On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:17:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:28:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



That makes you crazy, doesn't it? :-)

You have lost, Henri.
And you know it.

Paul, having a great time

..yes! Avoiding: sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0

Claiming that 2 flashes + 2 flashes = 0 flashes again, Henry?

2 + 2 = 4
Pin it up above your computer.

Paul


Paul I have now given you about five good reasons why you wont see the flashes
that YOUR version of the ballistic theory expects.

You are so brainwashed you have lost your powers of reason.

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:13:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:20:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Is too! Is too! :-)
You haven't actually tried to enter the known data for Algol
and seen what the ballistic theory actually predicts, have you?

Have you?

And the x-ray spectrum is consistent with mass
transfer between the components. Accretion disk
and all that.

But there is no such thing in Wonderland, is it?

Is that the same as your fairyland?

May well be.
It's the land where Algol doesn't emit anything in
the X-ray spectrum which the ballistic theory
can fail to explain.

So you now agree that the ballistic theory CAN explain anything emitted in the
XRay region?

I infer from that statement that you are claiming that the ballistic
theory will predict emission in the X-ray spectrum.
Why would a star orbited by a "dark companion" or a planet
radiate in the X-ray spectrum?

You inferred both correctly and incorrectly.
My statement didn't infer the conclusion you reached.


You will evade the question, won't you? :-)

Why should I when truth is on my side?


Paul



HW.

www.users.bigpond.com

"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:17:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:28:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

You have lost, Henri.
And you know it.

Paul, having a great time

..yes! Avoiding: sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0

Claiming that 2 flashes + 2 flashes = 0 flashes again, Henry?

2 + 2 = 4
Pin it up above your computer.

Paul


Paul I have now given you about five good reasons why you wont see the flashes
that YOUR version of the ballistic theory expects.

You are referring to these flashes, right?

Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004:
| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory
| predicts HD80715 should look like.
| From:
| http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9912/9912158.pdf
| You can see from the spectrum that the H_alpha line split ca. 2.5A,
| which is a relative split of 3.8*10^-4.
| This means that the amplitude of each component is ca. 1.9*10^-4.
| The amplitude of the radial (from observer) component of
| the orbital speed will thus be v/c = 1.9*10^-4, or v = 57 km/s.
| The period is 3.8 days.
| From:
| http://astro.estec.esa.nl/hipparcos_...logueSearch.pl
| we find that the distance is 24 parsecs.
|
| These number will give the ratio (2*pi*d*v/c^2)/p
| the value 9.
| So we will during one period see five stars all the time,
| and two additional stars part of the time. These two last
| stars will either merge in a brilliant flash, or suddenly
| appear in a brilliant flash and then split.
| These flashes will be brighter than 1 for 0.036 period,
| brighter than 10 for 0.0004 period,
| brighter than 100 for 0.000004 period.
| By adding the brightness of the stars, we will get
| the following light curve:
|
| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1.
| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star
| N is number of stars seen.
|
| phase brightness N
|
| 0.0 1.22 7
| 0.1 1.21 7
| 0.17 1.97 7
| 0.18 2.45 7
| 0.19 5.90 7
| 0.1913 60.00 7
| 0.191310 infinite 7-5
| 0.2 0.66 5
| 0.3 0.64 5
| 0.4 0.63 5
| 0.5 0.62 5
| 0.6 0.63 5
| 0.7 0.64 5
| 0.8 0.67 5
| 0.808719 infinite 5-7
| 0.8089 21.6 7
| 0.809 11.80 7
| 0.81 3.90 7
| 0.9 1.34 7
| 1.0 1.22 7
|
| Note that the integral over one period is 1,
| that is the average brightness is 1.
|
| The above is for one of the stars, you can get
| the light curve for both stars by translating
| the above half a period and adding.

Henri Wilson responded:
| I can get these figures from my program.
|
| Surprisingly, they agree exactly with yours..... proves my program is
| correct.... not that I ever doubted it.
|
| So I could have saved you all that time and trouble.
| Just click your mouse a
| few times and...there is your curve.

.... which MY version of the ballistic theory predicts, eh? :-)

And one of the reasons why we don't see the flashes
predicted by the ballistic theory is: sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0?

You are so brainwashed you have lost your powers of reason.

Since the reason in your remark:
"Avoiding: sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0"
escapes me, I suppose I must be brainwashed.
But I am confident that you will explain the reason
in your remark:.Won't you?

Paul, still having a good time

"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:13:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
So you now agree that the ballistic theory CAN explain anything emitted in the
XRay region?

I infer from that statement that you are claiming that the ballistic
theory will predict emission in the X-ray spectrum.
Why would a star orbited by a "dark companion" or a planet
radiate in the X-ray spectrum?

You inferred both correctly and incorrectly.
My statement didn't infer the conclusion you reached.

Your claim was that the ballistic theory CAN predict
anything emitted in the X-ray region.
The fact is that Algol IS radiating in the X-ray spectrum.
My question was:
Why would a star [which according to you is]
orbited by a "dark companion" or a planet
radiate in the X-ray spectrum?

You will evade the question, won't you? :-)

Why should I when truth is on my side?

Indeed.
So what can we then conclude from the fact
that you evaded the question?

Paul

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:12:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:17:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:




Paul I have now given you about five good reasons why you wont see the flashes
that YOUR version of the ballistic theory expects.

You are referring to these flashes, right?

Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004:
| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory
| predicts HD80715 should look like.
| From:
| http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9912/9912158.pdf
| You can see from the spectrum that the H_alpha line split ca. 2.5A,
| which is a relative split of 3.8*10^-4.
| This means that the amplitude of each component is ca. 1.9*10^-4.
| The amplitude of the radial (from observer) component of
| the orbital speed will thus be v/c = 1.9*10^-4, or v = 57 km/s.
| The period is 3.8 days.
| From:
| http://astro.estec.esa.nl/hipparcos_...logueSearch.pl
| we find that the distance is 24 parsecs.
|
| These number will give the ratio (2*pi*d*v/c^2)/p
| the value 9.
| So we will during one period see five stars all the time,
| and two additional stars part of the time. These two last
| stars will either merge in a brilliant flash, or suddenly
| appear in a brilliant flash and then split.
| These flashes will be brighter than 1 for 0.036 period,
| brighter than 10 for 0.0004 period,
| brighter than 100 for 0.000004 period.
| By adding the brightness of the stars, we will get
| the following light curve:
|
| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1.
| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star
| N is number of stars seen.
|
| phase brightness N
|
| 0.0 1.22 7
| 0.1 1.21 7
| 0.17 1.97 7
| 0.18 2.45 7
| 0.19 5.90 7
| 0.1913 60.00 7
| 0.191310 infinite 7-5
| 0.2 0.66 5
| 0.3 0.64 5
| 0.4 0.63 5
| 0.5 0.62 5
| 0.6 0.63 5
| 0.7 0.64 5
| 0.8 0.67 5
| 0.808719 infinite 5-7
| 0.8089 21.6 7
| 0.809 11.80 7
| 0.81 3.90 7
| 0.9 1.34 7
| 1.0 1.22 7
|
| Note that the integral over one period is 1,
| that is the average brightness is 1.
|
| The above is for one of the stars, you can get
| the light curve for both stars by translating
| the above half a period and adding.

Henri Wilson responded:
| I can get these figures from my program.
|
| Surprisingly, they agree exactly with yours..... proves my program is
| correct.... not that I ever doubted it.
|
| So I could have saved you all that time and trouble.
| Just click your mouse a
| few times and...there is your curve.

... which MY version of the ballistic theory predicts, eh? :-)

And one of the reasons why we don't see the flashes
predicted by the ballistic theory is: sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0?

You are so brainwashed you have lost your powers of reason.

Since the reason in your remark:
"Avoiding: sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0"
escapes me, I suppose I must be brainwashed.
But I am confident that you will explain the reason
in your remark:.Won't you?

Paul, still having a good time

Typical example of your snipping and lying to distort the facts.

You know as well as I do that my reference to sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0 had
nothing to do with the absence of flashes but to an entirely different question
you raised, namely that relating to the absence of variation in the brightness
curves of supposed close binaries..






HW.

www.users.bigpond.com

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:27:24 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:13:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
So you now agree that the ballistic theory CAN explain anything emitted in the
XRay region?

I infer from that statement that you are claiming that the ballistic
theory will predict emission in the X-ray spectrum.
Why would a star orbited by a "dark companion" or a planet
radiate in the X-ray spectrum?

You inferred both correctly and incorrectly.
My statement didn't infer the conclusion you reached.

Your claim was that the ballistic theory CAN predict
anything emitted in the X-ray region.

I made no such claim. You are lying again, Paul.

The fact is that Algol IS radiating in the X-ray spectrum.
My question was:
Why would a star [which according to you is]
orbited by a "dark companion" or a planet
radiate in the X-ray spectrum?

PAUL, I WILL HAVE TO YELL THIS SO YOU WILL HEAR.

THE STAR IS THE ONE DOING MOST OF THE ORBITING. THE DARK COMPANION IS probably
MUCH LARGER AND NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE BRIGHTNESS CURVE.


You will evade the question, won't you? :-)

Why should I when truth is on my side?

Indeed.
So what can we then conclude from the fact
that you evaded the question?

Paul



HW.

www.users.bigpond.com

"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:12:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:17:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:




Paul I have now given you about five good reasons why you wont see the flashes
that YOUR version of the ballistic theory expects.

You are referring to these flashes, right?

Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004:
| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory
| predicts HD80715 should look like.
| From:
| http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9912/9912158.pdf
| You can see from the spectrum that the H_alpha line split ca. 2.5A,
| which is a relative split of 3.8*10^-4.
| This means that the amplitude of each component is ca. 1.9*10^-4.
| The amplitude of the radial (from observer) component of
| the orbital speed will thus be v/c = 1.9*10^-4, or v = 57 km/s.
| The period is 3.8 days.
| From:
| http://astro.estec.esa.nl/hipparcos_...logueSearch.pl
| we find that the distance is 24 parsecs.
|
| These number will give the ratio (2*pi*d*v/c^2)/p
| the value 9.
| So we will during one period see five stars all the time,
| and two additional stars part of the time. These two last
| stars will either merge in a brilliant flash, or suddenly
| appear in a brilliant flash and then split.
| These flashes will be brighter than 1 for 0.036 period,
| brighter than 10 for 0.0004 period,
| brighter than 100 for 0.000004 period.
| By adding the brightness of the stars, we will get
| the following light curve:
|
| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1.
| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star
| N is number of stars seen.
|
| phase brightness N
|
| 0.0 1.22 7
| 0.1 1.21 7
| 0.17 1.97 7
| 0.18 2.45 7
| 0.19 5.90 7
| 0.1913 60.00 7
| 0.191310 infinite 7-5
| 0.2 0.66 5
| 0.3 0.64 5
| 0.4 0.63 5
| 0.5 0.62 5
| 0.6 0.63 5
| 0.7 0.64 5
| 0.8 0.67 5
| 0.808719 infinite 5-7
| 0.8089 21.6 7
| 0.809 11.80 7
| 0.81 3.90 7
| 0.9 1.34 7
| 1.0 1.22 7
|
| Note that the integral over one period is 1,
| that is the average brightness is 1.
|
| The above is for one of the stars, you can get
| the light curve for both stars by translating
| the above half a period and adding.

Henri Wilson responded:
| I can get these figures from my program.
|
| Surprisingly, they agree exactly with yours..... proves my program is
| correct.... not that I ever doubted it.
|
| So I could have saved you all that time and trouble.
| Just click your mouse a
| few times and...there is your curve.

... which MY version of the ballistic theory predicts, eh? :-)

And one of the reasons why we don't see the flashes
predicted by the ballistic theory is: sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0?

You are so brainwashed you have lost your powers of reason.

Since the reason in your remark:
"Avoiding: sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0"
escapes me, I suppose I must be brainwashed.
But I am confident that you will explain the reason
in your remark:.Won't you?

Paul, still having a good time

Typical example of your snipping and lying to distort the facts.

You know as well as I do that my reference to sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0 had
nothing to do with the absence of flashes but to an entirely different question
you raised, namely that relating to the absence of variation in the brightness
curves of supposed close binaries.

Didn't know what else to say, eh? :-)

BTW, what DID you say? :-)

Paul

"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:27:24 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. skrev i melding ...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:13:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


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

So you now agree that the ballistic theory CAN explain anything emitted in the
XRay region?

I infer from that statement that you are claiming that the ballistic
theory will predict emission in the X-ray spectrum.
Why would a star orbited by a "dark companion" or a planet
radiate in the X-ray spectrum?

You inferred both correctly and incorrectly.
My statement didn't infer the conclusion you reached.

Your claim was that the ballistic theory CAN predict
anything emitted in the X-ray region.

I made no such claim. You are lying again, Paul.

With whom was I supposed to AGREE that the ballistic
theory CAN explain anything emitted in the XRay region?

Am I to understand that what you meant to say was:
"So you now agree that the ballistic theory CAN NOT explain
anything emitted in the XRay region?"

In that case, I agree.

The fact is that Algol IS radiating in the X-ray spectrum.
My question was:
Why would a star [which according to you is]
orbited by a "dark companion" or a planet
radiate in the X-ray spectrum?

PAUL, I WILL HAVE TO YELL THIS SO YOU WILL HEAR.

THE STAR IS THE ONE DOING MOST OF THE ORBITING. THE DARK COMPANION IS probably
MUCH LARGER AND NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE BRIGHTNESS CURVE.

And in what way does that yelling explain
the emission in the X-ray spectrum?

You will evade the question, won't you? :-)

Why should I when truth is on my side?

Indeed.
So what can we then conclude from the fact
that you evaded the question?

Henri ..?
Why did you evade the question?
Was the truth NOT or your side?

Paul