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: Henri Wilson on 8 Jun 2005 00:50 On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:21:45 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. Well the BaT produces all he observed brightness curves and explains them simply and conclusively. An yone with any intelligence at all would be much more inclined to accept that rather than any highly unlikely 'puff and blow' acoustic resonance theory. > >> It is obvious that the establishment physicists are trying anything they >> can to keep their religion in power. > >Paranoia is such a comforting illusion. Sorry, look in a mirror if you don't believe me. >>>> 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. How do you explain the fact that few of these stars are cephids or miras and yet exhibit dead constant periods. > >> 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 It is bloody obvious that the brightness period is in synch with orbit period. >>>> >>>> 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. >> 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. .....and plenty of other similar stars do not exhibit these properties and are classed as something else. > > >>>> 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. They must have given up on you. Your sole aim appears to be to preach Einsteiniana. > >>>> 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. I have looked at a few and the match closely. ....give me a few parameters. >> 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). yes > >>>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. 'Cephids' and 'Miras' have been studied more than the others. > >> 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. Unfortunately the observations are badly 'weather affected' so it is a bit hard to be sure that a third object is present.... I agree, this is a clear case of two stars eclipsing eachother 180 apart. > >> 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. try ecc=0.75 > >>>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. My program, based on c+v, can produce almost all the observed brightness curves. Doesn't that impress you at all? ..or do you still believe that the space fairies adjust the speed of every photon in the universe so that it moves at c wrt little planet Earth. 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: bz on 8 Jun 2005 08:25 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:vksca1p3pjm3nt06kk9k720li7gje5qgpt(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:21:45 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>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. > Well the BaT produces all he observed brightness curves and explains > them simply and conclusively. > Anyone with any intelligence at all would be much more inclined to > accept that rather than any highly unlikely 'puff and blow' acoustic > resonance theory. The BaT produces curves that have never been observed. It produces curves that should never be observed. That makes me reluctant to accept the BaT without a LOT more study and verification by comparison with real data. >>> It is obvious that the establishment physicists are trying anything >>> they can to keep their religion in power. >> >>Paranoia is such a comforting illusion. > Sorry, look in a mirror if you don't believe me. I would look in a mirror even if I did believe you. >>>>> 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. > > How do you explain the fact that few of these stars are cephids or miras > and yet exhibit dead constant periods. for those that are binary, no explanation is needed. for cephieds, the explanation has been given. for the others, I have no idea at the moment. ...... > It is bloody obvious that the brightness period is in synch with orbit > period. Henri, that attitude is NOT productive. If something were obvious, everyone would see it and agree. The data in that ppt presentation showed a time lag between the radial velocity and the brightness. The data does NOT match what one would expect from an orbiting star. The radial velocities are not the kinds of velocities that one would see from an orbiting star. They ARE what one would see from rapid changes in diameter and surface area of the star. >>>>> 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. > >>> 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. > > ....and plenty of other similar stars do not exhibit these properties > and are classed as something else. If they fall in the right area on the HR diagram, they are classified as Cephieds, even if they do not seem to be variable. People study them to find out WHY they are not variable. They get EXTRA attention. >>>>> 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. > > They must have given up on you. Not that I have noticed. A physics professor stopped by yesterday and told me about the second and third papers in a series that he is publishing. He has the idea that moving matter, when it has enough energy and passes close to other matter INDUCES the transformation of KE to matter/photons via a 'matter-motive-force', somewhat analogous to the electromotive force inducing current. He ties together the photoelectric effect, the compton effect and other effects. He has data and math to support his ideas. They are a bit radical but he has had no problem presenting them. > Your sole aim appears to be to preach Einsteiniana. When trying to help a BaTer muster his arguments, one must take the other side. >>>>> 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. > > I have looked at a few and they match closely. Which ones? Let us see their parameters and compare their light curves with your light curves. > ...give me a few parameters. We need a source for the parameters and curves. ALL [or almost all] should match closely. I am still looking. >>> 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). > yes And they don't discriminate against stars because the saw-teeth would be backwards. Yet we don't see equal numbers of the different patterns produced by your program. This is a SERIOUS reason to doubt that the program is an accurate model of what is happening 'out thar'. >>>>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. http://www.rssd.esa.int/Hipparcos/education_lcA.html >> >>> 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. > > 'Cephids' and 'Miras' have been studied more than the others. The 'slow rise fast fall' [srff] would be classified as Cephids so they would be studied just as much as the 'fast rise slow fall' [frsf]. Actually, as they are NOT predicted by the He+ <--> He+2 origin of Cephieds, they would be studied MORE. Scientists tend to study oddities more than predicted phenomina. >>> 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. > Unfortunately the observations are badly 'weather affected' so it is a > bit hard to be sure that a third object is present.... I agree, this is > a clear case of two stars eclipsing eachother 180 apart. ah... when there are two stars they are ALWAYS going to be 180 degrees apart. :) You do know that there are computer programs that will tell you if there are star-spots on the stars, don't you? >>> V 1413 Aql would be classified as an eclipsing binary but the BaT >>> shows that this type of curve can be produced by one 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. > > try ecc=0.75 produces very strange pattern at yaw = 180. And that is exactly why I am suspicious of HLC (henri's light curves) and BaT (assuming HLC really does model BaT). We should be seeing all of those 'strange' patterns if BaT and HLC are valid. Also your curves produce a noticable 'upswing' just before and after the dip in brightness. V1413 doesn't show those feature. To the contrary. try http://www.aavso.org/data/lcg/ object v1413 aql plot last 6000 days 2 day average http://www.aavso.org/observing/charts/phot/v1413aql.dat http://www.aavso.org/cgi-bin/searchcharts3.pl?name=v1413%20aql An interesting paper. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0202/0202118.pdf >>>>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. > > My program, based on c+v, can produce almost all the observed brightness > curves. And many curves that have never been observed at all. Thereby lies the rub! > Doesn't that impress you at all? If it didn't, do you think I would have spent this much time looking at the program and communicating with you? > ..or do you still believe that the > space fairies adjust the speed of every photon in the universe so that > it moves at c wrt little planet Earth. The evidence strongly indicates that k is < 10^-9 in c'=c+kv. -------------------------------------------------------------- H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:5unaa1555rjr09vdak36b99jcqev2140gt(a)4ax.com: > The SRians have probably hushed it up. > If you can find it please tell me. http://www.sai.msu.su/gcvs/gcvs/cep/ (had radial velocity data) some interesting programs and sites http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/18_2/ozdemir/paper/node3.html http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people/vdhillon/seminars/brussels/imaging_lc.ht ml http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~astro/binstar/moreprograms.html http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/345592/Main/ 339772 http://www.as.wsp.krakow.pl/ephem/ This site has LOTS of star catalogues and data. http://www.sai.msu.su/groups/cluster/gcvs/gcvs/ Basic Programs from Sky and Telescope http://skyandtelescope.com/resources/software/article_326_2.asp A two CD program called Guide 8 that should give you almost any data you might ever want and then some for $85 bux. http://www.projectpluto.com/ but I have yet to find the radial velocity and yaw for v1413 cep -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- 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: Henri Wilson on 8 Jun 2005 19:58 On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:25:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:vksca1p3pjm3nt06kk9k720li7gje5qgpt(a)4ax.com: > > >>>> 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. > >> Well the BaT produces all he observed brightness curves and explains >> them simply and conclusively. >> Anyone with any intelligence at all would be much more inclined to >> accept that rather than any highly unlikely 'puff and blow' acoustic >> resonance theory. > >The BaT produces curves that have never been observed. It produces curves >that should never be observed. That makes me reluctant to accept the BaT >without a LOT more study and verification by comparison with real data. There are lots of strange curves that don't attract much attention. If you look at the britastro site again, go down to the "other detailed light-curves". > >>>> It is obvious that the establishment physicists are trying anything >>>> they can to keep their religion in power. >>> >>>Paranoia is such a comforting illusion. > >> Sorry, look in a mirror if you don't believe me. > >I would look in a mirror even if I did believe you. One should regularly look in a mirror. >> How do you explain the fact that few of these stars are cephids or miras >> and yet exhibit dead constant periods. > >for those that are binary, no explanation is needed. What do you mean by that? Are you under the impression that all curves involving binaries show evidence of an eclipse? >for cephieds, the explanation has been given. >for the others, I have no idea at the moment. I can explain them all. > >..... > >> It is bloody obvious that the brightness period is in synch with orbit >> period. > >Henri, that attitude is NOT productive. If something were obvious, everyone >would see it and agree. No they wouldn't. They are too brainwashed. Plain and simple. They would be ostracized and probably lose their jobs. I am now free to say what I like. > >The data in that ppt presentation showed a time lag between the radial >velocity and the brightness. The data does NOT match what one would expect >from an orbiting star. The radial velocities are not the kinds of velocities >that one would see from an orbiting star. They ARE what one would see from >rapid changes in diameter and surface area of the star. This is completely wrong. The R/Ro curve is exactly that of a star in an eccentric orbit. My program shows that the phase difference can be either slightly forward of the minimum speed or behind it, depending on the distance. Run my program, with eccentricity at about 0.4. When you click the red button, the velocity/time curve is shown in blue. It s thhe same as the one in your stupid wenbsite. Incidentally, the theory there assumes that the star has constant density...need I say any more. Are you noticing how all your revelations end up supporting the BaT? >>>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. >> >> ....and plenty of other similar stars do not exhibit these properties >> and are classed as something else. > >If they fall in the right area on the HR diagram, they are classified as >Cephieds, even if they do not seem to be variable. People study them to find >out WHY they are not variable. They get EXTRA attention. But how is the HR diagram determined? >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> They must have given up on you. > >Not that I have noticed. A physics professor stopped by yesterday and told me >about the second and third papers in a series that he is publishing. > >He has the idea that moving matter, when it has enough energy and passes >close to other matter INDUCES the transformation of KE to matter/photons via >a 'matter-motive-force', somewhat analogous to the electromotive force >inducing current. He ties together the photoelectric effect, the compton >effect and other effects. > >He has data and math to support his ideas. They are a bit radical but he has >had no problem presenting them. I find that a very acceptable theory...particularly since it supports my concept of a 'reverse field bubble'. Maybe there is a connection here between E fields and gravity. > >> Your sole aim appears to be to preach Einsteiniana. > >When trying to help a BaTer muster his arguments, one must take the other >side. Thank you. Your comments have actually been very helpful. I must convert the output of my program to log scale and invert it so it coincides with the published data. I cannot understand the logic behind the traditional method. Occasionally, 'apparent brightness' curves are published and look even more like the ones the BaT produces. > >>>>>> 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. >> >> I have looked at a few and they match closely. > >Which ones? > >Let us see their parameters and compare their light curves with your light >curves. > >> ...give me a few parameters. > >We need a source for the parameters and curves. >ALL [or almost all] should match closely. I am still looking. > >>>> 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). > >> yes > >And they don't discriminate against stars because the saw-teeth would be >backwards. Yet we don't see equal numbers of the different patterns produced >by your program. This is a SERIOUS reason to doubt that the program is an >accurate model of what is happening 'out thar'. > >>>>>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. > >http://www.rssd.esa.int/Hipparcos/education_lcA.html Unfortunately none of these is suitable. The ones that I would like to check don't have the distance. I also need maximum radial velocity, as estimated from doppler shift. The curve of AH Vir is easy to produce but its orbit plane must be nearly perpendicular to us.. Of the three eclipsing binaries, two curves have a round top and definitely ARE eclipsing . The curve of theother one (V359 Vel) has a flat or slightly concave top and this could indicate just a single star...but the distance is not given. > > >>> >>>> 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. >> >> 'Cephids' and 'Miras' have been studied more than the others. > >The 'slow rise fast fall' [srff] would be classified as Cephids so they would >be studied just as much as the 'fast rise slow fall' [frsf]. Actually, as >they are NOT predicted by the He+ <--> He+2 origin of Cephieds, they would be >studied MORE. > >Scientists tend to study oddities more than predicted phenomina. > >>>> 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. > >> Unfortunately the observations are badly 'weather affected' so it is a >> bit hard to be sure that a third object is present.... I agree, this is >> a clear case of two stars eclipsing eachother 180 apart. > >ah... when there are two stars they are ALWAYS going to be 180 degrees apart. >:) yes :) Although as the late Androcles pointed out, there is another stable point around an orbit where a second object could lie permanently. I cannot recall the name of the point. (Lagrange point maybe?) What I meant was that the fact that the dips are 180 apart shows two stars are definitely eclipsing each other...... The change in amplitude suggests that the pair are orbiting a third object..but like I said...the curves are not sufficiently detailed to be sure of that. > >You do know that there are computer programs that will tell you if there are >star-spots on the stars, don't you? No. what is more, I don't care. Until the astrophysics world realises that all light in the universe does NOT travel to planet Earth at c, none of their stuff is believable. > >>>> V 1413 Aql would be classified as an eclipsing binary but the BaT >>>> shows that this type of curve can be produced by one 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. >> >> try ecc=0.75 > >produces very strange pattern at yaw = 180. And that is exactly why I am >suspicious of HLC (henri's light curves) and BaT (assuming HLC really does >model BaT). We should be seeing all of those 'strange' patterns if BaT and >HLC are valid. Yes I agree they need explaining but I believe they are out there. Include the molecular velocities. I am now wondering if two orbiting objects of about the same size really do follow an elliptical paths. > >Also your curves produce a noticable 'upswing' just before and after the dip >in brightness. V1413 doesn't show those feature. To the contrary. > >try http://www.aavso.org/data/lcg/ >object v1413 aql >plot last 6000 days >2 day average Yes, the shape of the bright part of the curve can tell us whether it is a genuine eclipsing binary or not. If it dips down in the middle like Algol, it may be just a single star orbiting a dark companion. > >http://www.aavso.org/observing/charts/phot/v1413aql.dat >http://www.aavso.org/cgi-bin/searchcharts3.pl?name=v1413%20aql Not a very good curve. > >An interesting paper. >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0202/0202118.pdf > >>>>>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. >> >> My program, based on c+v, can produce almost all the observed brightness >> curves. > >And many curves that have never been observed at all. Thereby lies the rub! We will see. > >> Doesn't that impress you at all? > >If it didn't, do you think I would have spent this much time looking at the >program and communicating with you? > >> ..or do you still believe that the >> space fairies adjust the speed of every photon in the universe so that >> it moves at c wrt little planet Earth. > >The evidence strongly indicates that k is < 10^-9 in c'=c+kv. Not in space it doesn't. > >-------------------------------------------------------------- > >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:5unaa1555rjr09vdak36b99jcqev2140gt(a)4ax.com: > >> The SRians have probably hushed it up. >> If you can find it please tell me. > >http://www.sai.msu.su/gcvs/gcvs/cep/ >(had radial velocity data) > > >some interesting programs and sites >http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/18_2/ozdemir/paper/node3.html > >http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people/vdhillon/seminars/brussels/imaging_lc.ht >ml > >http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~astro/binstar/moreprograms.html > >http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/345592/Main/ >339772 > >http://www.as.wsp.krakow.pl/ephem/ > >This site has LOTS of star catalogues and data. >http://www.sai.msu.su/groups/cluster/gcvs/gcvs/ > >Basic Programs from Sky and Telescope >http://skyandtelescope.com/resources/software/article_326_2.asp > >A two CD program called Guide 8 that should give you almost any data you >might ever want and then some for $85 bux. >http://www.projectpluto.com/ will look at these must go now > >but I have yet to find the radial velocity and yaw for v1413 cep > > > >-- >bz > >please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an >infinite set. > >bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 8 Jun 2005 21:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:02:42 GMT <6vpea1hsk6rpu1m0t7k0ek02ok9vkr919m(a)4ax.com>: > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:55:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:23:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:06:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>Simple. >>>>>>They don't. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Nearly all cephids are large yellow stars, over the hill. >>> >>> >>> (Note my correction here) >> >>OK. >>Nearly all cepheids are large yellow stars, over the hill. >>But we knew that, didn't we? :-) >> >>Actually cepheids range from F bright giants to G super giants. >>So they are extremely large white or yellow stars. > > How is their size estimated? > Using Einsteiniana? Correct, which makes the estimation automatically invalid, in H. Wilson's Theory(tm) AIUI. If one uses the "correct" method, one finds out that they are in fact eclipsing trinaries, one component of which is in fact a large, cool star (the occluder), another component of which is a very dense black hole of unknown mass (the retarder), and the other component of which is a small but very bright Sun-like star (the shinola). Given these elements it should be trivial to match the observed sawtooth lightcurve of the typical Cepheid. As a side effect the distances to galaxies should be considerably less than those estimated by more traditional SRGRian methods. In fact, the age of the Universe amy very well be 6,000 years. :-) > >> >>> >>>>>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? >>> >>> >>> Hohohahahaha! >>> >>> Very simple ...when the size is estimated from the period...HoHohahahaha! >> >>The size isn't estimated from the period. >> >>> I call that circular reasoning, don't you Paul? >> >>You are babbling, Henri. >>I told you how the sizes are estimated. >>It's quite simple, actually. > > From the supposed relationship with period? For binaries nearby one might be able to estimate the size using such things as Earth-orbit parallax. This of course works for very very few binaries, Delta Cephei among them. (Yes, Delta Cephei is a binary. The orbital period is unknown but conventional astronomy suggests it is far larger than the 5.37 days apparently required by BaT. As of this time, it is not measured.) > >> >>>>>>>>>>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. >>> >>> >>> But your theory provides no exsplanation as to why many of the stars DO NOT >>> vary when they should. >> >>Can you name a star which "DO NOT vary when they should"? >>HD80715 maybe? :-) > > How many times have I explained this one to you Paul? > > Two similar stars in near circular orbit will almost cancel each other's > brightnes curve. If they eclipse, one might see a dip to a minimum of half absolute brightness (which is a fraction of a magnitude, AIUI). This dip should be symmetric. The brightness curve of a Cepheid variable therefore suggests an assymetric system, or perhaps a trinary system. (Either that, or it's the star oscillating, playing with its ionized helium.) > >> >>> The BaT doesn't have that problem. >> >>Except for all the thousands of binaries which >>"DO NOT vary when they should", of course. :-) > > How could something that SHOULD happen NOT happen? > The Fairies intervene perhaps? Yes, you've found them. The SRifarians -- or SR fairies -- who are a small but distinctive cluster of magical demons, imps, or what have you consigned to forever wander around the galactic deeps, confusing binary stars. [rest snipped] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz on 9 Jun 2005 14:27
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:fpqea1hlml66sod5n0ifac5ee2g632116v(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:25:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:vksca1p3pjm3nt06kk9k720li7gje5qgpt(a)4ax.com: ..... >>The BaT produces curves that have never been observed. It produces >>curves that should never be observed. That makes me reluctant to accept >>the BaT without a LOT more study and verification by comparison with >>real data. > > There are lots of strange curves that don't attract much attention. > If you look at the britastro site again, go down to the "other detailed > light-curves". I looked at them all. Nothing there like some of the curves that your program produces. ..... >>> How do you explain the fact that few of these stars are cephids or >>> miras and yet exhibit dead constant periods. >> >>for those that are binary, no explanation is needed. > > What do you mean by that? > Are you under the impression that all curves involving binaries show > evidence of an eclipse? Absolutely not. By the way, NONE of the data that I looked at showed 'dead constatant periods' and most of them show considerable variation. >>for cephieds, the explanation has been given. >>for the others, I have no idea at the moment. > > I can explain them all. Only if you can look at the distance to star and orbital parameters and produce the correct curve without first looking at the brightness data. >>> It is bloody obvious that the brightness period is in synch with orbit >>> period. >> >>Henri, that attitude is NOT productive. If something were obvious, >>everyone would see it and agree. > > No they wouldn't. They are too brainwashed. Plain and simple. They would > be ostracized and probably lose their jobs. > I am now free to say what I like. Of course you are free to say what you like. You are also responsible for the consistancy of the results. >>The data in that ppt presentation showed a time lag between the radial >>velocity and the brightness. The data does NOT match what one would >>expect from an orbiting star. The radial velocities are not the kinds of >>velocities that one would see from an orbiting star. They ARE what one >>would see from rapid changes in diameter and surface area of the star. > > This is completely wrong. > The R/Ro curve is exactly that of a star in an eccentric orbit. > My program shows that the phase difference can be either slightly > forward of the minimum speed or behind it, depending on the distance. > Run my program, with eccentricity at about 0.4. When you click the red > button, the velocity/time curve is shown in blue. It s thhe same as the > one in your stupid wenbsite. It is NOT MY wenbsite, stupid or othewise. Your velocity/time curve looks like a sine wave. The radial velocity/time curves of the cepheid variables do not follow a sine wave. > Incidentally, the theory there assumes that the star has constant > density...need I say any more. A lot more. The theory just assumed constant density to simplify the calculations. If the results are good enough with that assumption then there is little reason to complicate the calculations. However the theory does NOT depend on a constant density. > Are you noticing how all your revelations end up supporting the BaT? No. To the contrary. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.551 >>>>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. >>> >>> ....and plenty of other similar stars do not exhibit these properties >>> and are classed as something else. >> >>If they fall in the right area on the HR diagram, they are classified as >>Cephieds, even if they do not seem to be variable. People study them to >>find out WHY they are not variable. They get EXTRA attention. > > But how is the HR diagram determined? http://cas.sdss.org/dr3/en/proj/advanced/hr/ Plot Star luminosity (vertical axis) vs surface temperature (color). Luminosity is determined from how bright the star is and how far away it is. surface temperature can be determined from the shape of the brightness curve using stephans law, the lines present in the spectrum are taken into account (possible red/blue shifts). ..... >>He has data and math to support his ideas. They are a bit radical but he >>has had no problem presenting them. > > I find that a very acceptable theory...particularly since it supports my > concept of a 'reverse field bubble'. > Maybe there is a connection here between E fields and gravity. Maybe. >>> Your sole aim appears to be to preach Einsteiniana. >> >>When trying to help a BaTer muster his arguments, one must take the >>other side. > > Thank you. Your comments have actually been very helpful. I try. > I must convert the output of my program to log scale and invert it so it > coincides with the published data. I cannot understand the logic behind > the traditional method. > Occasionally, 'apparent brightness' curves are published and look even > more like the ones the BaT produces. Yes. ..... >>>>>>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. >> >>http://www.rssd.esa.int/Hipparcos/education_lcA.html > > Unfortunately none of these is suitable. The ones that I would like to > check don't have the distance. I also need maximum radial velocity, as > estimated from doppler shift. I feel certain that the information is out there somewhere. It may mean reading a lot of papers, however. > The curve of AH Vir is easy to produce but its orbit plane must be > nearly perpendicular to us.. > Of the three eclipsing binaries, two curves have a round top and > definitely ARE eclipsing . The curve of theother one (V359 Vel) has a > flat or slightly concave top and this could indicate just a single > star...but the distance is not given. I don't know where to look, but it probably is available somewhere. ..... ..... >>ah... when there are two stars they are ALWAYS going to be 180 degrees >>apart. >>:) > > yes :) Although as the late Androcles pointed out, there is another > stable point around an orbit where a second object could lie > permanently. I cannot recall the name of the point. (Lagrange point > maybe?) Home, home on LaGrange, where the dear and the anti lope play.... > What I meant was that the fact that the dips are 180 apart shows two > stars are definitely eclipsing each other...... > The change in amplitude suggests that the pair are orbiting a third > object..but like I said...the curves are not sufficiently detailed to be > sure of that. > >> >>You do know that there are computer programs that will tell you if there >>are star-spots on the stars, don't you? > > No. what is more, I don't care. > Until the astrophysics world realises that all light in the universe > does NOT travel to planet Earth at c, none of their stuff is believable. They have similar comments about BaT, and more data to back it up. >>>>> V 1413 Aql would be classified as an eclipsing binary but the BaT >>>>> shows that this type of curve can be produced by one 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. >>> >>> try ecc=0.75 >> >>produces very strange pattern at yaw = 180. And that is exactly why I am >>suspicious of HLC (henri's light curves) and BaT (assuming HLC really >>does model BaT). We should be seeing all of those 'strange' patterns if >>BaT and HLC are valid. > > Yes I agree they need explaining but I believe they are out there. > Include the molecular velocities. > I am now wondering if two orbiting objects of about the same size really > do follow an elliptical paths. That is a very good question. >>Also your curves produce a noticable 'upswing' just before and after the >>dip in brightness. V1413 doesn't show those feature. To the contrary. >> >>try http://www.aavso.org/data/lcg/ >>object v1413 aql >>plot last 6000 days >>2 day average > > Yes, the shape of the bright part of the curve can tell us whether it is > a genuine eclipsing binary or not. > If it dips down in the middle like Algol, it may be just a single star > orbiting a dark companion. > >> >>http://www.aavso.org/observing/charts/phot/v1413aql.dat >>http://www.aavso.org/cgi-bin/searchcharts3.pl?name=v1413%20aql > > Not a very good curve. right. >>An interesting paper. >>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0202/0202118.pdf ..... >> >>And many curves that have never been observed at all. Thereby lies the >>rub! > > We will see. I am looking. >>> Doesn't that impress you at all? >> >>If it didn't, do you think I would have spent this much time looking at >>the program and communicating with you? ..... >>The evidence strongly indicates that k is < 10^-9 in c'=c+kv. > > Not in space it doesn't. Some of those figures come from the study of distant stars, so 'in space' IS taken into account. >> >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:5unaa1555rjr09vdak36b99jcqev2140gt(a)4ax.com: >> >>> The SRians have probably hushed it up. >>> If you can find it please tell me. >> >>http://www.sai.msu.su/gcvs/gcvs/cep/ >>(had radial velocity data) >> >> >>some interesting programs and sites >>http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/18_2/ozdemir/paper/node3.html >> >>http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people/vdhillon/seminars/brussels/imaging_l >>c.ht ml >> >>http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~astro/binstar/moreprograms.html >> >>http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/345592/M >>ain/ 339772 >> >>http://www.as.wsp.krakow.pl/ephem/ >> >>This site has LOTS of star catalogues and data. >>http://www.sai.msu.su/groups/cluster/gcvs/gcvs/ >> >>Basic Programs from Sky and Telescope >>http://skyandtelescope.com/resources/software/article_326_2.asp >> >>A two CD program called Guide 8 that should give you almost any data you >>might ever want and then some for $85 bux. >>http://www.projectpluto.com/ > > will look at these > must go now > >> >>but I have yet to find the radial velocity and yaw for v1413 cep -- 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 |