RT Aurigae versus Emission Theory
Jerry
be found on my web page:
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/rt_aurigae.htm
-----------------------------------
On Jan 3, 2007, Henri Wilson posted a link to the following graph of
the luminosity and radial velocity (Doppler shift) curves of the
Cepheid variable RT Aurigae as predicted by his variant of emission
theory, which he calls BaTh (i.e. Ballistic Theory).
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurmatch.jpg
Concerning the above image, Henri Wilson wrote: "The brightness
curve matches RT Aur almost perfectly. The blue curve shows the
radial velocities at the source. The red curve is the velocity curve
we should see. The phase difference is only about 50 degrees, not 90
as Jeery the crank claims. If you draw the right curve through the
points shown on the RT Aur velocty graph, you will see the
brightness curve leads the velocity curve by not much less than 50
....and the author admits it is very approximate."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f5fca706eecf22e5
The brightness curve data that Henri has fit is from Duncan (1909)
as published by C. Johnson (2003) in the following web site:
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
Over Henri's predicted radial velocity curves, I have superimposed
the best-fit curve to Duncan's radial velocity data, as posted on
Johnson's web site. The bottoms of the radial velocity curves
represent maximum radial velocity towards the Earth (i.e. the Cepheid
is increasing in radius), while the tops of the radial velocity
curves represent maximum radial velocity away from the Earth (i.e.
the Cepheid is decreasing in radius).
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rt_aurigae_no_match.png
It should be quite evident that there is absolutely no resemblance
between Henri's predicted curves and the measured radial velocities.
The green line represents Henri's computed brightness curves. Henri
claims, and in fact does achieve, a somewhat close match to the
actual visual luminosity curves, which is only to be expected given
the number of adjustable parameters in Henri's model with which he
fit the data.
Henri claimed that the phase difference between his predicted radial
velocity peak and the luminosity peak is about 50 degrees. This is,
of course, a completely false claim. In Henri's posted illustration,
I measure approximately a one-third cycle (119 degrees) phase lag
between Henri's radial velocity peak and the luminosity peak. The
original Sekerin model on which Henri based his modified ballistic
theory of variable star behavior predicted a 90 degree phase lag
between the radial velocity peak and the luminosity peak.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binarie2.htm
In contrast, the phase lag measured from Duncan's radial velocity
data is approximately 16 degrees. See also the more recent data in
Bappu and Raghavan, 1969.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B
Note that Henri did not provide a velocity scale. There is no
indication that Henri's theory is capable of providing even a rough
estimate of the magnitude of the measured Doppler shifts, much less
their phasing.
Jerry
Sorcerer
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1167993205....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| The entire text below the line, along with explanatory figures, may
| be found on my web page:
| http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/rt_aurigae.htm
|
| -----------------------------------
|
| On Jan 3, 2007, Henri Wilson posted a link to the following graph of
| the luminosity and radial velocity (Doppler shift) curves of the
| Cepheid variable RT Aurigae as predicted by his variant of emission
| theory, which he calls BaTh (i.e. Ballistic Theory).
|
| http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurmatch.jpg
|
| Concerning the above image, Henri Wilson wrote: "The brightness
| curve matches RT Aur almost perfectly. The blue curve shows the
| radial velocities at the source. The red curve is the velocity curve
| we should see. The phase difference is only about 50 degrees, not 90
| as Jeery the crank claims.
180 - 119 = 61 degrees.
Close enough to be called a difference of 50 and not 90. Fuck off, lying cunt.
Jerry
61 degrees would be the phase difference between the point of maximum
radial velocity towards the Earth and the midpoint of the luminosity
curve. What does THAT have to do with anything?
The key question should be, how closely does Henri's red curve, i.e.
his radial velocity prediction, match up with the white curve, the
observed radial velocity data? What do YOU say?
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rt_aurigae_no_match.png
You had earlier praised Henri's radial velocity graphs:
Henri:
"the blue curve shows the radial velocities at the source. The
red curve is the velocity curve we should see."
Sorcerer:
"Yeah, that's pretty good. Well done. It's what I get, too.
And yes, the shape changes as a function of distance."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c2382635abc1083e
I presume, therefore, that your radial velocity prediction matches
the data just as well as Henri's...
Jerry
Henri Wilson
Sorry Jerry, my mistake. I have left out a pi/2 in the velocity graph. Will
get back to you on this.
I was so preoccupied with explaining to Androcles that I CAN produce observed
velocity curves that I made this glaring mistake. I knew something didn't add
up...but getting all these angles right is pretty complicated stuff, I can
assure you.
>
>Jerry
Jerry
You also need to provide a velocity scale.
And show your code.
Take your time. Classes start next week, so I'm REALLY going to be
swamped with work, as opposed to just being sort of stressed.
I'll be -very- slow answering anything you write.
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1167993205....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> | The entire text below the line, along with explanatory figures, may
>> | be found on my web page:
>> | http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/rt_aurigae.htm
>> |
>> | -----------------------------------
>> |
>> | On Jan 3, 2007, Henri Wilson posted a link to the following graph of
>> | the luminosity and radial velocity (Doppler shift) curves of the
>> | Cepheid variable RT Aurigae as predicted by his variant of emission
>> | theory, which he calls BaTh (i.e. Ballistic Theory).
>> |
>> | http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurmatch.jpg
Have another peek at it now.
Henri Wilson
I guess Androcles is wrong then...you must be female..
>
>Jerry
Jerry
> On 5 Jan 2007 18:25:00 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Sorcerer wrote:
> >> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1167993205....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> | The entire text below the line, along with explanatory figures, may
> >> | be found on my web page:
> >> | http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/rt_aurigae.htm
> >> |
> >> | -----------------------------------
> >> |
> >> | On Jan 3, 2007, Henri Wilson posted a link to the following graph of
> >> | the luminosity and radial velocity (Doppler shift) curves of the
> >> | Cepheid variable RT Aurigae as predicted by his variant of emission
> >> | theory, which he calls BaTh (i.e. Ballistic Theory).
> >> |
> >> | http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurmatch.jpg
>
> Have another peek at it now.
Still no good, Henri.
After fiddling, your curves are better in some ways, worse in others.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rt_aurigae_after_fiddling.png
1) The discrepancy between predicted phase of max radial velocity
towards Earth versus measured value is down to 10 degrees - GOOD
2) The discrepancy between the predicted phase of max radial velocity
away from Earth versus the measured value has changed sign, but is
still 28 degrees. - NEUTRAL
3) The amplitude of your luminosity curve has decreased from 0.92 mag
to 0.55 mag - VERY BAD!
4) You still refuse to provide a velocity scale that will allow
comparing the amplitude of your predicted radial velocity curve
with the measured Doppler shifts - VERY BAD!
5) You still refuse to provide code showing the basis of your
computations - VERY BAD!
Jerry
Henri Wilson
I adjusted it to 0.92. It makes little difference to curve shape.
try again.
>4) You still refuse to provide a velocity scale that will allow
> comparing the amplitude of your predicted radial velocity curve
> with the measured Doppler shifts - VERY BAD!
>5) You still refuse to provide code showing the basis of your
> computations - VERY BAD!
It's worse than you think.
>
>Jerry
Jerry
> I adjusted it to 0.92. It makes little difference to curve shape.
> try again.
>
> >4) You still refuse to provide a velocity scale that will allow
> > comparing the amplitude of your predicted radial velocity curve
> > with the measured Doppler shifts - VERY BAD!
> >5) You still refuse to provide code showing the basis of your
> > computations - VERY BAD!
>
> It's worse than you think.
It's worse than YOU think!
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rtaurmatch_fiddled_2_superimposed.png
1) You STILL fail to match the velocity curve!
2) You STILL refuse to provide a velocity scale that will allow
comparing the amplitude of your predicted radial velocity curve
with the measured Doppler shifts - VERY VERY VERY BAD!
3) WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
4) What sort of orbital parameters are you using?
5) SHOW YOUR CODE.
Jerry
Andro
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1168050300....@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1167993205....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | The entire text below the line, along with explanatory figures, may
| > | be found on my web page:
| > | http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/rt_aurigae.htm
| > |
| > | -----------------------------------
| > |
| > | On Jan 3, 2007, Henri Wilson posted a link to the following graph of
| > | the luminosity and radial velocity (Doppler shift) curves of the
| > | Cepheid variable RT Aurigae as predicted by his variant of emission
| > | theory, which he calls BaTh (i.e. Ballistic Theory).
| > |
| > | http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rtaurmatch.jpg
| > |
| > | Concerning the above image, Henri Wilson wrote: "The brightness
| > | curve matches RT Aur almost perfectly. The blue curve shows the
| > | radial velocities at the source. The red curve is the velocity curve
| > | we should see. The phase difference is only about 50 degrees, not 90
| > | as Jeery the crank claims.
| >
| > 180 - 119 = 61 degrees.
| >
| >
| > Close enough to be called a difference of 50 and not 90. Fuck off, lying cunt.
|
| 61 degrees
Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
Jerry 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800
Which of these statements do you disagree with:
1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.
-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348
2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727
3) Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
4) The facts:
4a) The velocity curve of all magical huff-puff stars is Keplerian.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KepVel.gif
4b) The velocity of light is source dependent, proven by Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
4c) An eclipsing variable is a magical huff-puff star with different obital parameters.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
5) Tom and Jerry are cartoon characters by W. Hanna and J. Barbera.
Tom only differs from Jerry in toes, ears, colour and size.
http://diariodeumpintelhofo.no.sapo.pt/tom-and-jerry.jpg
6) You are a fuckin' idiot mobster with the obstinacy of a glutted adder.
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Quotations/Galileo.html
In 1979, Pope John Paul II set up a committee to study the Galileo case, and five years later, its findings were made public. But it wasn't until 1992 that the Vatican finally admitted that Galileo had been right.
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/galileo.html
Huff puff stars just happen to have Keplerian velocity curves
by accident,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KepVel.gif
but the Holey Church of Relativity says one speed for light
so they have to huff puff, recurrent novae have to blow themselves
to smithereens then settle back to normal and blow themselves to
smithereens again, Algol has to be eclipsed by a dark neighbour
as big as itself but cold and flare stars have to be roman candles.
Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of light speed and observer you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the light to stand still and the observer to change position -- eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be proved that the observer moves and the light stands still. -- Androcles, with Galileo paraphrased.
I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. -- Galileo.
|
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>> I adjusted it to 0.92. It makes little difference to curve shape.
>> try again.
>>
>> >4) You still refuse to provide a velocity scale that will allow
>> > comparing the amplitude of your predicted radial velocity curve
>> > with the measured Doppler shifts - VERY BAD!
>> >5) You still refuse to provide code showing the basis of your
>> > computations - VERY BAD!
>>
>> It's worse than you think.
>
>It's worse than YOU think!
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rtaurmatch_fiddled_2_superimposed.png
That was because I showed hte veloctiy curve at the source rather than at the
observer. Have another look.
Anyway, the published curve is so inaccurate it could be out by 50%. It's a
joke.
Have you read the article with that curve? Whoever wrote it is a moron.
It claims the acceleration is constant for a half cycle. Even you must realise
that the acceleration of any oscillator must be something like a sine curve. It
can't just change direction instantaneously at the point of maximum expansion.
>1) You STILL fail to match the velocity curve!
Rubbish.
>2) You STILL refuse to provide a velocity scale that will allow
>comparing the amplitude of your predicted radial velocity curve
>with the measured Doppler shifts - VERY VERY VERY BAD!
You don't get it at all.
I feed in the observed velocity of 0.00055c and period of 0.0081 years. I
adjust hte eccentricity and yaw angle to produce the right shaped curve.
I then adjust the observer distance to produce the observed magnitude change.
The distance tells me when light speed unification (LSU) is complete.
For RT Aur, it is about 1 LY exactly.
>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.
>
>Jerry
Jerry
> On 7 Jan 2007 19:10:06 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >It's worse than YOU think!
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rtaurmatch_fiddled_2_superimposed.png
>
> That was because I showed hte veloctiy curve at the source rather than at the
> observer. Have another look.
Still no good. The shape of your curve doesn't match the measured
shape.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rtaurmatch_fiddled_3_superimposed.png
> Anyway, the published curve is so inaccurate it could be out by 50%. It's a
> joke.
You can't match the shape, so you blame the data?
BLAME THE DATA
BLAME THE DATA
BLAME THE DATA
BLAME THE DATA
BLAME THE DATA
That's all you seem capable of doing.
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.
And you know what? You'll have to blame the data EVERYWHERE.
> Have you read the article with that curve? Whoever wrote it is a moron.
Johnson isn't exactly mainstream (to say the least). But he is an
interesting individual, and he knows how to work a scanner.
Try looking at his other pages. He happens to be anti-relativity.
Are you calling a fellow anti-relativist a moron?
> It claims the acceleration is constant for a half cycle. Even you must realise
> that the acceleration of any oscillator must be something like a sine curve. It
> can't just change direction instantaneously at the point of maximum expansion.
>
> >1) You STILL fail to match the velocity curve!
>
> Rubbish.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rtaurmatch_fiddled_3_superimposed.png
> >2) You STILL refuse to provide a velocity scale that will allow
> >comparing the amplitude of your predicted radial velocity curve
> >with the measured Doppler shifts - VERY VERY VERY BAD!
>
> You don't get it at all.
>
> I feed in the observed velocity of 0.00055c and period of 0.0081 years. I
> adjust hte eccentricity and yaw angle to produce the right shaped curve.
> I then adjust the observer distance to produce the observed magnitude change.
> The distance tells me when light speed unification (LSU) is complete.
0.00055c = 165 km/s.
The amplitude of the radial velocity curve is +/- 17.1 km/s,
i.e. 34.2 km/s peak to trough.
You are WAY OFF.
> For RT Aur, it is about 1 LY exactly.
>
> >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. :-)
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 7 Jan 2007 19:10:06 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >It's worse than YOU think!
>> >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rtaurmatch_fiddled_2_superimposed.png
>>
>> That was because I showed hte veloctiy curve at the source rather than at the
>> observer. Have another look.
>
>Still no good. The shape of your curve doesn't match the measured
>shape.
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rtaurmatch_fiddled_3_superimposed.png
>
>> Anyway, the published curve is so inaccurate it could be out by 50%. It's a
>> joke.
>
>You can't match the shape, so you blame the data?
>
>BLAME THE DATA
>BLAME THE DATA
>BLAME THE DATA
>BLAME THE DATA
>BLAME THE DATA
>
>That's all you seem capable of doing.
Even the author admitted it was very approximate at best.
There is no way that velocity curve could be accurate. A huff-puff star
wouldn't behave like a flat topped piston in a cylinder you know. There would
have to be a large spread of doppler shifts depending on where the light
originated.
.
>
>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.
>And you know what? You'll have to blame the data EVERYWHERE.
>
>> Have you read the article with that curve? Whoever wrote it is a moron.
>
>Johnson isn't exactly mainstream (to say the least). But he is an
>interesting individual, and he knows how to work a scanner.
>
>Try looking at his other pages. He happens to be anti-relativity.
So is Androcles.
>
>Are you calling a fellow anti-relativist a moron?
Is Androcles?
>> It claims the acceleration is constant for a half cycle. Even you must realise
>> that the acceleration of any oscillator must be something like a sine curve. It
>> can't just change direction instantaneously at the point of maximum expansion.
>>
>> >1) You STILL fail to match the velocity curve!
>>
>> Rubbish.
>
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rtaurmatch_fiddled_3_superimposed.png
Near enough
Incidentally, have you noticed that all cepheids appear to have a companion
star?
>> >2) You STILL refuse to provide a velocity scale that will allow
>> >comparing the amplitude of your predicted radial velocity curve
>> >with the measured Doppler shifts - VERY VERY VERY BAD!
>>
>> You don't get it at all.
>>
>> I feed in the observed velocity of 0.00055c and period of 0.0081 years. I
>> adjust hte eccentricity and yaw angle to produce the right shaped curve.
>> I then adjust the observer distance to produce the observed magnitude change.
>> The distance tells me when light speed unification (LSU) is complete.
>
>0.00055c = 165 km/s.
>
>The amplitude of the radial velocity curve is +/- 17.1 km/s,
>i.e. 34.2 km/s peak to trough.
>
>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'?
>Jerry
Jerry
(sigh)
Five minutes of googling gets me these:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...351..606K
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9807132
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_base_ora&url=articles/aa/full/2001/36/aa1057/aa1057.right.html&access=standard&Itemid=81
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401151
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...
> >And you know what? You'll have to blame the data EVERYWHERE.
> >
> >> Have you read the article with that curve? Whoever wrote it is a moron.
> >
> >Johnson isn't exactly mainstream (to say the least). But he is an
> >interesting individual, and he knows how to work a scanner.
> >
> >Try looking at his other pages. He happens to be anti-relativity.
>
> So is Androcles.
> >
> >Are you calling a fellow anti-relativist a moron?
>
> Is Androcles?
>
> >> It claims the acceleration is constant for a half cycle. Even you must realise
> >> that the acceleration of any oscillator must be something like a sine curve. It
> >> can't just change direction instantaneously at the point of maximum expansion.
> >>
> >> >1) You STILL fail to match the velocity curve!
> >>
> >> Rubbish.
> >
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/rtaurmatch_fiddled_3_superimposed.png
>
> 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.
More recent measurements have errorbars in the +/- 0.4 km/s range.
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.
> 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?
>
> >> >2) You STILL refuse to provide a velocity scale that will allow
> >> >comparing the amplitude of your predicted radial velocity curve
> >> >with the measured Doppler shifts - VERY VERY VERY BAD!
> >>
> >> You don't get it at all.
> >>
> >> I feed in the observed velocity of 0.00055c and period of 0.0081 years. I
> >> adjust hte eccentricity and yaw angle to produce the right shaped curve.
> >> I then adjust the observer distance to produce the observed magnitude change.
> >> The distance tells me when light speed unification (LSU) is complete.
> >
> >0.00055c = 165 km/s.
> >
> >The amplitude of the radial velocity curve is +/- 17.1 km/s,
> >i.e. 34.2 km/s peak to trough.
> >
> >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.
First class tomorrow at 9AM.
I also start my rotation.
Jerry
Jerry
> End of spring break.
DUH!
End of WINTER break, of course!
Jerry
Eric Gisse
Sounds like you need another break.
Can you explain to me why Henri is arguing from data that is near a
century old? I have a feeling it has to do with the somewhat laxer
standards for data when compared to the 21st century.
>
> Jerry
Jerry
My fault, actually. When I first got started on this argument with
Henri, a quick Google brought up Johnson's web site, and a bit more
Googling got me to Duncan's original 1909 data. I don't claim to be
a math expert... but it didn't take Tom long using his curve-fit
software to establish that there was no way to fit a Keplerian curve
to Duncan's data. I knew before I even started this thread that
Henri was going to run out of parameters to fiddle, that there was
a fundamental limit to how close he could force-fit his curves.
(Androcles isn't COMPLETELY wrong when he goes into his rant about
"Tom & Jeery", because I -do- have help sometimes. That's why I've
never bothered trying to contradict him.)
I figured, let Henri do as well as he can before he hits "THE WALL"
where he just can't improve his fit, and only THEN should I introduce
him to more modern data showing all the overtone frequencies, etc.
that modern instrumentation is capable of demonstrating in Cepheid
radial velocity curves.
I'd love to see Henri explain the curves in terms of three, four,
five bodies...
Anyway, except maybe for a very sporadic contribution, this needs
to be my last post before, ah, which break? Does Spring come after
Winter?
:-)
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>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.
>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9807132
Their conclusion specificlly states that although the hydrodynamic models
accurately predict velocity curves, they fail to produce the light curves.
>http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_base_ora&url=articles/aa/full/2001/36/aa1057/aa1057.right.html&access=standard&Itemid=81
Again the model cannot produce light curves.
>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401151
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_fiddled_3_superimposed.png
>>
>> 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
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:f148q213n2nb64jva...@4ax.com...
> On 8 Jan 2007 15:58:58 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>First class tomorrow at 9AM.
>
> First year physics, no doubt...
No, most certainly not.
But anyway, better first year, than no year at all and having
to fake your diplima, right?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ForgedDegree.html
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>> Jerry wrote:
>> > Jerry wrote:
>> >
>> > > End of spring break.
>> >
>> > DUH!
>> >
>> > End of WINTER break, of course!
>>
>> Sounds like you need another break.
>>
>> Can you explain to me why Henri is arguing from data that is near a
>> century old? I have a feeling it has to do with the somewhat laxer
>> standards for data when compared to the 21st century.
>
>My fault, actually. When I first got started on this argument with
>Henri, a quick Google brought up Johnson's web site, and a bit more
>Googling got me to Duncan's original 1909 data. I don't claim to be
>a math expert... but it didn't take Tom long using his curve-fit
>software to establish that there was no way to fit a Keplerian curve
>to Duncan's data. I knew before I even started this thread that
>Henri was going to run out of parameters to fiddle, that there was
>a fundamental limit to how close he could force-fit his curves.
Geesey is very confused, poor boy...
>(Androcles isn't COMPLETELY wrong when he goes into his rant about
>"Tom & Jeery", because I -do- have help sometimes. That's why I've
>never bothered trying to contradict him.)
>
>I figured, let Henri do as well as he can before he hits "THE WALL"
>where he just can't improve his fit, and only THEN should I introduce
>him to more modern data showing all the overtone frequencies, etc.
>that modern instrumentation is capable of demonstrating in Cepheid
>radial velocity curves.
...BUT NO CURENT THEORY CAN PRODUCE THE OBSERVED CEPHEID BRIGHTNESS CURVES.
HAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAH!!!!!
I expect to have the complete theory by the time you fail first semester...
>
>I'd love to see Henri explain the curves in terms of three, four,
>five bodies...
It might be possible....but I think the BaTh will explain the varied
overtone/fundamental phasing quite easily. It is merely due to different source
velocities (c+v, for hte emitted light) for the same observer distance.
>Anyway, except maybe for a very sporadic contribution, this needs
>to be my last post before, ah, which break? Does Spring come after
>Winter?
You had better let Crank take over again.
>
> :-)
>
>Jerry
Phineas T Puddleduck
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
> ...BUT NO CURENT THEORY CAN PRODUCE THE OBSERVED CEPHEID BRIGHTNESS CURVES.
> HAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAH!!!!!
>
> I expect to have the complete theory by the time you fail first semester...
Lets see the math then... And the detailed physical explanation.
--
Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com