"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:19:01 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Robert" H@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:27:55 GMT, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
|
| | Well it's really only a matter of definition.
| | I call it "a dark companion"
| | If you want to call it a large planet, then that is OK. It amounts to
| much the
| | same thing.
| | The important point is that the brightness curve of stars like Algol
are
| | produced by only ONE star in orbit.
| | It is not (necessarily) an eclipsing binary.
|
| This is why I made the simplest model I could, yet as accurately as I
could,
| and still be a general as I could. A single point of light, not a double.
If
| you are going to make a double, then you have to model the relative
| intensity of each and the orbit of each. You'll end up squaring the
amount
| of code you'll need, and a triple is way out of sight, man.
| And I didn't get it right the first time, or even the second. The present
| version was my fourth attempt.
| You know what really threw me at first? Flare stars. If you rotate the
orbit
| of Algol through 180 degrees, you flip the curve upside down.
|
| Yes my program shows that is close to being true.
|
| The curves are very similar but not the same by any means. As the critical
| distance is approached, one forms a very pronounced brightness peak, the
other
| (Algol type) just broadens.
|
| They are not
| easy to find either, you need a lucky accident to spot one. You've got to
be
| watching a field of stars night after night, and then briefly one of
them,
| you've no idea which until it happens, suddenly brightens for a really
short
| period and fades back to normal. So you watch the next night and the one
| ofter, the next flare is during the day, the one after that is obsecired
by
| cloud, and in the end something else more interesting turns up and you
| forget all about it.
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/119171.stm
| http://www.britastro.com/vss/evlac.html
| "EV Lac is one of the more active flare stars. Leto et al (1997) observed
| 170 flares in the B band in a total of 1013 hours of monitoring, giving
an
| average interval between flares of 6 hours." EV Lac is probably a ternary
| anyway. Heck, 55 Cancri is thought to have 4 massive planets, how can we
| model that? I'm not writing special code for every system out there.
| H, there are many more stars than there are observers. Flare stars are
| newsworthy.
|
| Yes, there are endless possibilities, almost all are explainable on
ballistic
| grounds..
|
|
| Have you been able to run my program? It encompasses just about everything
one
| needs to know. I use it regularly.
| If it wont run on your machine, I will place all the forms and the full
code on
| my website so it can be loaded into Vbasic and run that way.

I don't need to, I have my own :-)

|
|
| |
| | *The term 'planet' may be a misnomer, since this mass may well be
glowing
| | with
| | light of its own, hot from the proximity with the star, certainly
keeping
| | one
| | face toward the primary as the moon does toward the Earth, probably
| | crustless
| | since any lighter elements will have boiled off. I imagine it
resembling
| a
| | spark
| | from welding, a red hot semi-molten ball of iron, cooler on the
outward
| side
| | and hotter on the star side. What would you call a glowing massive
| planet?
| | It's too small to call a brown dwarf (although it may be if any
nuclear
| | process is continuing in the core) and too large to call a jupiter.
Since
| I
| | named it 'Androcles',
| | being the discoverer, I suppose it might be called an androcles. :-)
| |
| | nTaul wouldn't like that.
|
| I couldn't give a hoot what he likes. He's obstructive, reticent,
ignorant,
| unreasonable, and as rude and insulting as an relativist. He's not worth
my
| time or yours.
| Assuming a binary pair of equal magnitude, the flare of one cancels the
dip
| of the other. Little wonder you'll never persuade Andersen.
| What is he saying? 'Such as such' is a known binary and it doesn't vary
as
| it should according to emission theory, therefore emission theory is
wrong.
| You can't blame him totally though. Sure, he's prejudiced, and that's why
I
| gave up with him, but it's really tough to prove he's wrong if the data
| isn't there. That plus the prejudice should tell you that you are really
| wasting your time with the guy.
|
| I am having fun with him now. . I have answered all his questions and he
knows
| I am right, even though he keeps on arguing.
|
| Its not as if the pair can be resolved either. The evidence for the
binary
| is spectroscopic. That is why I included a crude spectrum in my model.
| However, the evidence is there, but I can't find the data anywhere. It is
| this.
| If you look carefully at the velocity curve for Algol according to my
model,
| you'll notice that maximum and minimum occur at the edges of the
'eclipse'.
| Now, since you pointed it out, this is really an example of apparent time
| dilation and compression, I totally agree with you on that.
|
| I looked into these apparent brightness 'discontinuities'.

A discontinuity occurs when there is a crossover involved, with faster,
later emitted light passes slower, earlier emitted light on its way to the
observer.
The star suddenly forms a second image, one behind the other. This is the
first peak. One image moves backwards and the other continues on as normal.
The curve between the peaks bottoms out when the backward moving image
reverses, and the second peak occurs when the two images coincide once again
and one vanishes. The two images are along the line of sight and cannot
be resolved. In fact there are three images, the light from the image
moving backwards arrives at the same time as the light from the same image
is moving forward again. The second peak is a discontinuity when we receive
a single image once again.

| I thought there was
| something wrong with my equations.. but no....They result purely from the
fact
| that the orbit goes from convex to concave curvature wrt the observer.

I can't visualize that in my mind. Consider the built-in nova I have in my
program,
which is about as extreme as it can be. You'll need to increase the photon
count to
1,000,000 to see all the spectrum velocity curve, there is not enough data
being
generated without it. You can set the filter to zero, that was only used
when
the program was written for slow computers.
|
| Algol, so it is claimed for the conventional model, has an eccentricity
of
| 0.015, which is near as dammit a circle. So maximum and minimum velocity
| should, according to that model, occur at +90 degrees and -90 degrees,
but
| according to the c+v model it should be at (apparent) +26 and -26
degrees
| if my program is correct.
|
| Algol type curves require ecceentricities above about 0.5 according to me.

Yep. I agree. 0.6 to 0.7 is about the eccentricity of the egg I ate for
breakfast.
|
| So get the real data, and the matter is decisive.
| No, Andersen will never accept it. And if it is proven that maximum and
| minimum velocities occurs at an apparent +90 and -90 then I've got to
give
| up c+v as well, or else find a bug in my program.
|
| Consider an orbit whose perihelion is nearest to the observer. The maximum
and
| minimum velocity components towards that observer DO NOT occur at +/- 90.
| The higher the Eccentricity, the bigger the difference.
| I looked right into this...printed out thousands of numbers.
|
| See diagram.
| http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....20velocity.JPG
|
| You are correct.. but why do you think it is a nearly circular orbit?

I don't think that at all!

Look.

Let me play devil's advocate against you (really us) but I'll direct my
argument against you and show what we are up against.

You have to deal with the claim, made by Goodricke in the mid 1700s,
that Algol is eclipsing and that is the explanation of the V-dip in the
curve.

You claim that there is no eclipse, the V is caused by viewing
an orbit with the eccentricity of an egg from the pointed end.

The fundamental concept underlying both ideas is the source dependency
or independency of light, as we both know. But that is not the question
here.

Goodricke has got there first, his argument has won over the hearts
and minds of the scientific community and Einstein, a charismatic figure,
is backing him up.

You have the burden of proving Goodricke is wrong, and simply
offering an alternative explanation is not going to do that.
It's the "your word against mine" argument, and there are a lot of
people quite happy to accept the explanation Goodricke gave.
Not only that, but his is the simplest as well, at least superficially,
and that goes more in his favour than yours.

So how do you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Goodricke is
wrong and you are right?
The direct evidence is plain for all to see.
There is a dip in the curve. Both sides agree with it.
It's your theory against that of Goodricke, you can both explain
the dip. Now the scales are balanced, but I still come out in favour
of Goodricke because his solution is simpler than yours.
What can you offer that will tip the scales in your favour?

The only way is to examine the peripheral evidence as well.

What I'm saying is that astronomers CLAIM the eccentricity is 0.015
for Algol. So by observing the ACTUAL min and max velocities, we
have solid and incontrovertible PROOF of the source dependency of
light.
Without that, Goodricke wins, so does Einstein and stars behave
very strangely indeed.

Y'know, without being pompous, this directly analogous to Ptolemy
and Copernicus.
Both could explain and predict eclipses, both could explain retrograde
motion of the planets. The scales were balanced.
So what tipped the scales in favour of Copernicus?
Galileo and his observation of the jovian moons. Here was a system
where certain heavenly bodies did NOT orbit the Earth. They orbited
Jupiter instead. Then along came Kepler, and found Copernicus was
WRONG! The orbits were not circular at all, they were elliptical.
And who backed him up? Newton.
Of course poor old Galileo got a right beating by the establishment
for saying Copernicus was right, as we know. You are experiencing it.

So... the scales are balanced. It's your word against Goodricke's.
Goodricke has the simpler explanation. You lose.

| See proof that light speed is source dependent.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

Not a proof; all you've done is balanced the scales with some very
complicated mathematics.
It's not me you have to convince, H. It was I that convinced you to
write the program in the first place, and then you became convinced
because you actually did the homework that this lazy crowd can't
be bothered with. You convinced yourself, based on the evidence.
I fought you hard on h-aether, I fought you on massive dark stars.
I encouraged you when you were writing your program.
But Goodricke still has you beaten, his idea is simpler.
Now show where Goodricke cannot be right. ONE counter-example
only. That's all it takes. We don't need a myriad examples that
can only balance the scales. Take Algol apart, piece by piece, and
put it together again, step-by-step.
Right now, the jigsaw has a lot of pieces that don't yet fit to make
a complete picture. The border is in place, there is a dip in the curve.
There is a hole to fill, and all the pieces must fit exactly.
Androcles.

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

But why would you call the secondary a "dark companion"
or a planet when we know it is a K4 star?

You don't know that.
You cannot resolve the orbits. You cannot see each star individually. All you
see is the combined brightness variation.

You can resolve their spectra. Learn some astronomy.

Myxococcus xanthus

Dirk Van de moortel:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...

You don't know that.

Yes, we do know that.
Spectroscopy.

Didn't you know?
All spectroscopists and spectroscope manufacturers
are Conspiring Against The Ballistic Theory.
It's all fake.

Those dirty *******s! If I owned ten tons of iron and a large
catapult, I'd build and deliver a ballistic split pole spectrometer
to henri personally, right to his front porch and ask him how he'd
like the poles wound.

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:47:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Robert" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:27:55 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:




Well it's really only a matter of definition.
I call it "a dark companion"
If you want to call it a large planet, then that is OK. It amounts to much the
same thing.

But why would you call the secondary a "dark companion"
or a planet when we know it is a K4 star?

You don't know that.

Yes, we do know that.
Spectroscopy.

You cannot resolve the orbits. You cannot see each star individually. All you
see is the combined brightness variation.

Yes, it can be and is resolved.
Not in the visible band, but in the X-band.
By the VLBA.
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/~brs/algol/main.html

The important point is that the brightness curve of stars like Algol are
produced by only ONE star in orbit.
It is not (necessarily) an eclipsing binary.

Living in the same fantasy world as Androcles an Henri Wilson, are you? :-)

Just look at the curves predicted by the ballistic theory Paul;. See for
yourself.
You are making a big fool of yourself.
Even bigger than Einstein.



The radial velocity of the primary B8 star is measured to be 4 km/s.

that may be so, maybe not.

It is so.
Spectroscopy.
Real measured data.

...within what limits?


I can tell you that if you use real measured data for Algol,
the ballistic theory predicts the light curve to be very different
from what it actually is.

No Paul, the 'constant c' myth produces a model of Algol that is very different
from what it actually is.

We know all the important data for Algol, you do not have to invent them.
The ballistic theory predicts a light curve very different from
what is observed.

The ballistic theory predicts curves exactly like Algol's.
What are you tring to prove..That you are an idiot?
Have a look for yourself.


Whenever we know the data of a binary,
the predictions of the ballistic theory are way off.

You are blind


Paul



Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

On 3 Sep 2004 06:34:09 -0700, (Myxococcus xanthus)
wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

But why would you call the secondary a "dark companion"
or a planet when we know it is a K4 star?

You don't know that.
You cannot resolve the orbits. You cannot see each star individually. All you
see is the combined brightness variation.

You can resolve their spectra. Learn some astronomy.

and the spectra are fully explained buy the ballistic theory.


Myxococcus xanthus


Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:59:35 -0000,
(Bilge) wrote:

Dirk Van de moortel:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...

You don't know that.

Yes, we do know that.
Spectroscopy.

Didn't you know?
All spectroscopists and spectroscope manufacturers
are Conspiring Against The Ballistic Theory.
It's all fake.

Those dirty *******s! If I owned ten tons of iron and a large
catapult, I'd build and deliver a ballistic split pole spectrometer
to henri personally, right to his front porch and ask him how he'd
like the poles wound.


Ah! The **** emerges when the going gets tough!


Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:47:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding
...
| On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Robert" H@.. skrev i melding
...
| On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:27:55 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:

" http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html
I told you so."
Androcles.

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

| wrote:
|
|
"Androcles"
| wrote:

" http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html
I told you so."

What I did NOT write is
Well it's really only a matter of definition.
I call it "a dark companion"

Androcles.

"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:47:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Robert" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:27:55 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:




Well it's really only a matter of definition.
I call it "a dark companion"
If you want to call it a large planet, then that is OK. It amounts to much the
same thing.

But why would you call the secondary a "dark companion"
or a planet when we know it is a K4 star?

You don't know that.

Yes, we do know that.
Spectroscopy.

You cannot resolve the orbits. You cannot see each star individually. All you
see is the combined brightness variation.

Yes, it can be and is resolved.
Not in the visible band, but in the X-band.
By the VLBA.
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/~brs/algol/main.html

The important point is that the brightness curve of stars like Algol are
produced by only ONE star in orbit.
It is not (necessarily) an eclipsing binary.

Living in the same fantasy world as Androcles an Henri Wilson, are you? :-)

Just look at the curves predicted by the ballistic theory Paul;. See for
yourself.

That's exactly what I have done, Henry.
I have looked what the ballistic theory predicts
the light curve of Algol should look when we use
the real, measured data. It is indeed very different
from the observed one.

You are making a big fool of yourself.
Even bigger than Einstein.



The radial velocity of the primary B8 star is measured to be 4 km/s.

that may be so, maybe not.

It is so.
Spectroscopy.
Real measured data.

..within what limits?


I can tell you that if you use real measured data for Algol,
the ballistic theory predicts the light curve to be very different
from what it actually is.

No Paul, the 'constant c' myth produces a model of Algol that is very different
from what it actually is.

We know all the important data for Algol, you do not have to invent them.
The ballistic theory predicts a light curve very different from
what is observed.

The ballistic theory predicts curves exactly like Algol's.
What are you tring to prove..That you are an idiot?
Have a look for yourself.

Enter the correct data into your program and see for yourself.

Whenever we know the data of a binary,
the predictions of the ballistic theory are way off.

You are blind

Quite the contrary, Henry.
I can clearly see that whenever we use known, measured
data for a binary, the predictions of the ballistic theory
are way off.

I challenge you to show a single example of the contrary.
You can not!
You HAVE however proven that your program predicts
that close binaries which are NOT variables should be.

But you are blind and don't see the wrong predictions
of your own program, right? :-)

Paul

"Androcles" skrev i melding ...

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:47:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding
...
| On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:27:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Robert" H@.. skrev i melding
...
| On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:27:55 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:

" http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html
I told you so."
Androcles.

Listen to Androcles, Henri.
He is telling you that spectroscopic measurements
are so sensitive that a radial velocity of 15 m/s
can be measured.

And you think the 4 km/s radial velocity of the primary
of Algol is NOT measured? :-)

Paul