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 11 Jun 2005 16:17 On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:17:37 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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: >> 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. Bz, there is a very simple reason for that. No telescope can resolve them because they only occur at very large distances. DeSitter's arguments concerning several close binaries were shown to be wrong. > >> 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. Predictions are that fluctuations are reduced in size as distance is increased. > >> The second point is that most of the very strange 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 That kind of 'double peak' curve is actually quite common. There is a category named 'flare stars'. These are observed to emit a bright flash periodically. Many emit a double flash. The BaT provides the reason for this. >>>> >>>> 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. I would. > >> 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/Wilson 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. I don't think I iincluded that in the source I sent you. You might have to look up the one on the website. This is the principle: Photons that are emitted during the 'concave' section of an orbit tend to bunch together as they travel through space. Thus all the information occuring in half an orbit period will arrive at an observer over a much shorter time span. For instance, if a binary pair is itself in a larger orbit around a third object, all the information from the larger half orbit can be compressed into a much shorter time. Thus the binary period might appear to be much storter than it actually is. >> >> 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. I wouldn't agree. The BaT is a much better indicator of yaw angle than current methods. If maximum peripheral velocity can be ascertained using doppler, the BaT can reveal almost everything one wants to know. > >>>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. All stars are in some kind of orbit around another star or larger body. My suggestion is that one hot and one cool star in a more eccentric orbit around each other would both experience large tidal effects when they were close. That could cause the stars to periodically appear larger and smaller, depending on the observer's position.. >>>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. But it isn't one. >The blue curve looks like a sine wave for 0.4 eccentricity. But it isn't one. >The light curve at 0.2 ecc, -90 yaw looks a lot like a sine curve. the yaw angle is not a feature of this curve. >The light curve at 0.4 ecc, -90 yaw still looks a lot like a sine wave but an >asymetrical one. that's what an ellipse is. >> 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. Well that is what the reference said. > >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. Whatever you say about density will never result in a dead constant frequency of the huffing and puffing. > >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]. Einstein's SR theory is just LET in disguise. I will start a new thread about this soon. >>>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. Only if your faith is already firmly established. >>>> 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. But the other star is about 60degrees around the orbit, I think. The BaT predicted brightness curves would be rather complex. As well as there being three bodies, there would be an unusual phase relationship between the curves.. > >Yep LaGrange was sharp, he knew what the 'L' 'e was doin. more than Einstein. > >>>> 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. That is not true bob. There was only one attempt to refute the BaT and that was later discredited. > >The only way YOU can continue to believe in BaT is strong faith. Every piece of evidence supports it. > >Show me superluminal photons (or subluminal ones in a vacuum) and I [and the >world of physics] will be happy to accept BaT. The speed of photons is relative, like all speeds. > >We can't accept it on faith, however. If a 'speed' is not defined relative to something, then it is NOT A SPEED. > >>>>>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. Don't rave. > >-- >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 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 12 Jun 2005 05:52 On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:17:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >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: >>> >> >> >> 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. Have it your way. > >>>- 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. Let's think about that. The absorption line wavelengths are acurately known. If both the absorption lines and the spectrum is doppler shifted, what conclusions can we reach? If a spectrum is doppler shifted but the absorption lines ARE NOT, what conclusions can we reach? If an absorption line is doppler shifted, but the spectrum is not, what conclusions can we reach? >>>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%. that would be true except for the fact that the observed brightness might be dramatically affected by movement towards or away from the observer. > >>>>>>>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. No it isn't. The companion stars are WCHs.... Very heavy.. You know there is a lot of dark matter in the universe. I'm telling you where it is. >>>>>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! >> >>>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? :-) Don't be ridiculous. If you were prepared to discuss my 'tidal distortion' theory, then you might have a periodic process that could be as stable as those observed.. > >> 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"? :-) Have you ever seen prominances shooting out from the surface of our sun? ..and it isn't even huffing and puffing. > >> 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, I know from their light curves that the eccentricity of their orbits is between about 2 and 4. Do you not agree that tidal effects would be enormous when two heavy stars moved very close to each other at the perihelion. Maybe they would only be a few diameters away from each other. What strange shapes might a ball of gas take on? You can scream and rave as much as you like but at least this mechanism would explain the dead constant period. Huffing and puffing certainly cannot. > >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 12 Jun 2005 06:07 On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 05:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >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>: >>> >>> 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. It's nice to see that your brain is functioning properly again Ghost. >>>>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. :-) Our sun's spectrum departs considerably from a black body..but let's not worry about that. >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.) true. > > >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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. There is a new type of star, Ghost, the WCH (a Wilson, cool, heavy) > >I mention this mostly for completeness. The WCH brings 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. Why do you keep talking about eclipsing binaries, Ghost. They have nothing whatsoever to do with our subject. Most binaries do NOT eclipse. > >> >>> 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? D Cep has been constant to within a second for twenty years. Its brightness period is around 5 days. Some acoustic wave, eh???? :) Andersen's fairies, more like it! >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. :-) ) All stars eventualy run out of gas. Cephids dont really huff and puff, Ghost. They are perfectly stable like our own sun. > >> >>> 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. They reckon the observed doppler shift is in line with the huffing and puffing, Ghost. But it is actually lags by about 30 degrees, just as the BaT would predict. THEY fabricate He and H ionisation layers to try to explain the phase lag. :) > >> >>> 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"? :-) The fairies put them there... > >> >> 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 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: Paul B. Andersen on 12 Jun 2005 09:13 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:17:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>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: >>>> > > >>> >>>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. > > > Have it your way. > > >>>>- 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. > > > Let's think about that. > > The absorption line wavelengths are acurately known. > If both the absorption lines and the spectrum is doppler shifted, what > conclusions can we reach? > If a spectrum is doppler shifted but the absorption lines ARE NOT, what > conclusions can we reach? > If an absorption line is doppler shifted, but the spectrum is not, what > conclusions can we reach? > > > >>>>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%. > > > that would be true except for the fact that the observed brightness might be > dramatically affected by movement towards or away from the observer. > > >>>>>>>>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. > > > No it isn't. > The companion stars are WCHs.... Very heavy.. > > You know there is a lot of dark matter in the universe. I'm telling you where > it is. Yawn. Sorry. Your ridiculous claims are getting boring. >>>>>>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! >>> > > >>>>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? :-) > > > Don't be ridiculous. > If you were prepared to discuss my 'tidal distortion' theory, then you might > have a periodic process that could be as stable as those observed. Yawn. >>>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"? :-) > > > Have you ever seen prominances shooting out from the surface of our sun? ..and > it isn't even huffing and puffing. So prominances prove that standing acoustic waves can't exist in stars. This one was at least a bit funny. :-) Not very, though. Ya..mm. >>>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, I know from their light curves that the eccentricity of their orbits is > between about 2 and 4. > > Do you not agree that tidal effects would be enormous when two heavy stars > moved very close to each other at the perihelion. > Maybe they would only be a few diameters away from each other. > What strange shapes might a ball of gas take on? > > You can scream and rave as much as you like but at least this mechanism would > explain the dead constant period. Huffing and puffing certainly cannot. Quite. All you have to do to prove that Cepheids cannot be pulsating stars is to call them "huffing and puffing". :-) You are really doing well now, Henri. :-) Paul
From: bz on 12 Jun 2005 13:13
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:47fma1ha9gdb4g7ajn4b23bks676bqbn3j(a)4ax.com: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:17:37 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>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: > >>> 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. > > Bz, there is a very simple reason for that. > No telescope can resolve them because they only occur at very large > distances. DeSitter's arguments concerning several close binaries were > shown to be wrong. YOU invoked multiple images as the cause of the curves making little sense. Then you turn around and argue against your own point. Make up your mind. By whom shown to be wrong? References? >>> 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. > > Predictions are that fluctuations are reduced in size as distance is > increased. I predict that at any distance greater than 10 wave lengths, BaT will appear to be negligible. >>> The second point is that most of the very strange 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 > > That kind of 'double peak' curve is actually quite common. > There is a category named 'flare stars'. These are observed to emit a > bright flash periodically. Many emit a double flash. > The BaT provides the reason for this. BaT provides a reason for everything except why some things are not observed more often and why superluminal/subluminal photons have never been observed. >>>>> 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. > > I would. Get actual data points and plot them. Fit a curve to them. Look at the estimated error. '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. Very slow. On the order of hundreds of thousands of years. >>> >>> To see how Sekerin/Wilson 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. > > I don't think I iincluded that in the source I sent you. You might have > to look up the one on the website. I have several different versions I have downloaded from the website at different times, in addition to the code you sent me. NONE have a time compression button. If you give me a clue as to where you want me to look, I will be glad to look at it. > This is the principle: > Photons that are emitted during the 'concave' section of an orbit tend > to bunch together as they travel through space. Thus all the information > occuring in half an orbit period will arrive at an observer over a much > shorter time span. For instance, if a binary pair is itself in a larger > orbit around a third object, all the information from the larger half > orbit can be compressed into a much shorter time. Thus the binary period > might appear to be much storter than it actually is. >>> 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. > > I wouldn't agree. > The BaT is a much better indicator of yaw angle than current methods. > If maximum peripheral velocity can be ascertained using doppler, the BaT > can reveal almost everything one wants to know. You had your yaw angles off by a large factor due to inverting the brightness data. Even after correcting that, I predict that your guesses at yaw angles will be no better than chance predictions of yaw angles. Only your very strong faith could have mistaken any yaw angles you derived, with inverted brightness curves, for correct information. The fact that you were taking slow rise, rapid fall curves for confirmation of rapid rise, slow fall data should cause you to stop, throw out everything you have been thinking about BaT, and start over again. It didn't. That shows that faith is governing your thinking, not scientific thought. >>>>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. > > All stars are in some kind of orbit around another star or larger body. The center of their galaxy, at least. So what? You are handwaving in order to hold onto your faith. You have been attempting to support your theory that all cepheid variables are due to binary star systems or single stars with eccentric orbits. > My suggestion is that one hot and one cool star in a more eccentric > orbit around each other would both experience large tidal effects when > they were close. That could cause the stars to periodically appear > larger and smaller, depending on the observer's position.. Many such binaries have been observed. They do not look like cepheid. They show dual doppler shifts. As one star receeds, its light is redshifted. Meanwhile the other star approaches and its light is blue shifted. This is clear, even when the stars can not be visually separated. >>>>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. > But it isn't one. It does not look like a typical cepheid. >>The blue curve looks like a sine wave for 0.4 eccentricity. > But it isn't one. It does not look like a typical cepheid. >>The light curve at 0.2 ecc, -90 yaw looks a lot like a sine curve. > the yaw angle is not a feature of this curve. It does not look like a typical cepheid. >>The light curve at 0.4 ecc, -90 yaw still looks a lot like a sine wave >>but an asymetrical one. > > that's what an ellipse is. You said "It definitely does not look like a sine wave when an elliptical orbit is used. It looks just like the typical cepheid one. The typical cepheid is a sawtooth with fast increase, slow decline in brightness. Your program's predictions do not match what is seen in the heavens. >>> 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. > > Well that is what the reference said. Show me where the reference says the theory DEPENDS on a 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. > > Whatever you say about density will never result in a dead constant > frequency of the huffing and puffing. Your faith is strong. >>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]. > > Einstein's SR theory is just LET in disguise. > > I will start a new thread about this soon. Why bother? Your faith is strong. You won't look at anything that challenges it. >>>>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. > > Only if your faith is already firmly established. Faith is not required. Useful results is all that science requires. The HR diagram gives useful results. You still don't understand that science is always questioning. It is NOT based on faith. >>>>> 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. > > But the other star is about 60degrees around the orbit, I think. In the 3 body, LaGrange situation, there are 5 LaGrange points. Some are stable points, some are not. http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html > The BaT predicted brightness curves would be rather complex. As well as > there being three bodies, there would be an unusual phase relationship > between the curves.. > >> >>Yep LaGrange was sharp, he knew what the 'L' 'e was doin. > > more than Einstein. Einstein has the advantage of often having been tried, but never denied by any experiment. >>>>> 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. > > That is not true bob. > There was only one attempt to refute the BaT and that was later > discredited. There have been thousands of attempts to refute c as a constant. ALL have failed. The possible k for c'=c+kv has gotten smaller and smaller. >>The only way YOU can continue to believe in BaT is strong faith. > > Every piece of evidence supports it. It takes very strong faith to turn a lack of evidence into evidence. >>Show me superluminal photons (or subluminal ones in a vacuum) and I [and >>the world of physics] will be happy to accept BaT. > > The speed of photons is relative, like all speeds. The speed of photons is c wrt all observers. No exceptions have ever been observed. >>We can't accept it on faith, however. > > If a 'speed' is not defined relative to something, then it is NOT A > SPEED. velocity. >>>>>>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. > Don't rave. how is that raving? -- 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 |