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 9 Jun 2005 19:54 On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:01:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:55:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>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? > >Why the hell do you keep asking previously answered >questions over and over? >I explained how ALL the parameters of the four Cepheids >listed below are measured, and none of the measurements >rely on relativity. It doesn't matter which theory you >use, the measured and calculated values will be the same. >About the diameter, I wrote: >| The average diameter can be calculated by >| the average temperature and the average absolute magnitude. >| (How big has a sphere at the temperature T have >| to be to radiate the observed amount of radiation) > >But for a person with poor knowledge of physics and astronomy, >this explanation was possibly not detailed enough. > >So let's go through it in tiny steps. >Let us first assume we have a non variable star. >- We know the apparent magnitude m by direct observation. >- We know the distance d by parallax measurement. Only accurate up to a very limited distance. ..say ~200LY. >- We know the surface temperature T by spectroscopic measurements. Assuming the light is arriving at c. > >The absolute magnitude M can be calculated from >the apparent magnitude and the distance. >(Inverse square law.) >M = m + 5 + 5*log(d), d in parsecs. > >When the absolute magnitude is known, we know >how much power the star radiates. > >A star is basically a spherical black body emitting >a black body spectrum. So the emitted power per surface >area is W = sigma*T^4, sigma = Stefan-Boltzmann constant. >When the temperature and emitted power is known, >the surface area and thus the diameter of the star can >be calculated. YesYes I know all that Paul. There is still a lot of speculation in practice. > >The matter is of course a bit more complicated >when the star is pulsating and the temperature, >magnitude and diameter are varying, but using average >values will give a crude estimate of the average diameter. very crude, seeing the star is not really puffing and blowing. > >>>>>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. > >>>>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. > >You forgot to name a star which "DO NOT vary when they should". >Why is that? >Can't you? I don't have access to hte required figures. > >Of course you can't. >There are no stars in the instability strip of the HR diagram >which "DO NOT vary when they should". That's not what I read. Check you facts Paul. Tther are plenty that don't vary...and that is a stated and unexplained mystery. Of course the BaT explains is quite easily. > >>>>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? > >Easy, Henri. >Something which the BaT predicts SHOULD happen >does NOT happen because the BaT is wrong. The BaT is still in its infancy. I will get round to including day/night temperature effects in my program one day. This is a fairly complex task as you can imagine.....but a very important one. > > > The Fairies intervene perhaps? > >You mean the BaT is actually correct, but fairies >intervene so what SHOULD happen do NOT happen? > >One of your more plausible "explanations". :-) What happens is what should happen according to the BaT. How it should be seen to happen depends on your personal theory. >>>Quite. >> >> >> I said QUITE small. I didn't say SMALL. > >Which changes a lot. :-) > >>>Small stars radiating 100000 times the light of the sun, which >>>means that their temperature must be - hundreds of thousands K? >>>Immensely red shifted stars where the absorption lines are not red shifted. >> >> >> How cool is the gas which does te absorbing? How far away from the core? >> These factors vastly affect the escape velocity and the amount of redshift. > >"The gas which does the absorbing" is the stellar atmosphere. >It is the very surface of the star. How far out does it extend? How hot? If it absorbs, why doesn't it re-emit? >> >> >> You know I changed that to larger yellow/white stars. It wasn't the main point >> I was making anyway. >> It concerned the observed colour. >> It is very conceivable that absorption lined are NOT shifted as much as the >> emission spectrum because absorption occurs well away from the core where >> gravity is strongest. > >This is utter nonsense. >Even incredible stupid, utter nonsense. :-) > >> Are you claiming that absorption lines are not doppler shifted at all? > >Quite the contrary. The Doppler shift of the absorption lines >vary during the period. We can measure the speed with which >the surface expands and contracts that way. and if you look up that reference bz gave, you will see that the speed varies exactly as would that of a star in orbit with ecc 1.5-3 and with its yaw angle around 180. .....Further support for the BaT the phasing is also in line with the BaT..whilst your theory goes to great extremes to concoct helium and hydrogen ion layers to try to explain it. > >>>Since I have actually learned a bit physics and astronomy, I am of course >>>brainwashed and am unable to recognize the obvious truth. >>>I am even gullible enough to accept the fact that Cepheids are pulsating stars. >> >> >> With periods that remain constant to within seconds over 20 years? > >Indeed. Hohohohahahaha! > >> Hohohohahahaha! > >I understand the reason for your hysteria. > >You have realized the gigantic stupidity of your "explanation": > > "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." > >The stupidity is impossible to miss, isn't it? Their size doesn't matter at all, paul. No puffing and blowing ball of gas, particularly one that is 41 sun diameters in size could possibly maintain the same puffing frequency day after day, year after year to WITHIN SECONDS. You know that there would be bits of gas flying everywhere ..because it all happens every 5 days!!! The only plausible explanation is that it is in synch with orbit frequency. ...and that applies to ALL variable stars with highly regular periods. Now if you proposed some kind of regular distortion that was a direct consequence of the two stars coming close at their perihelions, then your 'puffing and blowing' could be simply put down to huge tidal movements of gas. That might be acceptible ....it would add to any direct BaT effects and might explain some of the finer details of the brightness curves. > >And it doesn't make much difference if you change the "small white star" >to a "QUITE small white star" or even to a "larger yellow/white star". > > >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 9 Jun 2005 20:28 On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 18:27:49 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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: >> >> >> 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. two points. Once the critical distance is passed, multiple images form and the curves will make little sense. The 'number of orbits sampled' must be increased in the program. The distances are generally pretty large when this happens and all kinds of interstellar influences might dampen the observed brightness fluctuations, Thermal source speeds are important and drastically reduce the size of brightness peaks. The second point is that most of the very curves predicted curves belong to stars with high eccentricies and these are probably not very common throughout the universe..When two such curves from a similar binary pair are added, the resultant curve often appears quite reasonable. > >.... >>>> 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. Very little. You saw the quote about delta Cep. However, if a binary pair is in orbit around a galactic centre, time compression will occur. The observed period might then exhibit a slow change. To see how Sekerin/Wilso time compression works, run that section of my program. > >>>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. If the curve is known, I can tell you fairly accurately the Ecc, yaw and the ratio of distance/radial velocity. > >Of course you are free to say what you like. You are also responsible for the >consistancy of the results. Did you read my comment to Paul about cyclic tidal distortions? > >>>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. It is a sine wave for a circular orbit. It definitely does not look like a sine wave when an elliptical orbit is used. It looks just like the typical cephid one. Don't run from the truth. > >> 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. the desity throughout a huge gaseous star would be nothing like constant. The theory depends wholly on constant density. >> >> 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). Not very accurate at these distances. >>>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. > >> 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.... Clever man Lagrange :) >> 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. none. they don't even consider it any more. Pity! it would make their lives much easier. >>>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. I have a program that generates ellipses using Newton. I must set it up so I can investigate this. It will need about 100000 points per orbit. I have already verified Kepler's third law with it. (equal areas per unit time) > >>>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. see above. >>>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. My program shows k=1 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 10 Jun 2005 09:17 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:1olha1h8selgnqu9oaqjfe9ralmo5emsj8(a)4ax.com: > On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 18:27:49 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>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: >>> > >>> >>> 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. > > two points. > Once the critical distance is passed, multiple images form and the > curves will make little sense. BaT multiple images have never been observed. > The 'number of orbits sampled' must be > increased in the program. > The distances are generally pretty large when this happens and all kinds > of interstellar influences might dampen the observed brightness > fluctuations, Thermal source speeds are important and drastically reduce > the size of brightness peaks. Perhaps reducing the BaT effect to zero. > The second point is that most of the very curves predicted curves belong > to stars with high eccentricies I have seen some wierd curves with low eccentricity too. 0.1 ecc, max orb 0.00001 c, add distance 100x1000ly > and these are probably not very common > throughout the universe. When two such curves from a similar binary pair > are added, the resultant curve often appears quite reasonable. > >> >>.... >>>>> 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. > > Very little. You saw the quote about delta Cep. Looking at the plots and the fit to those plots, 'dead on' is NOT the way I would describe the period. > However, if a binary pair is in orbit around a galactic centre, time > compression will occur. The observed period might then exhibit a slow > change. > > To see how Sekerin/Wilso time compression works, run that section of my > program. Of which program? I don't see a time compression button. I see a time expansion. >>>>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. > > If the curve is known, I can tell you fairly accurately the Ecc, yaw and > the ratio of distance/radial velocity. That might work, provided your predictions are verified as correct by independent data. Simply saying the ecc, yaw, etc., are ..... is not enough. Much better, however, to be able to go the other way. >>Of course you are free to say what you like. You are also responsible >>for the consistancy of the results. > > Did you read my comment to Paul about cyclic tidal distortions? you mean: > Now if you proposed some kind of regular distortion that was a direct > consequence of the two stars coming close at their perihelions, then > your 'puffing and blowing' could be simply put down to huge tidal > movements of gas. That might be acceptible ....it would add to any > direct BaT effects and might explain some of the finer details of the > brightness curves. I see it. I don't see a reason to invoke a second star. >>>>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. > > It is a sine wave for a circular orbit. It definitely does not look like > a sine wave when an elliptical orbit is used. It looks just like the > typical cephid one. > Don't run from the truth. I have no fear of the truth. The blue curve looks like a sine wave for 0.2 eccentricity. The blue curve looks like a sine wave for 0.4 eccentricity. The light curve at 0.2 ecc, -90 yaw looks a lot like a sine curve. The light curve at 0.4 ecc, -90 yaw still looks a lot like a sine wave but an asymetrical one. >>> 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. > > the desity throughout a huge gaseous star would be nothing like > constant. The theory depends wholly on constant density. NO! The theory does NOT depend on constant density. It depends on changes in density at a particular depth. It depends on a resonant mode that is symetric about the center of gravity. Let us consider what effect the variation of density with depth has upon a wave propagating within that resonance mode. It will change the strength of the wave. It will change the frequency of the wave. It won't stop the wave. It won't 'break' the model. Einstein's theories depend on his basic postulates. In addition, he makes some simplifying assumptions that make the math easier to follow. If you take away the postulates, you break his theory. If you take away the simplifying assumptions, you make your math a lot more complex, but the answers come out the same [in almost all cases, and even in those the answers are almost the same]. >>> 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). > > Not very accurate at these distances. Accurate enough to organize stars on the HR diagram. ..... >>> 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?) LaGrange points require 3 bodies. Two stars -->180 degrees apart. Yep LaGrange was sharp, he knew what the 'L' 'e was doin. >>> 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. > > none. they don't even consider it any more. Pity! it would make their > lives much easier. They have the data, you disregard the data. BaT has been tested repeatedly. Old experiments that invalidate BaT are repeated, with higher accuracy. The only way YOU can continue to believe in BaT is strong faith. Show me superluminal photons (or subluminal ones in a vacuum) and I [and the world of physics] will be happy to accept BaT. We can't accept it on faith, however. >>>>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. > > I have a program that generates ellipses using Newton. I must set it up > so I can investigate this. It will need about 100000 points per orbit. > I have already verified Kepler's third law with it. (equal areas per > unit time) > ..... >>>>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. > > My program shows k=1 That is a problem as it is counter to current data. Right. Next version should allow comparison of results k=zero through k=1. And allow inclusion/exclusion of Einstein's gamma. -- 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 d -- 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 10 Jun 2005 08:17 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:01:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:55:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>>>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? >> >>Why the hell do you keep asking previously answered >>questions over and over? >>I explained how ALL the parameters of the four Cepheids >>listed below are measured, and none of the measurements >>rely on relativity. It doesn't matter which theory you >>use, the measured and calculated values will be the same. >>About the diameter, I wrote: >>| The average diameter can be calculated by >>| the average temperature and the average absolute magnitude. >>| (How big has a sphere at the temperature T have >>| to be to radiate the observed amount of radiation) >> >>But for a person with poor knowledge of physics and astronomy, >>this explanation was possibly not detailed enough. >> >>So let's go through it in tiny steps. >>Let us first assume we have a non variable star. >>- We know the apparent magnitude m by direct observation. >>- We know the distance d by parallax measurement. > > > Only accurate up to a very limited distance. ..say ~200LY. The precision of a Hipparcos parallax measurement will be ca 4% for a star at 200 Ly, and ca 20% for a star at 1000Ly. >>- We know the surface temperature T by spectroscopic measurements. > > > Assuming the light is arriving at c. A Doppler shift doesn't matter because the absorption lines are references. The temperature can be measured with good precision withou assuming anything about the speed of light - or the speed of the source. >>The absolute magnitude M can be calculated from >>the apparent magnitude and the distance. >>(Inverse square law.) >>M = m + 5 + 5*log(d), d in parsecs. >> >>When the absolute magnitude is known, we know >>how much power the star radiates. >> >>A star is basically a spherical black body emitting >>a black body spectrum. So the emitted power per surface >>area is W = sigma*T^4, sigma = Stefan-Boltzmann constant. >>When the temperature and emitted power is known, >>the surface area and thus the diameter of the star can >>be calculated. > > > YesYes I know all that Paul. > There is still a lot of speculation in practice. Knowing all that, it's clear that Cepheids are extremely large, and the diameters given in my four examples must be in the ballpark. No need to quibble about the precision, even a 50% uncertainty won't change the conclusion. And the real uncertainty is in the order of 20%. >>>>>>Look at the four examples I gave you: If we assume a large mass with zero diameter is orbiting the Cepheid, skimming its surface, its mass would have to be M1 solar masses. If we allow the companion it a little space, assuming the distance between their centres to be twice the radius of the Cepheid, its mass would have to be M2 solar masses. M1 and M2 are given for each example below. >>>>>> >>>>>>SU Cas: >>>>>>period = 1.9 days >>>>>>radius = 30 solar radii >>>>>>mass = 4.4 solar masses M1 = 92 solar masses M2 = 365 solar masses >>>>>>Delta Cep: >>>>>>period = 5.366270 days >>>>>>radius = 41.6 solar radii >>>>>>mass = 5 solar masses M1 = 28 solar masses M2 = 260 solar masses >>>>>>X Cyg: >>>>>>period = 16.5 days >>>>>>radius = 118 solar radii >>>>>>mass = 8 solar masses M1 = 71 solar masses M2 = 620 solar masses >>>>>>RS Pup: >>>>>>period = 41.4 days >>>>>>radius = 262 solar radii >>>>>>mass = 13 solar masses M1 = 122 solar masses M2 = 1050 solar masses So we have an invisible star with hundreds of solar masses. Such stars do not exist. The most massive stars are in the order of 50 solar masses. Their luminocity is in the order of 500000 times the Sun. They would be brighter than the Cepheid. In other words, it is utterly impossible that Cepheids are binaries with orbital period equal to their light curve period. >>>>Since I have actually learned a bit physics and astronomy, I am of course >>>>brainwashed and am unable to recognize the obvious truth. >>>>I am even gullible enough to accept the fact that Cepheids are pulsating stars. >>> >>> >>>With periods that remain constant to within seconds over 20 years? >> >>Indeed. > > > Hohohohahahaha! > >>>Hohohohahahaha! >> >>I understand the reason for your hysteria. >> >>You have realized the gigantic stupidity of your "explanation": >> >> "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." >> >>The stupidity is impossible to miss, isn't it? > > > Their size doesn't matter at all, paul. You know better, of course. It's their sizes that make it utterly impossible that Cepheids are binaries with orbital period equal to their light curve period. > No puffing and blowing ball of gas, particularly one that is 41 sun diameters > in size could possibly maintain the same puffing frequency day after day, year > after year to WITHIN SECONDS. And you think you by repeating "puffing and blowing" over and over can make it ridiculous that a standing wave has a stable period? :-) > You know that there would be bits of gas flying everywhere ..because it all > happens every 5 days!!! No, I don't know that. The Cepheid RT Aurigae with period 3.72 days, have a maxum surface velocity 17 km/s. The escape velocity is 200 km/s. So why would there be "bits of gas flying everywhere"? :-) > The only plausible explanation is that it is in synch with orbit frequency. > ..and that applies to ALL variable stars with highly regular periods. > > Now if you proposed some kind of regular distortion that was a direct > consequence of the two stars coming close at their perihelions, then your > 'puffing and blowing' could be simply put down to huge tidal movements of gas. > That might be acceptible ....it would add to any direct BaT effects and might > explain some of the finer details of the brightness curves. You are funny, Henri. :-) The two stars aren't only "close at their perihelions", they are deep inside of each other. Get this into your head: Their sizes make is utterly impossible that Cepheids are binaries with orbital period equal to their light curve period. Paul
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 11 Jun 2005 01:00
In sci.physics, Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote on Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:17:20 +0200 <d8c0ch$22r$1(a)dolly.uninett.no>: > Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:01:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:55:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>>>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? >>> >>>Why the hell do you keep asking previously answered >>>questions over and over? >>>I explained how ALL the parameters of the four Cepheids >>>listed below are measured, and none of the measurements >>>rely on relativity. It doesn't matter which theory you >>>use, the measured and calculated values will be the same. >>>About the diameter, I wrote: >>>| The average diameter can be calculated by >>>| the average temperature and the average absolute magnitude. >>>| (How big has a sphere at the temperature T have >>>| to be to radiate the observed amount of radiation) >>> >>>But for a person with poor knowledge of physics and astronomy, >>>this explanation was possibly not detailed enough. >>> >>>So let's go through it in tiny steps. >>>Let us first assume we have a non variable star. >>>- We know the apparent magnitude m by direct observation. >>>- We know the distance d by parallax measurement. >> >> >> Only accurate up to a very limited distance. ..say ~200LY. > > The precision of a Hipparcos parallax measurement > will be ca 4% for a star at 200 Ly, and ca 20% for a star at 1000Ly. > >>>- We know the surface temperature T by spectroscopic measurements. >> >> >> Assuming the light is arriving at c. > > A Doppler shift doesn't matter because the absorption > lines are references. The temperature can be measured with > good precision withou assuming anything about the speed of light > - or the speed of the source. Because of thermal effects, the BaT absorption lines will be slightly fuzzier. After all, according to BaT, light is c relative to the source, and that source -- a very hot atom -- is moving a few thousand meters per second. That will blur an assumed infinitely-sharp spectral line by a factor of about 2 * 10^-5 -- assuming one is using an energy measurement to determine color, which is logical enough since most measurement instruments, eyeballs included, depend on energy transitions as opposed to wavelengths. (Not that it makes that much difference, in SR.) SR predicts a blurring of only 10^-5, if I've done the computations correctly. > > >>>The absolute magnitude M can be calculated from >>>the apparent magnitude and the distance. >>>(Inverse square law.) >>>M = m + 5 + 5*log(d), d in parsecs. >>> >>>When the absolute magnitude is known, we know >>>how much power the star radiates. >>> >>>A star is basically a spherical black body emitting >>>a black body spectrum. So the emitted power per surface >>>area is W = sigma*T^4, sigma = Stefan-Boltzmann constant. >>>When the temperature and emitted power is known, >>>the surface area and thus the diameter of the star can >>>be calculated. Assuming, of course, that a star is in fact a spherical thermal black body. (I'd say that's a fairly safe assumption, myself. :-) However, I'd have to look at what photons are emitted from the H -> He reaction, and it may depend on which cycle the star uses.) >> >> >> YesYes I know all that Paul. >> There is still a lot of speculation in practice. > > Knowing all that, it's clear that Cepheids are extremely > large, and the diameters given in my four examples must > be in the ballpark. No need to quibble about the precision, > even a 50% uncertainty won't change the conclusion. > And the real uncertainty is in the order of 20%. > >>>>>>>Look at the four examples I gave you: > > If we assume a large mass with zero diameter > is orbiting the Cepheid, skimming its surface, > its mass would have to be M1 solar masses. > If we allow the companion it a little space, > assuming the distance between their centres to be > twice the radius of the Cepheid, its mass would have > to be M2 solar masses. > > M1 and M2 are given for each example below. > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>SU Cas: >>>>>>>period = 1.9 days >>>>>>>radius = 30 solar radii >>>>>>>mass = 4.4 solar masses > M1 = 92 solar masses > M2 = 365 solar masses > >>>>>>>Delta Cep: >>>>>>>period = 5.366270 days >>>>>>>radius = 41.6 solar radii >>>>>>>mass = 5 solar masses > M1 = 28 solar masses > M2 = 260 solar masses > >>>>>>>X Cyg: >>>>>>>period = 16.5 days >>>>>>>radius = 118 solar radii >>>>>>>mass = 8 solar masses > M1 = 71 solar masses > M2 = 620 solar masses > >>>>>>>RS Pup: >>>>>>>period = 41.4 days >>>>>>>radius = 262 solar radii >>>>>>>mass = 13 solar masses > M1 = 122 solar masses > M2 = 1050 solar masses > > So we have an invisible star with hundreds of solar masses. > Such stars do not exist. Black holes do. Admittedly, I for one would find a black hole nearly touching a glowing M1- or M2-mass star extremely unlikely without many highly noticeable effects, a la Cygnus X-1. I mention this mostly for completeness. > The most massive stars are in the order of 50 solar masses. > Their luminocity is in the order of 500000 times the Sun. > They would be brighter than the Cepheid. > > In other words, it is utterly impossible that > Cepheids are binaries with orbital period > equal to their light curve period. The light curves wouldn't match anyway. An eclipsing binary's light curve is a double-dip; a Cepheid's is a sawtooth. > > >>>>>Since I have actually learned a bit physics and astronomy, I am of course >>>>>brainwashed and am unable to recognize the obvious truth. >>>>>I am even gullible enough to accept the fact that Cepheids are pulsating stars. >>>> >>>> >>>>With periods that remain constant to within seconds over 20 years? >>> >>>Indeed. >> >> >> Hohohohahahaha! >> >>>>Hohohohahahaha! >>> >>>I understand the reason for your hysteria. >>> >>>You have realized the gigantic stupidity of your "explanation": >>> >>> "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." >>> >>>The stupidity is impossible to miss, isn't it? >> >> >> Their size doesn't matter at all, paul. > > You know better, of course. > It's their sizes that make it utterly impossible that > Cepheids are binaries with orbital period > equal to their light curve period. Their size -- and the fermions most stars harbor. :-) > >> No puffing and blowing ball of gas, particularly one that is >> 41 sun diameters in size could possibly maintain the same >> puffing frequency day after day, year after year to WITHIN SECONDS. > > And you think you by repeating "puffing and blowing" over and over > can make it ridiculous that a standing wave has a stable period? :-) Who says they have a constant period anyway? I suspect they slowly change -- *very* slowly, but I don't have the theory handy -- as the hydrogen is converted to helium and the density/characteristics of the star gas change. At some point a Cepheid will, quite literally, run out of gas. (Just like all the others, only different. :-) ) > >> You know that there would be bits of gas flying everywhere ..because it all >> happens every 5 days!!! > > No, I don't know that. > The Cepheid RT Aurigae with period 3.72 days, have a maxum > surface velocity 17 km/s. The escape velocity is 200 km/s. > So why would there be "bits of gas flying everywhere"? :-) Well, there would be moving bits of gas, anyway. I'll admit to wondering whether we can detect the movement with a sufficiently sensitive spectroscope. > >> The only plausible explanation is that it is in synch with orbit frequency. >> ..and that applies to ALL variable stars with highly regular periods. >> >> Now if you proposed some kind of regular distortion that was a direct >> consequence of the two stars coming close at their perihelions, then your >> 'puffing and blowing' could be simply put down to huge tidal movements of gas. >> That might be acceptible ....it would add to any direct BaT effects and might >> explain some of the finer details of the brightness curves. > > You are funny, Henri. :-) > The two stars aren't only "close at their perihelions", > they are deep inside of each other. "One star...or two"? :-) > > Get this into your head: > Their sizes make is utterly impossible that > Cepheids are binaries with orbital period > equal to their light curve period. > > Paul -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |