http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html

I told you so.
Androcles.

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:42:17 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html

What is significant about it, A?

"Robert" RB@.. wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:42:17 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html
|
| What is significant about it, A?

The primary is moving in a small orbit about the barycentre of the pair.
The planet is not observed but deduced from the motion of the primary.
At 40 light years, we are not going to observe any significant variation
in the luminosity, and in all probability (the page doesn't give much data)
we are observing the orbit face on, which maximizes the data but will not
provide any variation different from c for the light.
The planet's orbit is described as sub Mercury, which means the period
is less than 88 days. This same system, seen from a position edge on
to the orbit and much further away will show a cepheid type curve, and
depending on eccentricity possibly an Algol type as well from a different
vantage point that is in line with the major axis. My point is that we do
not
require a huge mass representing dark matter to accomplish this. The slight
motion about the barycentre is sufficient. My own model of Algol is
almost face on anyway, with the 'planet'* so close as to have a
period of 70 hours.

*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. :-)
Good seeing,
A.

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:27:55 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Robert" RB@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:42:17 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html
|
| What is significant about it, A?

The primary is moving in a small orbit about the barycentre of the pair.
The planet is not observed but deduced from the motion of the primary.
At 40 light years, we are not going to observe any significant variation
in the luminosity, and in all probability (the page doesn't give much data)
we are observing the orbit face on, which maximizes the data but will not
provide any variation different from c for the light.
The planet's orbit is described as sub Mercury, which means the period
is less than 88 days. This same system, seen from a position edge on
to the orbit and much further away will show a cepheid type curve, and
depending on eccentricity possibly an Algol type as well from a different
vantage point that is in line with the major axis. My point is that we do
not
require a huge mass representing dark matter to accomplish this. The slight
motion about the barycentre is sufficient. My own model of Algol is
almost face on anyway, with the 'planet'* so close as to have a
period of 70 hours.

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.

*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.

Good seeing,
A.







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

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

"Robert" H@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:27:55 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Robert" RB@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:42:17 GMT, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| | http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html
| |
| | What is significant about it, A?
|
| The primary is moving in a small orbit about the barycentre of the pair.
| The planet is not observed but deduced from the motion of the primary.
| At 40 light years, we are not going to observe any significant variation
| in the luminosity, and in all probability (the page doesn't give much
data)
| we are observing the orbit face on, which maximizes the data but will not
| provide any variation different from c for the light.
| The planet's orbit is described as sub Mercury, which means the period
| is less than 88 days. This same system, seen from a position edge on
| to the orbit and much further away will show a cepheid type curve, and
| depending on eccentricity possibly an Algol type as well from a different
| vantage point that is in line with the major axis. My point is that we do
| not
| require a huge mass representing dark matter to accomplish this. The
slight
| motion about the barycentre is sufficient. My own model of Algol is
| almost face on anyway, with the 'planet'* so close as to have a
| period of 70 hours.
|
| 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. 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.

|
| *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.
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.
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.
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.
See diagram.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....20velocity.JPG
Androcles

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


"Robert" RB@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:42:17 GMT, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html
|
| What is significant about it, A?

The primary is moving in a small orbit about the barycentre of the pair.
The planet is not observed but deduced from the motion of the primary.
At 40 light years, we are not going to observe any significant variation
in the luminosity, and in all probability (the page doesn't give much data)
we are observing the orbit face on, which maximizes the data but will not
provide any variation different from c for the light.
The planet's orbit is described as sub Mercury, which means the period
is less than 88 days. This same system, seen from a position edge on
to the orbit and much further away will show a cepheid type curve, and
depending on eccentricity possibly an Algol type as well from a different
vantage point that is in line with the major axis. My point is that we do
not
require a huge mass representing dark matter to accomplish this. The slight
motion about the barycentre is sufficient. My own model of Algol is
almost face on anyway, with the 'planet'* so close as to have a
period of 70 hours.

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?

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? :-)

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

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.

Paul

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.


|
| *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'. 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.

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.

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?

Androcles





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


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? :-)

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

that may be so, maybe not.


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.


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

"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? :-)

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.

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.

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

Paul

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

"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.

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



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

Didn't you know?
The entire NRAO staff (and everyone at Cornell) is
Conspiring Against The Ballistic Theory. It's all fake.



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? :-)

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.

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.

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

Didn't you know?
All that data is part of the Conspiracy Against The
Ballistic Theory. It's all fake.

Dirk Vdm