"OG" wrote in message
...


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

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'

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:10:37 +0100, "OG" wrote:

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

Listen you bloody idiot, if you knew anything about physics or astronomy
you
would know that the light from the two members of a binary pair is doppler
shifted roughly sinusoidally because of the sources' relative velocity wrt
earth. The doppler shift of the spectrum of one is 180 out of phase wrt
that of
the other. This is very basic stuff...so stop making a fool of yourself..

Finally, you have explained yourself.

Your inept initial phrase "spectrum lines would be doppler shifted ... out
of phase wrt the star"
and your aborted explanation of what you meant made me wonder whether you
had some insight into physics; but in fact it was my error was in taking
your words at face value.

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:13:09 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"OG" wrote in message
...


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

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'

Run this program: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe
It explains everything.

It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation if
you are able.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:01:48 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:13:09 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"OG" wrote in message
...


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

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'

Run this program: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe
It explains everything.

It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation if
you are able.

How could it do any damage when I wrote the thing.
If you want to see why a ring gyro works, run it.


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

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

OG wrote:
.....
It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation if
you are able.

Arguing with Ralph Rabbidge (aka Henry Wilson) is quite a pleasant game,
and a useless one isn't it ? I'd undertand how successfull you feel to
show how right you are in front of such elementary stupidity. You are
completely right : Wilson is an idiot of the worse kind.

BTW, you was supposed to enlight all of us by explaining us how using
c=1 (or 2, or whatever) would break dimensional analysis as you are
suposed to have studied it (what I doubt). Then you became suddenly
silent. Did you lost your thongue ?

OG wrote:
.....
It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation if
you are able.

Arguing with Ralph Rabbidge (aka Henry Wilson) is quite a pleasant game,
and a useless one isn't it ? I'd undertand how successfull you feel to
show how right you are in front of such elementary stupidity. You are
completely right : Wilson is an idiot of the worse kind.

BTW, you was supposed to enlight all of us by explaining us how using
c=1 (or 2, or whatever) would break dimensional analysis as you are
suposed to have studied it (what I doubt). Then you became suddenly
silent. Did you loose your thongue ?

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

Quite.
So your statement below _is_ ridiculous, isn't it? :-)

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 wrote:
"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."

That says it all.

And he is calling himself a "Doctor"! :-)

Maybe it's time for Ralph Rabbidge to change his name again?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...hangeName.html
"We can say what we like without fear of
losing our reputation. We can put forward any
hypothesis no matter how stupid it might appear."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

--
Paul

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

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

| Henri Wilson wrote:
| "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."
|
| That says it all.

Pick the spectral type out of this:
http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/cybe...spectrum02.jpg

That says it all.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:07:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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


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.

Quite.
So your statement below _is_ ridiculous, isn't it? :-)

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 wrote:
"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."

Quite easily.

That says it all.

You are still rambling. Why don't you just admit you are wrong.




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

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

"YBM" wrote in message
...
OG wrote:
....
It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation if
you are able.

Arguing with Ralph Rabbidge (aka Henry Wilson) is quite a pleasant game,
and a useless one isn't it ? I'd undertand how successfull you feel to
show how right you are in front of such elementary stupidity. You are
completely right : Wilson is an idiot of the worse kind.

BTW, you was supposed to enlight all of us by explaining us how using
c=1 (or 2, or whatever) would break dimensional analysis as you are
suposed to have studied it (what I doubt). Then you became suddenly
silent. Did you loose your thongue ?

No, I've been thinking about it.

Explain again how c can be be made to be dimensionless - given that it
represents both distance and time
I'm listening.