the >>>>doppler shift along with the brightness curves and compare them with >>>>actual doppler shift data along with actual brightness curves. >>>> >>>>I suspect that the predictions from SR/GR and BaT will be different. >>>> >>>>That could be a good test for BaT. >>> >>> Unfortunately, it is hard to find figures for both doppler and >>> brightness for the same star. >> >>That sounds very strange. The data should be there somewhere. > > The SRians have probably hushed it up. Conspiracy theories mean that the secret MUST be important? No, they indicate that the person holding the belief in the conspiracy theory needs the 'extra ego boost' of knowing something so important that someone would want to supress the knowledge. I automatically discount any theory that is given a 'conspiracy boost' by its proponents about 20% on my credability scale for exactly this reason. > If you can find it please tell me. I am looking. >>>>I can't believe that most cepheid variables just happen to have their >>>>eccentric orbits oriented so that they are at -30 degrees wrt earth. >>> >>> No they are simply classified as something else. >> >>I didn't say variation goes away, just the sawtooth shape. It takes on >>other shapes in your program. > > that's correct. Stars with other shaped brightness curves are classified > differently when in fact they might be quite similar. Look at all variable. Cephieds are not classified as Cephied because of the shape of their brightness curve, they are classified as Cephieds because of the place they show up on the HR diagram, the periodic variation in brightness along with classification due to doppler shift of the absorption lines. >>> This is a good example of the way in which astronomoy has been throw >>> right of the rails by Einsteiniana. >> >>Theories do NOT hold back research. When you work with scientists you >>find that they are always looking for holes in theories. That is where >>publications can be made. > > I worked with scientists for forty years, boy. I should know. I still work with scientists and teachers and have been involved with science since the 60s. They want to teach people how to think. They continually challenge each other and their students to think and question. >>> Most yellow stars that exhibit sawtooth like brightness curves are >>> ssumed to belong to a particular class when in fact, the only common >>> features they have are yaw angle and orbit eccentricity. >> >>That remains to be seen. > > You can see it on my program. I need to see that known yaw angles and orbit eccentricities give the same curves that your program predicts for the same parameters. >>> Ther are plenty of identical stars that don't exhibit sawtooth curves. >> >>According to your theory. > > The evidence is there. Take me through it, star by star, parameter by parameter. ..... > Sirius is -1.5, the dimmst stars around 5. On a dark night, with good eyes, we can see 6. ..... >>http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#apparentmagnitude] ..... >>> This reference: >>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cepheid.html >>> shows the sawtooth with a slow rise and fast fall. ..... >>> Fortunately, changing the yaw angle in my program can reverse the >>> sawtooth direction. If you use 'scan on' you will see the whole >>> picture. It takes a few seconds to run. >>> Even with an eccentricity of 0.1, a pretty good sawtooth is produced. >> >>As I said, a yaw of 200 degrees or -160 give the 'correct' sawtooth on >>your inverted brightness scale. > > Yes, OK. > >> >>The reason I point out the yaw problem is that yaw angle will almost >>certainly be randomly distributed among the stars. (unless you can come >>up with a mechanism that will make them all line up at -160 degrees +/- >>about 10 degrees. >> >>If you take pictures of the brightness curves predicted by your program, >>oh say every 10 degrees, and look at brightness curves from variable >>stars, then >> >>one out of every 36 should look like the curve you get at 10 degrees. >>one out of every 36 should look like the curve you get at 20 degrees. >>one out of every 36 should look like the curve you get at 30 degrees. >>and so on. > > There is a range of about 60 degrees that still gives the typical > cepheid sawtooth, bz. 30 degrees either way? OK. Still, one out of every 36 should look like the curve you get at 40 degrees, etc. > So one in six stars will be classified as cepheids. One in six VARIABLE stars in the right size range with the right stellar classification range (cepheids shift star type as the lines in their spectrum doppler shift). >>But the 'classic cephieds' all pretty much look like classic sawteeth. >> >>We should see as many reverse sawteeth as classics. >>We don't. > > yes we do... but they are classified differently. > I looked at most of the curves at www.Britastro.org/vss/ We need better data smoothing/averaging/handling. > The 'fast rise/slow fall' curves outnumber the opposite about two to > one. > > I would put this down to the fact that researchers have looked for > cepheids and tended to study them more closely. Researchers look for variable stars and study them closely. I doubt that they discriminate against slow rise/fast fall stars. > There are certainly plenty of sawtooths going the other way. Show me a number equal to the 'normal saw teeth'. > > Have a look at R Sct. The BaT would say it is a ternary system with > maybe two partial eclipses. BaT? I see two stars that are almost the same size that are almost in a plane wrt earth. The max dip is when the larger, dimmer star hides the smaller, brighter one. The min dip is when the smaller brighter star hids part of the larger dimmer star. > V 1413 Aql would be classified as an eclipsing binary but the BaT shows > taht this type of curve can be produced by oine star in 0.4+ > eccentricity orbit and with its periheliom closest to observer. (Yaw > angle -90). drop in intensity is too wide in your simulation with those parameters. >>I really hate to say this, Henri, but I think this is a MAJOR problem >>for your program's predictions. I don't see any way around it. > > I just told you. Afraid that we do not yet have agreement. -- 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 |