On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:32:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:59:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


The wavelength distribution would also likely be different, probably with the
mode shifted towards the red, making the 'second star' appear cooler.
Not much better.
Light reflected off a planet will never
be mistaken for the light from a star.

Oh?
What would be the main differences?

If you measure the visual spectrum from one of the terrestial
planets and try to determine the spectral class as if it was
a stellar spectrum, you will find that it is a G2 spectrum
like the Sun. Of course there would be differences telling you
that the spectrum isn't from a star, but the main point
is that it cannot be mistaken for any other type of spectrum
than G2.

Oh, rubbish.
Do you really believe that our sun's spectrum could be determined solely by
examining the spectrum of Jupiter?

See why below.

But is this an attempt to flee your statement about Algol,
namely that the secondary K2 spectrum could easily be a reflection
of the primary B8 spectrum from a large cool dead star or planet?

Do you retract this statement, or do you defend it?

Or is this another case where you didn't say what you said? :-)

B8 is considerably hotter than a K2.
Where is the problem?
Reflected B8 light could easily lose much of the shorter wavelength
contributions.
The radiation curve could conceivably resemble that of a faint K2.

How do you manage to stay this ignorant after having
discussed these issues for years?

I have told you this numerous times, PLEASE LEARN IT THIS TIME:
The spectral class of a star is determined by the relative
positions and strengths of the absorption lines,
not by where the black body spectrum peaks.

As I already stated, both emission and absorption lines are reflected from the
planet. Their relative proportions will likely be considerably affected by the
planet's albedo and atmosphere.

That's why a Doppler shift doesn't affect the determination
of the spectral class.

I didn't mention doppler shift. You are becoming quite confused.

There is a strong (one to one) correlation between
the spectral class and the temperature of a star,
so when the spectral class is determined, so is the
temperature.

Of course.

Look at the B0 spectrum he
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/O-Gspect.gif
compare it to the K0 spectrum he
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/G-Mspect.gif
You can also see the spectra he
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html

Note that the B spectrum has few absorption lines in
the red end of the spectrum, while the K spectrum
has a lot of absorption lines in the red end.

That would imply different atmospheres. In the third reference above, the F
type has an additional element in its atmosphere.

The spectra are very different, _and have *very* different
sets of absorption lines_. There is no way you can make
a B spectrum look like a K spectrum by "shifting it towards
the red."

I didn't say the lines were doppler shifted.
I said the DISTRIBUTION (hystogram of wavelengths) would probably be shifted
towards the red.

You are now terribly confused.

If you want to learn about the determination of spectra,
go he
http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~marschal/clea/speclab.html
and download the SpecLab program.
You can then measure the spectra of different stars
with a virtual telescope, and classify them by comparing
them to standard spectra.
Have fun. :-)

Bottom line:
You have to be - if not a moron - extremely ignorant of
the most basic issues of astronomy not to realize that
the statement:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."
is incredible stupid.

You are now hopelessly confused.

But staying ignorant about the issues you talk about
every day for years is a speciality of yours.
Isn't it?

You seem to be confusing the discussion of Sagnac with that relating to star
spectra.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:47:15 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:43:31 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:22:58 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


I appreciate it is difficult....and maybe you are also Norwegian.
Here is a linear analogy of a ring gyro:

Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a
distant
'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are
initially
in
phase.

S1_________________________________D
S2

Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is different,the
number
of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different
speeds,
such that they arrive at D together.

When you say '*they* arrive at D together' - what is the *they* that you
are
referring to? 'S1 & S2 themselves' or the 'waves from S1 and S2'

...a particular infinitesimal element that leaves the source and is split
into
the two, Each half goes into a different ray. The two leave together and
arrive
at the detector together. One travels further than the other.

I was talking about YOUR analogy. Please stick to the terms of YOUR
explanation

S1, S2 and D
Now - please explain how this helps explain the term - 'doppler shifted 180
out of phase'. If you can.

Oh for christs's sake, thanks to Paul Tusselad, there are two entirely
unrelated topics being discussed here.
Andersen has a habit of changing the subject and misquoting me when he knows he
has lost the argument.

The 180 phase shift statement refers to the spectra of the members of a binary
pair of stars. It has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect or my ring gyro
analysis.




See the SR diagram at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
to see what is happening.
SR says the light speed of both rays is c in the inertial frame and the travel
times are different, leading to a phase displacement.

BaTh says the speeds are c+v and c-v in the inertial frame, the travel times
are the same but the frequencies are different, leading to the same phase
displacement as predicted by SR.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:32:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:59:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


The wavelength distribution would also likely be different, probably with the
mode shifted towards the red, making the 'second star' appear cooler.
Not much better.
Light reflected off a planet will never
be mistaken for the light from a star.
Oh?
What would be the main differences?
If you measure the visual spectrum from one of the terrestial
planets and try to determine the spectral class as if it was
a stellar spectrum, you will find that it is a G2 spectrum
like the Sun. Of course there would be differences telling you
that the spectrum isn't from a star, but the main point
is that it cannot be mistaken for any other type of spectrum
than G2.

Oh, rubbish.
Do you really believe that our sun's spectrum could be determined solely by
examining the spectrum of Jupiter?

Is Jupiter one of the terrestrial planets?
(We have to exclude Venus as well, because of it's
atmosphere.)
Look:
The colour of Mars and Mercury is mainly grey,
(even if Mars is slightly reddish).
That means that the albedo is approximately independent
of the wavelength for light in the visible range.
So the light reflected off them will contain exactly
the same set of absorption lines as the Sun, which
is a G2 spectrum. No new lines will appear, and no
lines will disappear. So even if the continuum may
be altered, the light can still be identified as
originally coming from a G2 star, and _never_ from
any other spectral class.

If you don't believe it, look at:
http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=13877
download the full text.
Look at the Sun's spectrum in fig.5 and compare
that to the visible part of the spectrum
of the reflected light in the lower diagram in fig.8.
(The spectra are very different in IR, because of
the albedo's strong dependence of wavelength in that range.
That's why I explicitly said the _visible_ spectrum.)

I did however say that there are differences which will
reveal that the light is _not_ coming directly
from a star, and the most important difference will
be change in the continuum because the albedo is
not strictly independent of the wavelength.
If we include the spectrum outside of the visible
range, the difference is very obvious.

The spectrum of the light reflected off the gas
planets or Venus will be very different, because
of the spectral lines from the atmosphere.
The spectrum will be nothing like the spectrum
from any star, and can never be confused with
a stellar spectrum.

The bottom line is that when the light from a star
is reflected off a planet, the spectrum of the reflected
light can never be confused with the spectrum of a star,
and certainly not with the spectrum of a star of a different
spectral class.

Your statement was:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."

The idea is absolute ridiculous, and reveals a complete
ignorance of what a stellar spectrum is and how it
is identified.

In the rest of this posting, you yet again demonstrate
your utter ignorance and your inability and unwillingness
to even consider remedy that ignorance.

Inability to learn is the hallmark of a moron.

See why below.

But is this an attempt to flee your statement about Algol,
namely that the secondary K2 spectrum could easily be a reflection
of the primary B8 spectrum from a large cool dead star or planet?

Do you retract this statement, or do you defend it?

Or is this another case where you didn't say what you said? :-)
B8 is considerably hotter than a K2.
Where is the problem?
Reflected B8 light could easily lose much of the shorter wavelength
contributions.
The radiation curve could conceivably resemble that of a faint K2.
How do you manage to stay this ignorant after having
discussed these issues for years?

I have told you this numerous times, PLEASE LEARN IT THIS TIME:
The spectral class of a star is determined by the relative
positions and strengths of the absorption lines,
not by where the black body spectrum peaks.

As I already stated, both emission and absorption lines are reflected from the
planet. Their relative proportions will likely be considerably affected by the
planet's albedo and atmosphere.

That's why a Doppler shift doesn't affect the determination
of the spectral class.

I didn't mention doppler shift. You are becoming quite confused.

There is a strong (one to one) correlation between
the spectral class and the temperature of a star,
so when the spectral class is determined, so is the
temperature.

Of course.

Look at the B0 spectrum he
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/O-Gspect.gif
compare it to the K0 spectrum he
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial...s/G-Mspect.gif
You can also see the spectra he
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html

Note that the B spectrum has few absorption lines in
the red end of the spectrum, while the K spectrum
has a lot of absorption lines in the red end.

That would imply different atmospheres. In the third reference above, the F
type has an additional element in its atmosphere.

The spectra are very different, _and have *very* different
sets of absorption lines_. There is no way you can make
a B spectrum look like a K spectrum by "shifting it towards
the red."

I didn't say the lines were doppler shifted.
I said the DISTRIBUTION (hystogram of wavelengths) would probably be shifted
towards the red.

You are now terribly confused.

If you want to learn about the determination of spectra,
go he
http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~marschal/clea/speclab.html
and download the SpecLab program.
You can then measure the spectra of different stars
with a virtual telescope, and classify them by comparing
them to standard spectra.
Have fun. :-)

Bottom line:
You have to be - if not a moron - extremely ignorant of
the most basic issues of astronomy not to realize that
the statement:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."
is incredible stupid.

You are now hopelessly confused.

But staying ignorant about the issues you talk about
every day for years is a speciality of yours.
Isn't it?

Quod erat demonstrandum.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:25:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

OG wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:52:29 +0100, "OG" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
cooler
star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
wrt
the
star.

What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
This is obviously far too hard for you. Stop making a fool of yourself and
go
quietly away.
You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.
And your are obviously asking what it means in this context:
Henri Wilson:
" .. its spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
wrt the star."

The conversation so far:
HW:
The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
cooler star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out
of phase wrt the star.
OG:
What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
HW:
This is obviously far too hard for you.
Stop making a fool of yourself and go quietly away.
OG:
You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.

Are you drunk? We are discussing Sagnac.

Is anybody drunk? Who is that? :-)

I see that Henri has tried to answer this question, but he has obviously
forgotten what he is talking about, and is giving an incredible
confused answer. :-)

It is quite simple.
We are talking about the B8 spectrum and the K2 spectrum from
respectively the primary and the secondary component of the Algol binary.
Since the components are orbiting each other in circular orbits,
the radial velocity of the stars will vary sinusoidally, and
the variation will be 180 degrees out of phase.
When one star is approaching, the other is receding, and vice versa.
Since the radial velocity varies, the Doppler shift of
the spectrum will vary sinusoidally. The spectrum is blue shifted
when the star is approaching, red shifted when it is receding.
So when the A8 spectrum is blue shifted, the K2 spectrum is red
shifted, and vice versa.

Loosely said:
"The two spectra are Doppler shifted 180 out of phase."

So now you are agreeing with me. Do you also apologise for your stupidity?

OK, I apologise.
Your failure to know what 'we' are talking about is obviously my stupidity.

I can't guarantee that you won't repeat my stupidity
and again forget what 'we' are talking about, though.

In the absence of a third object, the doppler shifts are exactly 180 out of
phase.

Quite.
That's what the sober person explained to OG since
the drunk person had forgotten what 'we' were talking about.
The latter person actually thought that two spectra
Doppler shifted 180 out of phase is "discussing Sagnac"!
How drunk can you get? :-)

--
Paul, still able to be amused by Henri's confusion

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:47:15 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:43:31 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:22:58 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


I appreciate it is difficult....and maybe you are also Norwegian.
Here is a linear analogy of a ring gyro:

Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a
distant
'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are
initially
in
phase.

S1_________________________________D
S2

Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is
different,the
number
of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different
speeds,
such that they arrive at D together.

When you say '*they* arrive at D together' - what is the *they* that you
are
referring to? 'S1 & S2 themselves' or the 'waves from S1 and S2'

...a particular infinitesimal element that leaves the source and is
split
into
the two, Each half goes into a different ray. The two leave together and
arrive
at the detector together. One travels further than the other.

I was talking about YOUR analogy. Please stick to the terms of YOUR
explanation

S1, S2 and D
Now - please explain how this helps explain the term - 'doppler shifted
180
out of phase'. If you can.

Oh for christs's sake, thanks to Paul Tusselad, there are two entirely
unrelated topics being discussed here.
Andersen has a habit of changing the subject and misquoting me when he
knows he
has lost the argument.

You what? Don't blame someone else - You started an 'explanation', then
talked about Sagnac when I asked for clarification

The 180 phase shift statement refers to the spectra of the members of a
binary
pair of stars. It has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect or my ring gyro
analysis.

Yes, but you claimed it's doppler related, but not explained why.

See the SR diagram at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
to see what is happening.
SR says the light speed of both rays is c in the inertial frame and the
travel
times are different, leading to a phase displacement.

But since it's 'nothing to do with Sagnac' I don't know why you are posting
a link to a page about 'Sagnac'. Is there a reason?

BaTh says the speeds are c+v and c-v in the inertial frame, the travel
times
are the same but the frequencies are different, leading to the same phase
displacement as predicted by SR.

You're *still* talking about Sagnac
I want to know why orbiting binary stars can have a '180 phase shift' due
to doppler. You said they do, but you've totally screwed up your
explanation.

Nothing more about Sagnac please.

Just to remind you, I'm asking for your clarification about the following

Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a
distant 'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are
initially in phase.

S1_________________________________D
S2

Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is different,the
number of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different
speeds, such that they arrive at D together.

When you say '*they* arrive at D together' - what is the *they* that you are
referring to? 'S1 & S2 themselves' or the 'waves from S1 and S2'

Since they move through different path lengths, the number of wavecrests
from each oscillator arriving at D before the two sources arrive is also
different, causing the observed phase displacement.

The difference in path length isn't constant, does this mean that the phase
displacement is also not constant?

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:49:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:25:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson:
" .. its spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
wrt the star."

The conversation so far:
HW:
The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
cooler star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out
of phase wrt the star.
OG:
What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
HW:
This is obviously far too hard for you.
Stop making a fool of yourself and go quietly away.
OG:
You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.

Are you drunk? We are discussing Sagnac.

Is anybody drunk? Who is that? :-)

..You have deliberately caused this confusion by changing the subject from
Sagnac to variable stars. OG is not aware that this is a regular tactic of
yours when in a tight spot.

OG is now totally confused.

I see that Henri has tried to answer this question, but he has obviously
forgotten what he is talking about, and is giving an incredible
confused answer. :-)

It is quite simple.
We are talking about the B8 spectrum and the K2 spectrum from
respectively the primary and the secondary component of the Algol binary.
Since the components are orbiting each other in circular orbits,
the radial velocity of the stars will vary sinusoidally, and
the variation will be 180 degrees out of phase.
When one star is approaching, the other is receding, and vice versa.
Since the radial velocity varies, the Doppler shift of
the spectrum will vary sinusoidally. The spectrum is blue shifted
when the star is approaching, red shifted when it is receding.
So when the A8 spectrum is blue shifted, the K2 spectrum is red
shifted, and vice versa.

Loosely said:
"The two spectra are Doppler shifted 180 out of phase."

So now you are agreeing with me. Do you also apologise for your stupidity?

OK, I apologise.
Your failure to know what 'we' are talking about is obviously my stupidity.

I can't guarantee that you won't repeat my stupidity
and again forget what 'we' are talking about, though.

The original topic of this thread was Algol's light curve.
YOU then claimed that BaTh was refuted by Sagnac. I have repeatedly shown you
why that is incorrect. Sagnac is completely compatible with BaTh. You refuse to
even learn why...even though the explaination is very simple.

In the absence of a third object, the doppler shifts are exactly 180 out of
phase.

Quite.
That's what the sober person explained to OG since
the drunk person had forgotten what 'we' were talking about.
The latter person actually thought that two spectra
Doppler shifted 180 out of phase is "discussing Sagnac"!
How drunk can you get? :-)

OK, you have now proved that OG is drunk most of the time. Where do we go from
here?


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:04:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:32:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

like the Sun. Of course there would be differences telling you
that the spectrum isn't from a star, but the main point
is that it cannot be mistaken for any other type of spectrum
than G2.

Oh, rubbish.
Do you really believe that our sun's spectrum could be determined solely by
examining the spectrum of Jupiter?

Is Jupiter one of the terrestrial planets?
(We have to exclude Venus as well, because of it's
atmosphere.)
Look:
The colour of Mars and Mercury is mainly grey,
(even if Mars is slightly reddish).
That means that the albedo is approximately independent
of the wavelength for light in the visible range.
So the light reflected off them will contain exactly
the same set of absorption lines as the Sun, which
is a G2 spectrum. No new lines will appear, and no
lines will disappear. So even if the continuum may
be altered, the light can still be identified as
originally coming from a G2 star, and _never_ from
any other spectral class.

If you don't believe it, look at:
http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=13877
download the full text.
Look at the Sun's spectrum in fig.5 and compare
that to the visible part of the spectrum
of the reflected light in the lower diagram in fig.8.
(The spectra are very different in IR, because of
the albedo's strong dependence of wavelength in that range.
That's why I explicitly said the _visible_ spectrum.)

I did however say that there are differences which will
reveal that the light is _not_ coming directly
from a star, and the most important difference will
be change in the continuum because the albedo is
not strictly independent of the wavelength.

Of course it is not.
Our own planet is a good example of that.

If we include the spectrum outside of the visible
range, the difference is very obvious.

The spectrum of the light reflected off the gas
planets or Venus will be very different, because
of the spectral lines from the atmosphere.
The spectrum will be nothing like the spectrum
from any star, and can never be confused with
a stellar spectrum.

The bottom line is that when the light from a star
is reflected off a planet, the spectrum of the reflected
light can never be confused with the spectrum of a star,
and certainly not with the spectrum of a star of a different
spectral class.

You are rambling. Why don't you just admit you are wrong.
A large planet or cool object with an atmosphere will reflect the light from a
nearby star. The relected spectrum will likely contain the same lines but in
different proportions.
You pointed out, yourself, some time ago that a star's temperature was assessed
from the ratios of various emission and absorption lines not from the
spectrum's peak value.

Your statement was:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."

The idea is absolute ridiculous, and reveals a complete
ignorance of what a stellar spectrum is and how it
is identified.

Much of physics today would have been classified as ridiculous even one hundred
years ago.
You should bring youself up to date.

In the rest of this posting, you yet again demonstrate
your utter ignorance and your inability and unwillingness
to even consider remedy that ignorance.

Inability to learn is the hallmark of a moron.

...takes on to know one...


I have told you this numerous times, PLEASE LEARN IT THIS TIME:
The spectral class of a star is determined by the relative
positions and strengths of the absorption lines,
not by where the black body spectrum peaks.

As I already stated, both emission and absorption lines are reflected from the
planet. Their relative proportions will likely be considerably affected by the
planet's albedo and atmosphere.

That's why a Doppler shift doesn't affect the determination
of the spectral class.

I didn't mention doppler shift. You are becoming quite confused.

There is a strong (one to one) correlation between
the spectral class and the temperature of a star,
so when the spectral class is determined, so is the
temperature.

Of course.

..

You are now hopelessly confused.

But staying ignorant about the issues you talk about
every day for years is a speciality of yours.
Isn't it?

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Yes. You have an inability to learn.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:49:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:25:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson:
" .. its spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
wrt the star."

The conversation so far:
HW:
The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
cooler star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out
of phase wrt the star.
OG:
What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
HW:
This is obviously far too hard for you.
Stop making a fool of yourself and go quietly away.
OG:
You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.

Are you drunk? We are discussing Sagnac.

Is anybody drunk? Who is that? :-)

.You have deliberately caused this confusion by changing the subject from
Sagnac to variable stars. OG is not aware that this is a regular tactic of
yours when in a tight spot.

Henri - you really ought to pay attention.
You see the thread title? Maybe you missed the bit that said 'Algol' - just
to be sure its actually mentioned twice in the title.

Algol - 5 letters, a variable star

Now look for a 6 letter word in the title beginning with S and ending in
agnac - can you see it? No nor can I. So why are you still insisting that
this thread is about Sagnac

The thread *is* about variable stars.
So let's get back to the discussion in hand, which is 'Can Henri explain how
the doppler effect gives rise to a phase shift of 180 degrees?'

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:45:27 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:49:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:25:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson:
" .. its spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
wrt the star."

The conversation so far:
HW:
The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
cooler star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out
of phase wrt the star.
OG:
What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
HW:
This is obviously far too hard for you.
Stop making a fool of yourself and go quietly away.
OG:
You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.

Are you drunk? We are discussing Sagnac.

Is anybody drunk? Who is that? :-)

.You have deliberately caused this confusion by changing the subject from
Sagnac to variable stars. OG is not aware that this is a regular tactic of
yours when in a tight spot.

Henri - you really ought to pay attention.
You see the thread title? Maybe you missed the bit that said 'Algol' - just
to be sure its actually mentioned twice in the title.

Algol - 5 letters, a variable star

Now look for a 6 letter word in the title beginning with S and ending in
agnac - can you see it? No nor can I. So why are you still insisting that
this thread is about Sagnac

Andersen introduced the Sagnac red herring when he realised he was losing the
argument. That's typical...

The thread *is* about variable stars.
So let's get back to the discussion in hand, which is 'Can Henri explain how
the doppler effect gives rise to a phase shift of 180 degrees?'

What are you talking about? The 'doppler effect' is an EFFECT not a cause.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:45:27 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:49:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:25:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson:
" .. its spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
wrt the star."

The conversation so far:
HW:
The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
cooler star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out
of phase wrt the star.
OG:
What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
HW:
This is obviously far too hard for you.
Stop making a fool of yourself and go quietly away.
OG:
You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase
change.

Are you drunk? We are discussing Sagnac.

Is anybody drunk? Who is that? :-)

.You have deliberately caused this confusion by changing the subject
from
Sagnac to variable stars. OG is not aware that this is a regular tactic
of
yours when in a tight spot.

Henri - you really ought to pay attention.
You see the thread title? Maybe you missed the bit that said 'Algol' -
just
to be sure its actually mentioned twice in the title.

Algol - 5 letters, a variable star

Now look for a 6 letter word in the title beginning with S and ending in
agnac - can you see it? No nor can I. So why are you still insisting
that
this thread is about Sagnac

Andersen introduced the Sagnac red herring when he realised he was losing
the
argument. That's typical...


No he bloody well didn't
You introduced the 'Sagnac red herring' in your response to Jerry at 03:14
on 14.04


The thread *is* about variable stars.
So let's get back to the discussion in hand, which is 'Can Henri explain
how
the doppler effect gives rise to a phase shift of 180 degrees?'

What are you talking about? The 'doppler effect' is an EFFECT not a cause.

So complete the explanation of your own exact words
"spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase wrt the star."

you started with the following
Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a
distant 'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are
initially in phase.

S1_________________________________D
S2

Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is different,the
number of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different
speeds, such that they arrive at D together.

At which I asked