Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
High Resolution Images of the Algol Triple Star System
171 views
Skip to first unread message
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 2, 2012, 1:55:07 PM10/2/12
to
http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/162.fa1cn.asp
Translation by Google Translate. Although there are many slips, the
gist of the article is readily understandable.
Algol B orbits Algol A: an animation of 55 images of the CHARA
interferometer, which were grouped according to the orbit. Because
some stages are covered poorly, B jumps at some points along its path.
[Baron]
http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/2-02_algol_movie.gif
The eclipsing binary β Persei alias alias Devil star Algol is the
first ever discovered variable star, where it is unclear whether this
was recognized in antiquity, the Middle Ages and in 1667 in Italy for
the first time safely. But whatever about the end of the 18th Century
found that the brightness variations of Algol between 2, and 3 m1, m4
are strictly periodic. Another hundred years later clarified by means
of spectroscopy that there are two stars orbit on a narrow path and
the darker the brighter regularly covered. Since then, many
astronomers have sought to elucidate the detailed prototype Algol
system that turned out to be even as a three-fold: It finally
succeeded with the optical interferometer NPOI, all three stars
spatially resolve. And the optical interferometer CHARA on the
California Mount Wilson has now enabled even better: Thanks baselines
of up to 331m between the six 1-m telescopes and modern methods of
interferometric analysis is not only the physical parameters of the
famous variable better than ever been determined. There was even a
real "film" are created from two-dimensional reconstructed images, in
which the extremely tight pair of star Algol A / B in fast circles
around each other. It is clear to see that B - has robbed most of its
mass from A - moved noticeably in the length: This star filled - which
had been developed for a long time indirectly - its Roche limit of
broadly ovate.
Further evaluations should provide even sharper images of the stars
and maybe even details of their surfaces. But in a totally different
direction the Algol research may just found it: In a 3200 year-old
Weissagungskalender from ancient Egypt, every day is divided into
three eight-hour periods. Each of these periods has in the calendar
either the attribute "" good "or" bad. Finnish physicists have
analyzed these periods and are met with a periodicity of 2.85 days,
which - according to that of the synodic orbit of the moon - is by far
the strongest. The value is suspiciously close to the current 2.87
days in the period of Algol: Did the Egyptians already knew his
variability and determine the period - and the difference is
significant even today? The increase in the period in the course of
time - as a consequence of the mass exchange of A and B - in any case
would be incorrect.
So the Algol system saw on 12 August 2009 from: no artistic
representation but a true two-dimensional image with 1/2 milli-
arcsecond resolution in the near-infrared H-band, reconstructed from
data of the CHARA interferometer. The elongated appearance of Algol B
and the round of Algol A are real, in the form of C, however, is an
artifact of Algol. [Baron et al.]
http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/2-01_algol_g.jpg
Yosemite Samuelson
Translation by Google Translate. Although there are many slips, the
gist of the article is readily understandable.
Algol B orbits Algol A: an animation of 55 images of the CHARA
interferometer, which were grouped according to the orbit. Because
some stages are covered poorly, B jumps at some points along its path.
[Baron]
http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/2-02_algol_movie.gif
The eclipsing binary β Persei alias alias Devil star Algol is the
first ever discovered variable star, where it is unclear whether this
was recognized in antiquity, the Middle Ages and in 1667 in Italy for
the first time safely. But whatever about the end of the 18th Century
found that the brightness variations of Algol between 2, and 3 m1, m4
are strictly periodic. Another hundred years later clarified by means
of spectroscopy that there are two stars orbit on a narrow path and
the darker the brighter regularly covered. Since then, many
astronomers have sought to elucidate the detailed prototype Algol
system that turned out to be even as a three-fold: It finally
succeeded with the optical interferometer NPOI, all three stars
spatially resolve. And the optical interferometer CHARA on the
California Mount Wilson has now enabled even better: Thanks baselines
of up to 331m between the six 1-m telescopes and modern methods of
interferometric analysis is not only the physical parameters of the
famous variable better than ever been determined. There was even a
real "film" are created from two-dimensional reconstructed images, in
which the extremely tight pair of star Algol A / B in fast circles
around each other. It is clear to see that B - has robbed most of its
mass from A - moved noticeably in the length: This star filled - which
had been developed for a long time indirectly - its Roche limit of
broadly ovate.
Further evaluations should provide even sharper images of the stars
and maybe even details of their surfaces. But in a totally different
direction the Algol research may just found it: In a 3200 year-old
Weissagungskalender from ancient Egypt, every day is divided into
three eight-hour periods. Each of these periods has in the calendar
either the attribute "" good "or" bad. Finnish physicists have
analyzed these periods and are met with a periodicity of 2.85 days,
which - according to that of the synodic orbit of the moon - is by far
the strongest. The value is suspiciously close to the current 2.87
days in the period of Algol: Did the Egyptians already knew his
variability and determine the period - and the difference is
significant even today? The increase in the period in the course of
time - as a consequence of the mass exchange of A and B - in any case
would be incorrect.
So the Algol system saw on 12 August 2009 from: no artistic
representation but a true two-dimensional image with 1/2 milli-
arcsecond resolution in the near-infrared H-band, reconstructed from
data of the CHARA interferometer. The elongated appearance of Algol B
and the round of Algol A are real, in the form of C, however, is an
artifact of Algol. [Baron et al.]
http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/2-01_algol_g.jpg
Yosemite Samuelson
ronal...@gmail.com
Oct 2, 2012, 6:33:10 PM10/2/12
to
>
> Yosemite Samuelson
Thank you, this is very interesting.
> Yosemite Samuelson
Thank you, this is very interesting.
Henry Wilson
Oct 4, 2012, 5:23:14 PM10/4/12
to
On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 03:55:07 UTC+10, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/162.fa1cn.asp
>
>
>
> Translation by Google Translate. Although there are many slips, the
>
> gist of the article is readily understandable.
>
>
>
> Algol B orbits Algol A: an animation of 55 images of the CHARA
>
> interferometer, which were grouped according to the orbit. Because
>
> some stages are covered poorly, B jumps at some points along its path.
>
> [Baron]
>
> http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/2-02_algol_movie.gif
>
>
>
> The eclipsing binary β Persei alias alias Devil star Algol is the
>
.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/2-01_algol_g.jpg
> http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/162.fa1cn.asp
>
>
>
> Translation by Google Translate. Although there are many slips, the
>
> gist of the article is readily understandable.
>
>
>
> Algol B orbits Algol A: an animation of 55 images of the CHARA
>
> interferometer, which were grouped according to the orbit. Because
>
> some stages are covered poorly, B jumps at some points along its path.
>
> [Baron]
>
> http://www.oculum.de/newsletter/astro/100/60/2/2-02_algol_movie.gif
>
>
>
> The eclipsing binary β Persei alias alias Devil star Algol is the
>
>
>
>
> Yosemite Samuelson
Bad luck Jerry. 'Algol B' is obviously not a star. It is black in the middle.
So what is it? A fake?
Message has been deleted
yosemite....@gmail.com
Oct 5, 2012, 7:12:10 AM10/5/12
to
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:32:33 PM UTC-5, (unknown) wrote:
>
> Take a look at this Wikipedia movie showing the effects of atmospheric turbulence on the image of epsilon Aquilae.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eps_aql_movie_not_2000.gif
>
> Here is a link to Baron et al's paper:
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.0754
>
> Figure 11 shows every single one of the 55 frames used in the movie. I count 22 solid images of Algol B as opposed to 18 broken-up images of Algol B where atmospheric turbulence causes light from different portions of the stellar image to scatter in different directions. (shrug)
Correction. I missed this in the paper. The authors attribute this to gravity darkening. In a highly distorted star in a binary pair, the temperature varies significantly over the surface, following a T ~ g^0.25 law. The effect has been known since 1924.(shrug on myself)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_darkening
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2633
http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/G-6.pdf
Yosemite Samuelson
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 4:23:15 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > Bad luck Jerry. 'Algol B' is obviously not a star. It is black in the middle.
>
> > So what is it? A fake?
>
> It is the effect of atmospheric turbulence acting on the extended image of Algol B, which is a supergiant star, in contrast to Algol A which is a main sequence star. (shrug)
>
> > Bad luck Jerry. 'Algol B' is obviously not a star. It is black in the middle.
>
> > So what is it? A fake?
>
>
> Take a look at this Wikipedia movie showing the effects of atmospheric turbulence on the image of epsilon Aquilae.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eps_aql_movie_not_2000.gif
>
> Here is a link to Baron et al's paper:
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.0754
>
> Figure 11 shows every single one of the 55 frames used in the movie. I count 22 solid images of Algol B as opposed to 18 broken-up images of Algol B where atmospheric turbulence causes light from different portions of the stellar image to scatter in different directions. (shrug)
Correction. I missed this in the paper. The authors attribute this to gravity darkening. In a highly distorted star in a binary pair, the temperature varies significantly over the surface, following a T ~ g^0.25 law. The effect has been known since 1924.(shrug on myself)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_darkening
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2633
http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/G-6.pdf
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 5, 2012, 7:05:48 PM10/5/12
to
On Friday, 5 October 2012 21:12:10 UTC+10, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:32:33 PM UTC-5, (unknown) wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 4, 2012 4:23:15 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Bad luck Jerry. 'Algol B' is obviously not a star. It is black in the middle.
>
> >
>
> > > So what is it? A fake?
>
> >
>
> > It is the effect of atmospheric turbulence acting on the extended image of Algol B, which is a supergiant star, in contrast to Algol A which is a main sequence star. (shrug)
>
> >
>
> > Take a look at this Wikipedia movie showing the effects of atmospheric turbulence on the image of epsilon Aquilae.
>
> >
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eps_aql_movie_not_2000.gif
>
> >
>
> > Here is a link to Baron et al's paper:
>
> >
>
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.0754
>
> >
>
> > Figure 11 shows every single one of the 55 frames used in the movie. I count 22 solid images of Algol B as opposed to 18 broken-up images of Algol B where atmospheric turbulence causes light from different portions of the stellar image to scatter in different directions. (shrug)
>
>
>
> Correction. I missed this in the paper. The authors attribute this to gravity darkening. In a highly distorted star in a binary pair, the temperature varies significantly over the surface, following a T ~ g^0.25 law. The effect has been known since 1924.(shrug on myself)
Gawd! You are already making all kinds of excuses.
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:32:33 PM UTC-5, (unknown) wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 4, 2012 4:23:15 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Bad luck Jerry. 'Algol B' is obviously not a star. It is black in the middle.
>
> >
>
> > > So what is it? A fake?
>
> >
>
> > It is the effect of atmospheric turbulence acting on the extended image of Algol B, which is a supergiant star, in contrast to Algol A which is a main sequence star. (shrug)
>
> >
>
> > Take a look at this Wikipedia movie showing the effects of atmospheric turbulence on the image of epsilon Aquilae.
>
> >
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eps_aql_movie_not_2000.gif
>
> >
>
> > Here is a link to Baron et al's paper:
>
> >
>
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.0754
>
> >
>
> > Figure 11 shows every single one of the 55 frames used in the movie. I count 22 solid images of Algol B as opposed to 18 broken-up images of Algol B where atmospheric turbulence causes light from different portions of the stellar image to scatter in different directions. (shrug)
>
>
>
> Correction. I missed this in the paper. The authors attribute this to gravity darkening. In a highly distorted star in a binary pair, the temperature varies significantly over the surface, following a T ~ g^0.25 law. The effect has been known since 1924.(shrug on myself)
I reckon the whole thing is a fake.
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 6, 2012, 4:11:42 AM10/6/12
to
On Friday, October 5, 2012 6:05:48 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, 5 October 2012 21:12:10 UTC+10, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> > Correction. I missed this in the paper. The authors attribute this to gravity darkening. In a highly distorted star in a binary pair, the temperature varies significantly over the surface, following a T ~ g^0.25 law. The effect has been known since 1924.(shrug on myself)
>
> Gawd! You are already making all kinds of excuses.
>
> I reckon the whole thing is a fake.
How predictable! Since the experimental observations do not support your theory, you conclude that they must have been falsified. (shrug)
> On Friday, 5 October 2012 21:12:10 UTC+10, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> > Correction. I missed this in the paper. The authors attribute this to gravity darkening. In a highly distorted star in a binary pair, the temperature varies significantly over the surface, following a T ~ g^0.25 law. The effect has been known since 1924.(shrug on myself)
>
> Gawd! You are already making all kinds of excuses.
>
> I reckon the whole thing is a fake.
I suppose you think this earlier movie of Beta Lyrae is fake as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Betlyr2b.theora.ogv
Just think, between these two papers on Beta Lyrae and Algol, you hypothesize a conspiracy involving at least 18 individuals over a period of at least four years. Three members of the 2008 team were replaced by three new members in 2012. How much money did it take to pay for their silence? (shrug)
M. Zhao, D. Gies, J. D. Monnier, N. Thureau, E. Pedretti, F. Baron, A. Merand, T. ten Brummelaar, H. McAlister, S. T. Ridgway, N. Turner, J. Sturmann, L. Sturmann, C. Farrington, P. J. Goldfinger
First Resolved Images of the Eclipsing and Interacting Binary Beta Lyrae
The Astrophysical Journal Letters (2008) Volume 684, L95
http://144.206.159.178/FT/CONF/16417407/16417408.pdf
F. Baron, J. D. Monnier, E. Pedretti, M. Zhao, G. Schaefer, R. Parks, X. Che, N. Thureau, T. A. ten Brummelaar, H. A. McAlister, S. T. Ridgway, C. Farrington, J. Sturmann, L. Sturmann, and N. Turner
Imaging the Algol Triple System in the H Band with the CHARA Interferometer
The Astrophysical Journal (2012) Volume 752, 20
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.0754
Yosemite Samuelson
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 6, 2012, 4:29:45 AM10/6/12
to
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:11:42 AM UTC-5, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> M. Zhao, D. Gies, J. D. Monnier, N. Thureau, E. Pedretti, F. Baron, A. Merand, T. ten Brummelaar, H. McAlister, S. T. Ridgway, N. Turner, J. Sturmann, L. Sturmann, C. Farrington, P. J. Goldfinger
> First Resolved Images of the Eclipsing and Interacting Binary Beta Lyrae
> The Astrophysical Journal Letters (2008) Volume 684, L95
> http://144.206.159.178/FT/CONF/16417407/16417408.pdf
Wrong link.
> M. Zhao, D. Gies, J. D. Monnier, N. Thureau, E. Pedretti, F. Baron, A. Merand, T. ten Brummelaar, H. McAlister, S. T. Ridgway, N. Turner, J. Sturmann, L. Sturmann, C. Farrington, P. J. Goldfinger
> First Resolved Images of the Eclipsing and Interacting Binary Beta Lyrae
> The Astrophysical Journal Letters (2008) Volume 684, L95
> http://144.206.159.178/FT/CONF/16417407/16417408.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.0932
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 6, 2012, 4:40:28 PM10/6/12
to
On Saturday, 6 October 2012 01:11:42 UTC-7, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 6:05:48 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 5 October 2012 21:12:10 UTC+10, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Correction. I missed this in the paper. The authors attribute this to gravity darkening. In a highly distorted star in a binary pair, the temperature varies significantly over the surface, following a T ~ g^0.25 law. The effect has been known since 1924.(shrug on myself)
>
> >
>
> > Gawd! You are already making all kinds of excuses.
>
> >
>
> > I reckon the whole thing is a fake.
>
>
>
> How predictable! Since the experimental observations do not support your theory, you conclude that they must have been falsified. (shrug)
>
>
>
> I suppose you think this earlier movie of Beta Lyrae is fake as well?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Betlyr2b.theora.ogv
It looks like a willusion due to c+v. ..an example of a double image.
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 6:05:48 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 5 October 2012 21:12:10 UTC+10, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Correction. I missed this in the paper. The authors attribute this to gravity darkening. In a highly distorted star in a binary pair, the temperature varies significantly over the surface, following a T ~ g^0.25 law. The effect has been known since 1924.(shrug on myself)
>
> >
>
> > Gawd! You are already making all kinds of excuses.
>
> >
>
> > I reckon the whole thing is a fake.
>
>
>
> How predictable! Since the experimental observations do not support your theory, you conclude that they must have been falsified. (shrug)
>
>
>
> I suppose you think this earlier movie of Beta Lyrae is fake as well?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Betlyr2b.theora.ogv
> Just think, between these two papers on Beta Lyrae and Algol, you hypothesize a conspiracy involving at least 18 individuals over a period of at least four years. Three members of the 2008 team were replaced by three new members in 2012. How much money did it take to pay for their silence? (shrug)
>
>
>
> M. Zhao, D. Gies, J. D. Monnier, N. Thureau, E. Pedretti, F. Baron, A. Merand, T. ten Brummelaar, H. McAlister, S. T. Ridgway, N. Turner, J. Sturmann, L. Sturmann, C. Farrington, P. J. Goldfinger
>
> First Resolved Images of the Eclipsing and Interacting Binary Beta Lyrae
>
> The Astrophysical Journal Letters (2008) Volume 684, L95
>
> http://144.206.159.178/FT/CONF/16417407/16417408.pdf
>
>
>
> F. Baron, J. D. Monnier, E. Pedretti, M. Zhao, G. Schaefer, R. Parks, X. Che, N. Thureau, T. A. ten Brummelaar, H. A. McAlister, S. T. Ridgway, C. Farrington, J. Sturmann, L. Sturmann, and N. Turner
>
> Imaging the Algol Triple System in the H Band with the CHARA Interferometer
>
> The Astrophysical Journal (2012) Volume 752, 20
>
quote:
""To address these issues, we will need a more physical, self-consistent model
to account for all epochs as well as the multi-wavelength information from the
eclipsing light curves".
My quote: To address these issues, the poor buggers will have to toss out Einstein and rewrite the whole of modern astronomy.
>
>
>
> Yosemite Samuelson
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 7, 2012, 4:12:25 AM10/7/12
to
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:40:29 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.0932.pdf
How do you account for the difference in appearance of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared?
http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
Spectral studies?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978ApJ...222L.119T
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401583.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0203431.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1954AnAp...17..443B
As Androcles as repeatedly stressed, the components of the Algol system are too close together for the system to be stable. The supergiant member is, in fact, gradually being torn apart. How about the evidence for mass transfer between the two components, not just beta Per itself,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1984A%26A...140..105C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995BaltA...4...64P
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1977ApJ...214..418H
but other Algol binaries?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1984ApJ...283..745P
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988ApJ...325..225K
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988ApJ...325..225K
Yosemite Samuelson
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.0932.pdf
>
> quote:
>
> ""To address these issues, we will need a more physical, self-consistent model
>
> to account for all epochs as well as the multi-wavelength information from the
>
> eclipsing light curves".
>
> My quote: To address these issues, the poor buggers will have to toss out Einstein and rewrite the whole of modern astronomy.
Accounting for multi-wavelength light curves and spectra in addition to fitting single wavelength luminosity curves is, of course, something that you have never attempted in any of your fits.
> quote:
>
> ""To address these issues, we will need a more physical, self-consistent model
>
> to account for all epochs as well as the multi-wavelength information from the
>
> eclipsing light curves".
>
> My quote: To address these issues, the poor buggers will have to toss out Einstein and rewrite the whole of modern astronomy.
How do you account for the difference in appearance of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared?
http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
Spectral studies?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978ApJ...222L.119T
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401583.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0203431.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1954AnAp...17..443B
As Androcles as repeatedly stressed, the components of the Algol system are too close together for the system to be stable. The supergiant member is, in fact, gradually being torn apart. How about the evidence for mass transfer between the two components, not just beta Per itself,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1984A%26A...140..105C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995BaltA...4...64P
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1977ApJ...214..418H
but other Algol binaries?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1984ApJ...283..745P
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988ApJ...325..225K
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988ApJ...325..225K
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 7, 2012, 4:10:32 PM10/7/12
to
The little movie presented by Baron is not real. No array of telescopes has actually OPTICALLY resolved the two supposed binary stars making up Algol. The graphic is an inferred one, using spectral data and based on two assumptions. These are 1) that two orbiting stars exist and 2) that all light travels towards Earth at speed c.
The telescope array merely provided accurate data for observed spectra and brightness. After that, the poor indoctrinated astronomers tried to make sense of the facts presented to them, completely unaware of their willusory nature. After numerous highly suspect and unlikely statistical manipulations, they came up with something sufficiently sensational to arouse public interest, even if it was complete bullshit.
Four hundred years ago, the same process would have enabled Europe's pope to produce a movie of the sun spinning around god's own playing field, a flat Earth.
Jerry, the fact is, nothing we observe in space can now be taken for granted, particularly spectral data...and even period. Short period variables are both mysterious and extremely unlikely....or even impossible. The only reason to believe Algol's variation is linked to an orbiting object is the constancy of its orbit period but that could just as easily be related to the star's own rotation or even pulsation...
Two very important discoveries in my new BaTh are ADoppler and Time compression. Without an understanding of these, you will never be able to understand the difficulties faced by anyone trying to untangle the enormous mass of willusory data that is being fed to us by the great telescopes.
> Yosemite Samuelson
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 7, 2012, 4:50:19 PM10/7/12
to
On Sunday, October 7, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
[snipped a lot of nonsense on HW's part]
You are avoiding answering any of my questions.
How do you account for the difference in appearance of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared using your BaTh theory?
http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
Yosemite Samuelson
[snipped a lot of nonsense on HW's part]
You are avoiding answering any of my questions.
How do you account for the difference in appearance of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared using your BaTh theory?
http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
Yosemite Samuelson
Poutnik
Oct 7, 2012, 5:56:54 PM10/7/12
to
Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
> Jerry, the fact is, nothing we observe in space can now be taken for
> granted, particularly spectral data...and even period.
>
--
Poutnik
Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.
Henry Wilson
Oct 7, 2012, 11:37:40 PM10/7/12
to
On Monday, 8 October 2012 07:50:19 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> [snipped a lot of nonsense on HW's part]
Snippers are automatic losers.
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> [snipped a lot of nonsense on HW's part]
Looks like you lost....but I'll repeat the bit you snipped so others can see what you are afraid of....
"All of this would be quite amusing if it weren't such a pathetic example of scientific skullduggery. Do you understand what a tomograph is?
The little movie presented by Baron is not real. No array of telescopes has actually OPTICALLY resolved the two supposed binary stars making up Algol. The graphic is an inferred one, using spectral data and based on two assumptions. These are 1) that two orbiting stars exist and 2) that all light travels towards Earth at speed c.
The telescope array merely provided accurate data for observed spectra and brightness. After that, the poor indoctrinated astronomers tried to make sense of the facts presented to them, completely unaware of their willusory nature. After numerous highly suspect and unlikely statistical manipulations, they came up with something sufficiently sensational to arouse public interest, even if it was complete bullshit.
Four hundred years ago, the same process would have enabled Europe's pope to produce a movie of the sun spinning around god's own playing field, a flat Earth.
Jerry, the fact is, nothing we observe in space can now be taken for granted, particularly spectral data...and even period. Short period variables are both mysterious and extremely unlikely....or even impossible. The only reason to believe Algol's variation is linked to an orbiting object is the constancy of its orbit period but that could just as easily be related to the star's own rotation or even pulsation...
Two very important discoveries in my new BaTh are ADoppler and Time compression. Without an understanding of these, you will never be able to understand the difficulties faced by anyone trying to untangle the enormous mass of willusory data that is being fed to us by the great telescopes. "
> You are avoiding answering any of my questions.
>
> How do you account for the difference in appearance of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared using your BaTh theory?
>
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
How do YOU account for it? How does Richards account for it?
>
> How do you account for the difference in appearance of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared using your BaTh theory?
>
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
Please answer...don't snip....
> Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 7, 2012, 11:38:41 PM10/7/12
to
On Monday, 8 October 2012 08:56:55 UTC+11, Poutnik wrote:
> Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
>
> posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jerry, the fact is, nothing we observe in space can now be taken for
>
> > granted, particularly spectral data...and even period.
>
> >
>
>
>
> It means, neither so called evidence of c +- v light speed....
>
...pathetic...one of your worst posts....
> Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
>
> posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jerry, the fact is, nothing we observe in space can now be taken for
>
> > granted, particularly spectral data...and even period.
>
> >
>
>
>
> It means, neither so called evidence of c +- v light speed....
>
Poutnik
Oct 8, 2012, 1:08:26 AM10/8/12
to
Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 20:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > > Jerry, the fact is, nothing we observe in space can now be taken for
> > > granted, particularly spectral data...and even period.
> >
> >
> >
> > It means, neither so called evidence of c +- v light speed....
>
> ...pathetic...one of your worst posts....
you have shot yourself in your own leg.
--
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 8, 2012, 2:03:14 AM10/8/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaa4b7f0-4aff-4e78...@googlegroups.com...
==========================================
You’ve already understood Androcles is an iron ball that
is glowing from the heat and proximity to Algol, the faint IR
180 degrees out of phase is the glow of the
planet.
I’ve already told you long ago that the orbit is ALMOST
face-on, and since Einstein himself said
rAB/(c-v) = tB-tA
it follows that c+-v MUST be included in
any analysis, not
even Tom&Jeery, Tusseladd, Dork Van de
faggot’s closing
speed or Humpty Roberts’ “you need to
STUDY” cares
about Earth’s time dilation in Algol’s
frame of reference.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Poutnik
Oct 8, 2012, 2:32:29 AM10/8/12
to
Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 20:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > > Jerry, the fact is, nothing we observe in space can now be taken for
> > > granted, particularly spectral data...and even period.
> >
> > It means, neither so called evidence of c +- v light speed....
> ...pathetic...one of your worst posts....
your addressing of personal matters instead of
controversy of what you say at different time and place.
--
Henry Wilson
Oct 8, 2012, 4:10:06 AM10/8/12
to
On Monday, 8 October 2012 17:03:18 UTC+11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > You are avoiding answering any of my
> questions.
> >
> > How do you account for the difference in appearance
> of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared using your BaTh
> theory?
> >
> >
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
>
> How do YOU
> account for it? How does Richards account for it?
>
> Please
> answer...don't snip....
>
> > Yosemite Samuelson
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================
>
> You’ve already understood Androcles is an iron ball that
>
>
> is glowing from the heat and proximity to Algol, the faint IR
>
> 180 degrees out of phase is the glow of the
> planet.
Not good enough.
> questions.
> >
> > How do you account for the difference in appearance
> of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared using your BaTh
> theory?
> >
> >
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
>
> How do YOU
> account for it? How does Richards account for it?
>
> Please
> answer...don't snip....
>
> > Yosemite Samuelson
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================
>
> You’ve already understood Androcles is an iron ball that
>
>
> is glowing from the heat and proximity to Algol, the faint IR
>
> 180 degrees out of phase is the glow of the
> planet.
Please explain the middle dip in the UV spectrum.
Jerry can't.
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 8, 2012, 4:17:55 AM10/8/12
to
On Sunday, October 7, 2012 10:37:40 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Monday, 8 October 2012 07:50:19 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 7, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > [snipped a lot of nonsense on HW's part]
>
> Snippers are automatic losers.
Not at all. That is a totally fictitious rule that only a crackpot like you would make up to escape the fact that it is actually YOU who have lost.
> On Monday, 8 October 2012 07:50:19 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 7, 2012 3:10:33 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > [snipped a lot of nonsense on HW's part]
>
> Snippers are automatic losers.
> Looks like you lost....but I'll repeat the bit you snipped so others can see what you are afraid of....
> > How do you account for the difference in appearance of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared using your BaTh theory?
> > http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
>
> How do YOU account for it? How does Richards account for it?
>
> Please answer...don't snip....
Do not try to pretend that your inability to provide an answer actually represents a victory. Your attempted posturing to escape this fact provides nothing but amusement.
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 8, 2012, 4:18:59 AM10/8/12
to
On Monday, 8 October 2012 17:32:30 UTC+11, Poutnik wrote:
> Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
>
> posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 20:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > > > Jerry, the fact is, nothing we observe in space can now be taken for
>
> > > > granted, particularly spectral data...and even period.
>
> > >
>
> > > It means, neither so called evidence of c +- v light speed....
>
>
>
> > ...pathetic...one of your worst posts....
>
>
>
> What is pathetic is
>
>
>
> your addressing of personal matters instead of
>
> controversy of what you say at different time and place.
Sorry if I upset you poutnik.
> Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
>
> posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 20:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > > > Jerry, the fact is, nothing we observe in space can now be taken for
>
> > > > granted, particularly spectral data...and even period.
>
> > >
>
> > > It means, neither so called evidence of c +- v light speed....
>
>
>
> > ...pathetic...one of your worst posts....
>
>
>
> What is pathetic is
>
>
>
> your addressing of personal matters instead of
>
> controversy of what you say at different time and place.
> Poutnik
>
>
>
> Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
>
> if combined with no quoting by some GG users.
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 8, 2012, 4:28:59 AM10/8/12
to
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:10:06 AM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > How do YOU
> > account for it? How does Richards account for it?
Hint: black-body physics 101.
> > How do YOU
> > account for it? How does Richards account for it?
Yosemite Samuelson
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 8, 2012, 4:51:40 AM10/8/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:371afcaa-3959-4265...@googlegroups.com...
On
Monday, 8 October 2012 17:03:18 UTC+11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > You are avoiding answering any of my
> questions.
> >
> > How do you account for the difference in appearance
> of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared using your BaTh
> theory?
> >
> >
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
>
> How do YOU
> account for it? How does Richards account for it?
>
> Please
> answer...don't snip....
>
> > Yosemite Samuelson
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================
>
> You’ve already understood Androcles is an iron ball that
>
>
> is glowing from the heat and proximity to Algol, the faint IR
>
> 180 degrees out of phase is the glow of the
> planet.
Not good enough.
Please explain the middle dip in the UV spectrum.
Jerry can’t.
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > You are avoiding answering any of my
> questions.
> >
> > How do you account for the difference in appearance
> of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared using your BaTh
> theory?
> >
> >
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
>
> How do YOU
> account for it? How does Richards account for it?
>
> Please
> answer...don't snip....
>
> > Yosemite Samuelson
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================
>
> You’ve already understood Androcles is an iron ball that
>
>
> is glowing from the heat and proximity to Algol, the faint IR
>
> 180 degrees out of phase is the glow of the
> planet.
Not good enough.
Please explain the middle dip in the UV spectrum.
Jerry can’t.
=======================================
“The light curves of Algol (beta Per) at wavelengths
from the ultraviolet (1920 Angs.) to the infrared (12000 Angs.). Illustration
courtesy of M. Richards.”
There is no middle dip in the UV, you dumb
knee-jerking bastard.
I can’t explain what isn’t there, you moron, I can
only explain
the dip in the IR and even that is very faint, it
says “Normalised
Intensity”.
Not only that, but the curve rises half the height
of the supposed
dip on each side instead of being flat, so Richards is faking
a canal
on Mars, seeing what he wants to see. It may be
more imagined
than actual and not even be there. I sure don’t
believe those
gazillion dots are actual observations which is
why I want the
tabulated numbers of raw data, not a fucking
curve.
Please explain why Santa has no soot on his red
suit from
coming
down chimneys. Tom&Jeery can’t and you are not
drunk enough
to be comatose yet. Have another
bottle.
Henry Wilson
Oct 8, 2012, 5:13:39 AM10/8/12
to
On Monday, 8 October 2012 19:17:56 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 10:37:40 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > > [snipped a lot of nonsense on HW's part]
> > Snippers are automatic losers.
> Not at all. That is a totally fictitious rule that only a crackpot like you would make up to escape the fact that it is actually YOU who have lost.
We all know that snipping is the Einstein worshipper's last resort when they find themselves beaten.
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 10:37:40 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > > [snipped a lot of nonsense on HW's part]
> > Snippers are automatic losers.
> Not at all. That is a totally fictitious rule that only a crackpot like you would make up to escape the fact that it is actually YOU who have lost.
> > Looks like you lost....but I'll repeat the bit you snipped so others can see what you are afraid of....
> Anybody who is interested (meaning practically NOBODY) can look up the history for themselves. Now stop being an idiot who loves strutting your ignorance.
> > > How do you account for the difference in appearance of the Algol light curves from ultraviolet to infrared using your BaTh theory?
>
> > > http://www.personal.psu.edu/mtr11/research/journey.html
>
> >
>
> > How do YOU account for it? How does Richards account for it?
>
> > Please answer...don't snip....
>
>
>
> The correct answer to this question is very well known to anybody who has spent even a few hours studying the subject.
Obviously you do not fall into this group. Does BaTh provide an answer to this question? The answer SHOULD be within BaTh's domain of applicability.
> Do not try to pretend that your inability to provide an answer actually represents a victory. Your attempted posturing to escape this fact provides nothing but amusement.
You don't even understand what a tomograph is or how easy it would be to fake a result from one.
> Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 8, 2012, 6:21:33 AM10/8/12
to
On Monday, 8 October 2012 19:52:09 UTC+11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:371afcaa-3959-4265...@googlegroups.com...
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> ==========================================
> >
> > You’ve already
> understood Androcles is an iron ball that
> >
> >
> > is glowing
> from the heat and proximity to Algol, the faint IR
> >
> > 180 degrees
> out of phase is the glow of the
> > planet.
>
> Not good
> enough.
> Please explain the middle dip in the UV spectrum.
> Jerry
> can’t.
>
>
>
> =======================================
>
>
>
> “The light curves of Algol (beta Per) at wavelengths
> from the ultraviolet (1920 Angs.) to the infrared (12000 Angs.). Illustration
> courtesy of M. Richards.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no middle dip in the UV, you dumb
> knee-jerking bastard.
IR
> ==========================================
> >
> > You’ve already
> understood Androcles is an iron ball that
> >
> >
> > is glowing
> from the heat and proximity to Algol, the faint IR
> >
> > 180 degrees
> out of phase is the glow of the
> > planet.
>
> Not good
> enough.
> Please explain the middle dip in the UV spectrum.
> Jerry
> can’t.
>
>
>
> =======================================
>
>
>
> “The light curves of Algol (beta Per) at wavelengths
> from the ultraviolet (1920 Angs.) to the infrared (12000 Angs.). Illustration
> courtesy of M. Richards.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no middle dip in the UV, you dumb
> knee-jerking bastard.
> I can’t explain what isn’t there, you moron, I can
> only explain
>
>
>
> the dip in the IR and even that is very faint, it
> says “Normalised Intensity”.
> Not only that, but the curve rises half the height
> of the supposed dip on each side instead of being flat, so Richards is faking
> a canal on Mars, seeing what he wants to see.
>It may be
> more imagined than actual and not even be there. I sure don’t
> believe those gazillion dots are actual observations which is
> why I want the tabulated numbers of raw data, not a fucking
> curve.
> Please explain why Santa has no soot on his red
> suit from coming down chimneys. Tom&Jeery can’t and you are
> not drunk enough to be comatose yet. Have another bottle.
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 8, 2012, 7:36:30 AM10/8/12
to
On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:13:39 AM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> You obviously due have any more idea than the fellow Richards.
You are being an arrogant idiot as usual. I gave you a big hint as to the correct answer: "Black body physics 101."
> You obviously due have any more idea than the fellow Richards.
Algol A and B have different temperatures. Work out the rest of the answer for yourself. Conventional physics explains the variations in eclipse depth with wavelength easily and quantitatively.
Of course you won't follow up.
Yosemite Samuelson
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 8, 2012, 10:01:14 AM10/8/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c55fffa5-8963-4645...@googlegroups.com...
On
Monday, 8 October 2012 19:52:09 UTC+11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:371afcaa-3959-4265...@googlegroups.com...
>
> ==========================================
> >
> > You’ve already
> understood Androcles is an iron ball that
> >
> >
> > is glowing
> from the heat and proximity to Algol, the faint IR
> >
> > 180 degrees
> out of phase is the glow of the
> > planet.
>
> Not good
> enough.
> Please explain the middle dip in the UV spectrum.
> Jerry
> can’t.
>
>
>
> =======================================
>
>
>
> “The light curves of Algol (beta Per) at wavelengths
> from the ultraviolet (1920 Angs.) to the infrared (12000 Angs.). Illustration
> courtesy of M. Richards.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no middle dip in the UV, you dumb
> knee-jerking bastard.
IR
> "Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:371afcaa-3959-4265...@googlegroups.com...
>
> ==========================================
> >
> > You’ve already
> understood Androcles is an iron ball that
> >
> >
> > is glowing
> from the heat and proximity to Algol, the faint IR
> >
> > 180 degrees
> out of phase is the glow of the
> > planet.
>
> Not good
> enough.
> Please explain the middle dip in the UV spectrum.
> Jerry
> can’t.
>
>
>
> =======================================
>
>
>
> “The light curves of Algol (beta Per) at wavelengths
> from the ultraviolet (1920 Angs.) to the infrared (12000 Angs.). Illustration
> courtesy of M. Richards.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no middle dip in the UV, you dumb
> knee-jerking bastard.
IR
Yes, infrared, not ultraviolet. Fucking hard to
mistype that,
the u might be the next key to the i but the r is
on a different
row to the v so its a cockup and not a typo as you
are always
claiming
.
You are not good enough to know IR and UV are at
opposite
ends
of the visible spectrum.
> I can’t explain what isn’t there, you moron, I can
> only explain
>
>
>
> the dip in the IR and even that is very faint, it
> says “Normalised Intensity”.
> Not only that, but the curve rises half the height
> of the supposed dip on each side instead of being flat, so Richards is faking
> a canal on Mars, seeing what he wants to see.
You could be right...but something doesn't add up.
==========================================
It all adds up, neatly and exactly. Only your
knee-jerk preconceptions,
arrogance and certainty in your own infallibility
prevents you from
adding correctly.
I named my second planet orbiting delta-Cepheus “Cassandra” for a good reason.
When Cassandra of Troy told him she wanted to stay a virgin, Apollo placed a curse on her so that she and all her descendants' predictions would not be believed. She is a figure both of the epic tradition and of tragedy, where her combination of deep understanding and powerlessness exemplify the ironic condition of humankind.
>It may be
> more imagined than actual and not even be there. I sure don’t
> believe those gazillion dots are actual observations which is
> why I want the tabulated numbers of raw data, not a fucking
> curve.
Are agreeing that both dips are caused by eclipses or only the smaller one?
=============================================
The dip or dips (if the second dip
really can be detected) are caused by
apoastron when the speed of light is c
for the longest time. It is c+v on
one side of the dip and c-v on the other side. The dips are NOT
eclipses.
I have always only modelled
ONE light source because it is
bloody
obvious two would create confusion as it has now. You have always
been the loose cannon wanting to model multiple sources. Now is
the time, model the light from one
planet, red glowing Androcles
antiphase to Algol and remember to
filter out the light from Algol
itself because telescopes have filters.
Draw two SEPARATE curves.
But being a loose cannon you’ll look for a different target to
shoot
at and hit your own foot as usual.
And I have another reason why should do
it. IF the IR has a different
speed to visible light it’ll show up as
a phase shift between the dips.
DO NOT ASSUME all the curves you’ve
seen show the correct
phase. Every velocity curve lacks its
Julian date, whereas luminosity
curves show them. It’s damn nigh
impossible to get the correct data
from curves and the bastards don’t
publish tabulated data from their
notebooks. You can’t line up velocity
curves with luminosity curves
without the right date, so you have to
collect your own data with your
own telescope. That’s why curves are fucking useless whereas
one
can construct a curve from tabulated
data.
I constructed this analemma from
tabulated data:
Think 3D!
Poutnik
Oct 8, 2012, 4:24:55 PM10/8/12
to
Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 01:18:59
-0700 (PDT)
> On Monday, 8 October 2012 17:32:30 UTC+11, Poutnik wrote:
> > Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Jerry, the fact is, nothing we observe in space can now be
> > > > > taken for granted, particularly spectral data...and even
> > > > > period.
> >
> > > > It means, neither so called evidence of c +- v light speed....
> >
> > > ...pathetic...one of your worst posts....
> >
> > What is pathetic is your addressing of personal matters instead of
> > controversy of what you say at different time and place.
>
> Sorry if I upset you poutnik.
In fact you did not, I had expected that.
> > > > > taken for granted, particularly spectral data...and even
> > > > > period.
> >
> > > > It means, neither so called evidence of c +- v light speed....
> >
> > > ...pathetic...one of your worst posts....
> >
> > What is pathetic is your addressing of personal matters instead of
> > controversy of what you say at different time and place.
>
> Sorry if I upset you poutnik.
> >
> >
> > Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster, if
> > combined with no quoting by some GG users.
>
> Since my server decided to save money, I have to use Google group word
> processor which is terrible.
You do not have to, there are still available some free Usenet servers.
> >
> > Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster, if
> > combined with no quoting by some GG users.
>
> Since my server decided to save money, I have to use Google group word
> processor which is terrible.
As you say, GG editor is terrible.
--
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 8, 2012, 5:39:27 PM10/8/12
to
I had a long discussion with Ralph aka Henry about this issue
back in 2005.
Here is one of the many postings:
http://tinyurl.com/98be9yy
(look at the last part of the posting)
Here is his attempt to explain it:
Henry Wilson wrote:
| Well maybe it is not all that easy but I can offer a suggestion.
| Do you agree that IR would have its origin inside the star wheras
| visible is more likely to come from the very outer layers.
| If so, consider the comparative radial speeds of the IR and visible
| 'layers' wrt a distant observer FOR DIFFERENT POSITIONS OF
| THE BARYCENTRE.
An explanation he hasn't dared to repeat in this thread.
At least not so far.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 8, 2012, 6:04:52 PM10/8/12
to
Oh, rats, you made me pee on myself... :-)
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 8, 2012, 6:43:51 PM10/8/12
to
On Monday, 8 October 2012 22:36:31 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:13:39 AM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > You obviously due have any more idea than the fellow Richards.
>
>
>
> You are being an arrogant idiot as usual. I gave you a big hint as to the correct answer: "Black body physics 101."
Yes I know all about that. I lectured in it once.
> On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:13:39 AM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > You obviously due have any more idea than the fellow Richards.
>
>
>
> You are being an arrogant idiot as usual. I gave you a big hint as to the correct answer: "Black body physics 101."
> Algol A and B have different temperatures. Work out the rest of the answer for yourself. Conventional physics
> explains the variations in eclipse depth with wavelength easily and quantitatively.
Androcles' explanation is more plausible except that his phasing might present a problem.
Have you ever wondered why the 'dip' in all your 'eclipse' curves has straight sides and ends in a fairly sharp point ...as BaTh predicts? Surely they can't ALL be
partial eclipses....surely some should feature a flat section at the bottom. Apparently all Einsteinian eclipses involve cubic stars of identical size :).
BaTh does have a model for Algol's curve but it takes some explaining.
Firstly, here is the range of available c+v curves, for a star with one planet and with no correction for intrinsic brightness variations.
www.scisite.info/fig3.jpg
They occur when the periastron of the star is closest to observer (+/- 10deg yaw as shown).
You will notice a slight downward curvature between the main dips, which is seen in some brightness curves (eg., U
Sge and U Cep).
If the complex consists of two objects in (or near) tidal lock, one side of each will be much hotter and
brighter than the other.
Thus, there should be natural changes in the curve as the objects move around depending on their relative sizes
and brightness....
The second object could be a star or, according to Andro, a large planet. If it is a star smaller than but of
similar luminosity to its companion, the BaTh prediction is for a curve of this nature:
www.scisite.info/betalyr.jpg.
Notice the in-phase peak of the smaller star at its own perihelion. There is only a partial eclipse if any, at the aphelion. U Sge and U Cep curves don't show evidence of any eclipse, according to BaTh.
The curve of Algol could be the result of a genuine eclipse if the spectral phasing can be matched but it also suggests that one dip is caused by a transit and the other by variable light speed.... or a combination of the two. But which causes which? The c+v dip occurs when the periastron is closest to Earth and the companion also at its periastron but at its furthest point. If the two objects eclipse each other at all, they would definitely do so at this point, when they are closest to each other. In that case, the 'c+v' dip would coincide with the loss of light from the hidden companion. That is probably OK because the sum of the two curves would be similar to each individual one.
However, this configuration would not account for the RISE in the curve between its major 'dips'.
My interpretation then is the the MAJOR dip is caused by the transit of a large object, with its cool side facing us. The MINOR dip is that caused by the summed effect of both c+v of the star at perihelion and the loss of predominantly IR light from the glowing side of the other object. This model produces the right type of curve.
So Androcles possibly got it right even if he didn't know why.
Henry Wilson
Oct 8, 2012, 6:49:07 PM10/8/12
to
I merely pointed out that IR and visible light would, on average, come from different outer layers and therefore have different values of c+v at any instant.
So HAHAHAHHAHHAAHA! GO AND PEE YOURSELF AGAIN...
> Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 8, 2012, 6:50:48 PM10/8/12
to
On Monday, 8 October 2012 08:56:55 UTC+11, Poutnik wrote:
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 8, 2012, 7:03:12 PM10/8/12
to
On Monday, October 8, 2012 5:49:07 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> I merely pointed out that IR and visible light would, on average, come from different outer layers and therefore have different values of c+v at any instant.
You don't realize how pathetic your attempted rationalizations sound.
> I merely pointed out that IR and visible light would, on average, come from different outer layers and therefore have different values of c+v at any instant.
Your fit to beta Lyrae totally sucks, and your "range of available c+v curves" completely fails to accommodate Algol in the IR.
Give up, Henry.
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 8, 2012, 7:30:53 PM10/8/12
to
WHY DON'T ANY OF YOUR SO CALLED ECLIPSES HAVE FLAT BOTTOMS?
CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
> Yosemite Samuelson
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 8, 2012, 9:41:00 PM10/8/12
to
On Monday, October 8, 2012 6:30:53 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> WHY DON'T ANY OF YOUR SO CALLED ECLIPSES HAVE FLAT BOTTOMS? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
Who says they don't exist? For starters, try fitting NLTT 11748. It will be yet another failure for BaTh, of course.
> WHY DON'T ANY OF YOUR SO CALLED ECLIPSES HAVE FLAT BOTTOMS? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
Yosemite Samuelson
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 8, 2012, 10:30:37 PM10/8/12
to
"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e11f4db2-ad04-4c72...@googlegroups.com...
My
interpretation then is the the MAJOR dip is caused by the transit of a large
object, with its cool side facing us. The MINOR dip is that caused by the summed
effect of both c+v of the star at perihelion and the loss of predominantly IR
light from the glowing side of the other object. This model produces the right
type of curve.
So Androcles possibly got it right even if he didn't know why.
So Androcles possibly got it right even if he didn't know why.
========================================================
There
is no transit, so the crazy idiot Wilson gets it wrong and will never know
why.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Poutnik
Oct 9, 2012, 12:59:25 AM10/9/12
to
Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
> > Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
> > if combined with no quoting by some GG users.
>
> I have sent them a message requesting an improvement.
My sig is not meant personally to you, it is my general sig.
Henry Wilson
Oct 9, 2012, 6:51:27 AM10/9/12
to
>
>
>
> Yosemite Samuelson
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 9, 2012, 7:19:26 AM10/9/12
to
The problem, of course, is that you cannot switch BaTh on and off like a light switch. As soon as you accept that NLTT 11748 may be an eclipsing binary, you have the problem of why BaTh does not distort the light curve so that the resulting willusion doesn't look at all like the like curve of an eclipsing binary.
On the other hand, everything fits together provided that you assume constant c. The light curve of NLTT 11748 is then completely consistent with the measured Doppler velocity curve and the observed spectral changes. Constant c is by far the most parsimonious assumption.
Willusions do not exist. What we see is generally a good representation of what is real.
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 9, 2012, 4:44:05 PM10/9/12
to
On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 22:19:26 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
>
> > > > WHY DON'T ANY OF YOUR SO CALLED ECLIPSES HAVE FLAT BOTTOMS? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
>
> >
>
> > > Who says they don't exist? For starters, try fitting NLTT 11748. It will be yet another failure for BaTh, of course.
>
> >
>
> > Its dips don't have a flat bottom but it could be a genuine eclipsing binary...... I wouldn't rule out a BaTh explanation though. I'll work on that type of curve.
>
>
>
> Not perfectly flat (due to limb darkening), but definitely flattened.
There is NO flat section on either.
>
> > > > WHY DON'T ANY OF YOUR SO CALLED ECLIPSES HAVE FLAT BOTTOMS? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
>
> >
>
> > > Who says they don't exist? For starters, try fitting NLTT 11748. It will be yet another failure for BaTh, of course.
>
> >
>
> > Its dips don't have a flat bottom but it could be a genuine eclipsing binary...... I wouldn't rule out a BaTh explanation though. I'll work on that type of curve.
>
>
>
> Not perfectly flat (due to limb darkening), but definitely flattened.
Very rarely do we see flat sections in ANY published 'eclipsing binary' curves.
WHY IS THAT, Sambo?
> The problem, of course, is that you cannot switch BaTh on and off like a light switch. As soon as you accept that NLTT 11748 may be an eclipsing binary, you have the problem of why BaTh does not distort the light curve so that the resulting willusion doesn't look at all like the like curve of an eclipsing binary.
In the case of genuine eclipsing binaries, the eclipse dip occurs at exactly the same phase as the BaTh prediction and is likely of similar shape....so the two merely add together to confuse the poor astronomers.
> On the other hand, everything fits together provided that you assume constant c. The light curve of NLTT 11748 is then completely consistent with the measured Doppler velocity curve and the observed spectral changes. Constant c is by far the most parsimonious assumption.
I have already proved that Einstein's P2 is impossible, in my thread about Tom Roberts.
>
> Willusions do not exist. What we see is generally a good representation of what is real.
> Yosemite Samuelson
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 9, 2012, 11:52:31 PM10/9/12
to
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:44:05 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 22:19:26 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> Very rarely do we see flat sections in ANY published 'eclipsing binary' curves.
>
> WHY IS THAT, Sambo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_darkening (shrug)
> On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 22:19:26 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> Very rarely do we see flat sections in ANY published 'eclipsing binary' curves.
>
> WHY IS THAT, Sambo?
> Sambo, you obviously haven't tried to understand the intricacies of BaTh curve predictions. Conditions must be right within certain limits for effects to be observed.
You seem extremely ignorant of the consequences of your own theory. (shrug)
Yosemite Samuelson
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 10, 2012, 4:00:08 AM10/10/12
to
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:52:31 PM UTC-5, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:44:05 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 22:19:26 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
>
> > Very rarely do we see flat sections in ANY published 'eclipsing binary' curves.
>
> > WHY IS THAT, Sambo?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_darkening (shrug)
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1971ApJ...166..605W
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:44:05 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 22:19:26 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
>
> > Very rarely do we see flat sections in ANY published 'eclipsing binary' curves.
>
> > WHY IS THAT, Sambo?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_darkening (shrug)
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 10, 2012, 1:41:59 PM10/10/12
to
On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 14:52:31 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:44:05 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 22:19:26 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Very rarely do we see flat sections in ANY published 'eclipsing binary' curves.
>
> >
>
> > WHY IS THAT, Sambo?
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_darkening (shrug)
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! ...and only last year you laughed at me because I claimed that starlight originated from different layers well inside a star. Well this article shows how wrong you were.
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:44:05 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 22:19:26 UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Very rarely do we see flat sections in ANY published 'eclipsing binary' curves.
>
> >
>
> > WHY IS THAT, Sambo?
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_darkening (shrug)
If you read it through, you will also see that there are many instances of limb BRIGHTENING due to a reversed temperature gradient in many stars.
It all boils down to the fact that everything you say is bullshit. In fACT the whole of modern astronomy is bullshit because of Einstein.
> > Sambo, you obviously haven't tried to understand the intricacies of BaTh curve predictions. Conditions must be right within certain limits for effects to be observed.
>
>
>
> WRONG. Conditions must be within extremely tight limits or bizarre effects will be observed. (shrug)
>
>
>
> You seem extremely ignorant of the consequences of your own theory. (shrug)
In truly EMPTY space, travelling photons MERGE with each other to form broad wave fronts.
> Yosemite Samuelson
Yosemite Samuelson
Oct 10, 2012, 1:48:31 PM10/10/12
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:41:59 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote:
> If you knew what my theory says, you would not make such a claim. All light moving in a particular direction tends toward a common speed, making multiple imagery a very rare if not impossible event.
>
> In truly EMPTY space, travelling photons MERGE with each other to form broad wave fronts.
As I said, it is truly evident that you do not realize the contradictory nature of the kludges that you apply to force your theory to "work". Even Androcles understands the issues with your theory, or at least some of them, anyway. (shrug)
> If you knew what my theory says, you would not make such a claim. All light moving in a particular direction tends toward a common speed, making multiple imagery a very rare if not impossible event.
>
> In truly EMPTY space, travelling photons MERGE with each other to form broad wave fronts.
Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 10, 2012, 1:48:45 PM10/10/12
to
How many others were pointed.... as BaTh predicts for moderate to highly eccentric orbits?
> Yosemite Samuelson
Henry Wilson
Oct 10, 2012, 6:11:48 PM10/10/12
to
Well, I'd rather see him on your side than mine. Good luck! (:
> Yosemite Samuelson
0 new messages