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 16 Jun 2005 08:15 On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:31:31 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >bz wrote: >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:32rua1931htolan5pdbh8u6aa9piep8t8p(a)4ax.com: >>>The paper is very confusing because the 'absolute' velocity curve is >>>used. The BaT predictions are that the phase actually changes with >>>distance. Initially the brightness peak leads the velocity peak. At >>>greater distances it will catch up. I am presently looking into this >>>because THe RT Aur curves are the first decent ones I have. I wish I >>>could get a figure on distance for this star. > >So that you can tune the other "actual data" in your program >to make it predict the observed light curve? :-) > >Because you have to observe the light curve before >you can make your program "predict" it, right? :-) > >> You can compute the distance from the absolute brightness using the cepheid >> formula. >> >> Paul said it is 1400 LY > >Yes. >According to: >http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/research/cepheids/table_physical.html >the distance is 426 parsecs or 1389 LY. > >According to Hipparcos, the parallax is 2.09 mas, >which means 470 parsecs or 1560 LY. >But the uncertainty is in the order of 30%. >This is however a very direct measurement, not dependent on >any theory of how the star behaves. > >> You need to use the equation from that ppt presentation: >> m_v-M_v = 5 log r -5, where r is the distance to the Cepheid, >> m_v is the apparaent magnitude, M_v is the absolute magnitude. >> >> If I read the equation correctly, this implies that >> distance = 10*exp(0.45051(m_v-M_v)) > >You do. >A minor typo not worth meantioning: (so why do I do it?) > ln(10)/5 = 0.46052, not 0.45051 >But why the exp? >Isn't r = 10*10^((m_v-M_v)/5) simpler? > >> When I use that formula, M_v of -3.036, m_v of 5.4 to 6.6 >> I get distance of 486 to 845 (I assume parsecs) or 1587 to >> 2758 Ly. > >Remember that M_v and m_v varies in exactly the same way. >So you should use either the max, the mean, or the minimum >values for both M_v and m_v. >According to: >http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/research/cepheids/table_physical.html >The average values are M_v = -2.86 and m_v = 5.446 >M_v is estimated from the luminosity-period relationship. >According to the formula r = 458 parsecs, 1493 LY OK. I now know that the actual distance does not matter. only the extimction distance of 10LYs needs to be used in the program. No wonder poor old DeSitter got it all wrong. > >>>The graphs are still very confusing because the notes at the bottom >>>claim that the maximum brightness occurs before the star has even >>>reached half maximum size (36% of the cycle). Something doesn't quite >>>add up here. >> >> >> You have to bear in mind the mechanism. There is a change in transparency as >> a layer heats up. As it gets bigger, it gets cooler and radiates less energy, >> less brightness. >> >> That is why the brightness and size are not in phase. > >That's pretty much it. >Look at: >http://www.cosmovisions.com/cep01.htm >It's in French, but the figures should be easy to understand. >Temperature = Temperature >Spectre = Spectrum (not ghost :-)) >Vitesse radiale = Radial velocity >(this curve is drawn "upside down") >Rayon = radius >Note that the maximum luminosity is when the temperature is highest. >When the radius continues to increase, the temperature decreases, >and since the power output per area is proportional to T^4, >the luminosity decreases even if the surface area increases. > >And it is as you say the change in transparency that drives it, >that is, transfer energy to the mechanical oscillator. >Helium can be single or double ionized. He++ is more opaque than He+. >When the star is hot, we have H++. Then the radiation pressure >will make the star expand. It cools down because the increased >surface area will make it radiate the energy faster. When >the temperature decreases, the He++ ions will catch an electron, >and be more transparent as He+. When the star is cool and small, >it will radiate less energy than is produced in the core, it will >heat up, and the cycle repeats. > >The reason why Cepheids are found only in a small part of >the HR-diagram is that the star must have the right size >and temperature so that the temperature varies around the critical >temperature that ionizes He+ to He++ when the star pulsates. I find it quite extraordinary that the brightness and velocity curves due to this pulsation are exactlyas predicted by the BaT for a star in ecc 0.25 orbit. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say. But then phyics is full of coincidences.. like the GR GPS correction being similar to the free fall error. > > >>>I am still working on it. I have redefined the yaw angle zero (rotated >>>it 90 deg to conform and make life easier) so all my past figures are >>>now out by 90. > >Be sure to include the spectrum and temperature. :-) I have found the missing link..EXTINCTION DISTANCE IN FREE SPACE. =~10LYs > >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 16 Jun 2005 08:23 On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:43:41 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in >news:d8q6nl$75d$1(a)dolly.uninett.no: > >> bz wrote: >>> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>> news:32rua1931htolan5pdbh8u6aa9piep8t8p(a)4ax.com: >>>>The paper is very confusing because the 'absolute' velocity curve is >>>>used. The BaT predictions are that the phase actually changes with >>>>distance. Initially the brightness peak leads the velocity peak. At >>>>greater distances it will catch up. I am presently looking into this >>>>because THe RT Aur curves are the first decent ones I have. I wish I >>>>could get a figure on distance for this star. >> >> So that you can tune the other "actual data" in your program >> to make it predict the observed light curve? :-) >> >> Because you have to observe the light curve before >> you can make your program "predict" it, right? :-) >> >>> You can compute the distance from the absolute brightness using the >>> cepheid formula. >>> >>> Paul said it is 1400 LY >> >> Yes. >> According to: >> http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/research/cepheids/table_physical.html >> the distance is 426 parsecs or 1389 LY. >> >> According to Hipparcos, the parallax is 2.09 mas, >> which means 470 parsecs or 1560 LY. >> But the uncertainty is in the order of 30%. >> This is however a very direct measurement, not dependent on >> any theory of how the star behaves. >> >>> You need to use the equation from that ppt presentation: >>> m_v-M_v = 5 log r -5, where r is the distance to the Cepheid, >>> m_v is the apparaent magnitude, M_v is the absolute magnitude. >>> >>> If I read the equation correctly, this implies that >>> distance = 10*exp(0.45051(m_v-M_v)) >> >> You do. >> A minor typo not worth meantioning: (so why do I do it?) > >It WAS worth mentioning! > >> ln(10)/5 = 0.46052, not 0.45051 > >You are right, I mistyped the number! > >> But why the exp? >> Isn't r = 10*10^((m_v-M_v)/5) simpler? > >Yeah, but when I used mathcad to solve the equation, it stuck in the >exponential and I didn't even stop to look at it carefully or think. > >>> When I use that formula, M_v of -3.036, m_v of 5.4 to 6.6 >>> I get distance of 486 to 845 (I assume parsecs) or 1587 to >>> 2758 Ly. >> >> Remember that M_v and m_v varies in exactly the same way. > >right. >> So you should use either the max, the mean, or the minimum >> values for both M_v and m_v. > >right. > >> According to: >> http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/research/cepheids/table_physical.html >> The average values are M_v = -2.86 and m_v = 5.446 >> M_v is estimated from the luminosity-period relationship. >> According to the formula r = 458 parsecs, 1493 LY > >right. > >>>>The graphs are still very confusing because the notes at the bottom >>>>claim that the maximum brightness occurs before the star has even >>>>reached half maximum size (36% of the cycle). Something doesn't quite >>>>add up here. >>> >>> >>> You have to bear in mind the mechanism. There is a change in >>> transparency as a layer heats up. As it gets bigger, it gets cooler and >>> radiates less energy, less brightness. >>> >>> That is why the brightness and size are not in phase. >> >> That's pretty much it. >> Look at: >> http://www.cosmovisions.com/cep01.htm >> It's in French, but the figures should be easy to understand. >> Temperature = Temperature >> Spectre = Spectrum (not ghost :-)) >> Vitesse radiale = Radial velocity >> (this curve is drawn "upside down") >> Rayon = radius >> Note that the maximum luminosity is when the temperature is highest. >> When the radius continues to increase, the temperature decreases, >> and since the power output per area is proportional to T^4, >> the luminosity decreases even if the surface area increases. > >> And it is as you say the change in transparency that drives it, >> that is, transfer energy to the mechanical oscillator. >> Helium can be single or double ionized. He++ is more opaque than He+. >> When the star is hot, we have H++. Then the radiation pressure >> will make the star expand. It cools down because the increased >> surface area will make it radiate the energy faster. When >> the temperature decreases, the He++ ions will catch an electron, >> and be more transparent as He+. When the star is cool and small, >> it will radiate less energy than is produced in the core, it will >> heat up, and the cycle repeats. >> >> The reason why Cepheids are found only in a small part of >> the HR-diagram is that the star must have the right size >> and temperature so that the temperature varies around the critical >> temperature that ionizes He+ to He++ when the star pulsates. > >Thanks! > >>>>I am still working on it. I have redefined the yaw angle zero (rotated >>>>it 90 deg to conform and make life easier) so all my past figures are >>>>now out by 90. >> >> Be sure to include the spectrum and temperature. :-) > >Henri needs to include 'sanity checking' in his program, to make sure the >numbers are consistent. > >Currently, the program allows independent specification of values that are >not independent. New, important discovery. The curves will not change after the extinction distance in free space has been reached. All observers beyond that distance will see the same curves. From the discrepancy in RT Aur's real distance and that required by my program to produce the right shaped curves, I have been able to estimate its value at about 10LYs (at least in the direction of RT Aur.). This is good stuff....a major breakthrough I would say in all modesty. 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 16 Jun 2005 08:26 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:34:35 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote: >On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:27:48 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:14:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>| >>>| The sun 'orbits the Earth' in one day. >>>| Something 40 times bigger orbiting every five days would not appear to move >>>| very quickly, as seen by an observer on Earth. >>>| If Jupiter was even five times larger, it would cause the sun, no matter how >>>| big it might become to orbit around the barycentre at quite a large radius. >>>| >>>| D Cep doesn't need a neutron star as its companion, at all. >>> >>>Note the conclusion. >>>The star Delta Cep is orbiting doesn't have to be very massive at all. >>> >>>Henry will of course now claim that when he said that D Cep >>>didn't need to orbit a neutron star, he didn't mean that >>>the star didn't have to be very massive, but that it can be >>>another kind of very heavy massive - like a dark matter star. >>> >>>Because he will never admit that he made the blunder everybody >>>can see that he did. >>> >>>Will you Henri? :-) >>> >>>Paul, enjoing the show >> >>Paul, as the idiot Evens just pointed out, all the light leaving the system is >>heavily redshifted by the large mass present. The plain fact is, D Cep and the >>like are much hotter and smaller than Einsteiniana has led astrophysicists to >>believe. > >What post are you pretending I made that says anything remotely like >that, Wilson The Fraud? In a recent posting, you made a completely >incorrect statement about gravitational red shifting, a process you >have already flatly rejected as not happening in your 'model' to begin >with, but I never said anything about such an object producing large >red shifts. Of course, this was in the post where I pointed out that >massive, cold bodies of that size don't form by the processes of >stellar formation. > Evens I wont take up much of your time because I know you must have constant treatment for your - er- 'deficiency'. The BaT predictions for gravitational redshift are the same as those of GR. Light accelerates down a gravity well just like ordinary matter. 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 16 Jun 2005 10:20 Henri Wilson wrote: > > New, important discovery. > The curves will not change after the extinction distance in free space has been > reached. All observers beyond that distance will see the same curves. > From the discrepancy in RT Aur's real distance and that required by my program > to produce the right shaped curves, I have been able to estimate its value at > about 10LYs (at least in the direction of RT Aur.). !!!! :-) > This is good stuff....a major breakthrough I would say in all modesty. You ARE indeed a genius, Henri! :-) Paul, stunned
From: bz on 16 Jun 2005 11:00
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:cer2b1p5vfuu0vktuch0ogqb2g8nhroqsl(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:43:41 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > ..... >>Henri needs to include 'sanity checking' in his program, to make sure >>the numbers are consistent. >> >>Currently, the program allows independent specification of values that >>are not independent. > > New, important discovery. > The curves will not change after the extinction distance in free space > has been reached. All observers beyond that distance will see the same > curves. From the discrepancy in RT Aur's real distance and that required > by my program to produce the right shaped curves, I have been able to > estimate its value at about 10LYs (at least in the direction of RT > Aur.). That may change with the yaw angle. {which would mean that you are not really seeing an extinction distance} I am not sure that your program has any factors in it associated with extinction. Therefore I am very suspicious of your conclusion. I think it is more likely that you are seeing the 'long term effects' of some inconsistent values. Get those sanity checks built in and you may solve a lot of problems. ..... Anything which removes some of the problems from the program is good. -- 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 |