Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
sci.physics.relativity
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion RT Aurigae versus Emission Theory
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Henri Wilson  
View profile  
 More options Jan 9 2007, 6:12 pm
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro
From: HW@....(Henri Wilson)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:12:51 GMT
Local: Tues, Jan 9 2007 6:12 pm
Subject: Re: RT Aurigae versus Emission Theory
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 8 Jan 2007 15:58:58 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> .

>> >Well, I can throw LOTS of radial velocity curves at you, including
>> >recent photometric studies made with current equipment, rather than
>> >relying on classic results from 1909.

>> Can you show me some curves for other 'cepheids'. They are hard to find.

>(sigh)

>Five minutes of googling gets me these:

>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...351..606K

No good. I have found plenty like this. They are trying to link the pulksating
model with velocity curves..and succeed. ...but they acannot link the model to
brightness curves.

Their conclusion specificlly states that although the hydrodynamic models
accurately predict velocity curves, they fail to produce the light curves.

Again the model cannot produce light curves.

Yes. A few here...

But Jerry, all these papers show that since the hydrodynamic model CANNOT
predict the light curves, it is obviously inadequate.

>The most important thing to realize from recent measurments...

>THE VELOCITY CURVES ARE NOT KEPLERIAN.

>The little bumps and nodes are REAL.
>Smooth curves ignoring little squiggles in the data may have been
>fine for data collected back in in 1909. But not now...

Jerry, I am prepared to accept that many of these stars DO indeed pulsate. The
BaTh cannot otherwise explain the 'bump' with any orbiting model ...unless
maybe it is a complicated three body one.

However I suggest to you the reason why nobody can predict the brightness
curves with their current models is that they are not taking into account the
c+v of the emitted light.
The stars are pulsating BUT THEIR INTRINSIC BRIGHTNESS IS NOT VARYING MUCH AT
ALL.

I think this might turn out to be really good evidence in favour of the BaTh.

>> >> >1) You STILL fail to match the velocity curve!

>> >> Rubbish.

>> >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rtaurmatch_fiddle...

>> Near enough

>Nope. Even back in 1909, astronomers routinely measured radial
>velocities to +/- 1.5 km/s for reasonably bright objects, so your
>error of 4.2 km/s is nearly three standard errors off.

Well I'll now let you in on a little secret.
I FAKED THE LAST CURVE. (See how easy it is)

The original one I gave was the correct BaTh prediction. The phase difference
is more like 100....and I have double checked the program..
What has me stumped though is the fact that to match the published one, I had
to introduce a factor of exactly pi/2 to the yaw angle...now that is really
interesting.

I am working now on models of pulsating stars, weird orbits, etc., that might
produce this phasing. Mind you, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the published
curve was a mile out.

>More recent measurements have errorbars in the +/- 0.4 km/s range.

But according to references you gave, the phasing of the light curve varies
enormously from IR to visible.

>The most sophisticated instrumentation, developed in the search for
>extrasolar planets, detects <0.1 km/s variations, and is just
>starting to be applied to the measurement of Cepheid radial
>velocities. All sorts of subtle harmonics are being detected in
>their curves.

...and the phasing is obviously very dependent on the filter used.

>> Incidentally, have you noticed that all cepheids appear to have a companion
>> star?

>The proportion of Cepheids in multiple star systems seems to be about
>the same as any other star, about half. So what?

More than 50%

>> >You are WAY OFF.

>> Yes OK, just add a zero to the extinction distance.

>> >> For RT Aur, it is about 1 LY exactly.

>> It should be 10LYs....no matter.

>> >> >3) WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
>> >> >4) What sort of orbital parameters are you using?
>> >> >5) SHOW YOUR CODE.

>> >> You wouldn't understand a line of it.

>> >Well, I'm starting school again Tuesday.
>> >Rant on as much as you want.   :-)

>> What do you say, 'again'?

>End of spring break.

It's summer here...

>First class tomorrow at 9AM.

First year physics, no doubt...

>I also start my rotation.

What the hell is a rotation. Arre you hopping onto a carousel?
>Jerry


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google