http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Steve Dorman
whether we get the speed of light being constant or depends on the speed
of the emitting star.
It seems surprising that nobody's measured a velocity curve for Algol
Eric Gisse
Most bald faced lies are surprising.
OG
What a disappointment that the liar Androcles doesn't have the guts to
own up to his previous lies on this matter.
Not a surprise though!
Steve Dorman
But why does he continue to put the incorrect light curve on his
website? Surely he must know that it removes all his credibility.
Dirk Van de moortel
Jerry
> OG wrote:
> But why does he continue to put the incorrect light curve
> on his website? Surely he must know that it removes all his
> credibility.
It has been pointed out many times to Androcles and to
Henri Wilson, that the light curve of Algol depends on
the spectral band in which it is measured:
http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/research/journey.html
Conventional eclipsing binary theory has no problem
modeling these curves.
Emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
of the light curve at all.
Jerry
PD
Androcles cares not a whit about his credibility. His role is to be a
gadfly. It doesn't matter to him whether it's right or obviously
wrong, as long as it is contrary. He makes frequent tight circles to
Wrong, which he will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge, even when he
appears the fool in doing so. Admitting to being wrong is counter to
the Gadfly Creed.
He is a vandal and a mild source of amusement.
PD
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 4:31 pm, Steve Dorman <sdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> OG wrote:
>
>> But why does he continue to put the incorrect light curve
>> on his website? Surely he must know that it removes all his
>> credibility.
>
>It has been pointed out many times to Androcles and to
>Henri Wilson, that the light curve of Algol depends on
>the spectral band in which it is measured:
>http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/research/journey.html
>
>Conventional eclipsing binary theory has no problem
>modeling these curves.
The above paper makes a mockery of that statement. It is nothing but
speculation from start to finish.
What astronomers see when they view Algol type binaries is a willusion. The
star may or may not involve an eclipsing pair. Most Algol type probably do not.
The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
brightness curves with wavelength.
>Emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
>of the light curve at all.
If you opened your eyes you would soon learn what BaTh can explain. There are
many possibilities that haven't even been explored....and are not likely to be
while Einsteiniana attracts so many brainwahsed fools.
I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
c but at c+v.
>Jerry
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....
Jerry
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
No, you didn't "shut me up." I just got sick of your
perpetual lies and megalomania.
You are just too plain stupid to realize how worthless your
theories are. You'll die soon enough, and the world will soon
forget you as just another crackpot who never amounted to
anything.
Jerry
Henri Wilson's Lies
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
Eric Gisse
I knew you could be harsh!
[...]
Dr. Henri Wilson
You are so hopelessly indoctrinated you can't even accept plain truth no matter
how glaringly obvious. All you are capable of doing is quoting from standard
relativity texts.
As I have shown, BaTh explains sagnac perfectly well by considering what
happens in the inertial frame, just as SR does.
SR says light moves at c in that frame and at c+/-v wrt the source. The ray
travel times are different.
BaTh says the rays move at c wrt the source and the frequencies are doppler
shifted, which they must be.
Both approaches produce the same answer.
YOUR analysis of sagnac using the ROTATING frame is trivial nonsense.
You are merely regarding the rotating apparatus viewed in the rotating frame as
being identical to the nonrotating apparatus in the inertial frame.
Eric Gisse
[snip whining]
> YOUR analysis of sagnac using the ROTATING frame is trivial nonsense.
> You are merely regarding the rotating apparatus viewed in the rotating frame as
> being identical to the nonrotating apparatus in the inertial frame.
It is, Ralph.
What's the difference between a merry-go-round that is not rotating
and a rotating merry-go-round that has a frame co-rotating with it?
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
tussock
> What's the difference between a merry-go-round that is not rotating and
> a rotating merry-go-round that has a frame co-rotating with it?
The angle of a plumb line held by a rider. Trick question?
--
tussock
I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 6, 4:31 pm, Steve Dorman <sdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> OG wrote:
>>> But why does he continue to put the incorrect light curve
>>> on his website? Surely he must know that it removes all his
>>> credibility.
>> It has been pointed out many times to Androcles and to
>> Henri Wilson, that the light curve of Algol depends on
>> the spectral band in which it is measured:
>> http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/research/journey.html
>>
>> Conventional eclipsing binary theory has no problem
>> modeling these curves.
>
> The above paper makes a mockery of that statement. It is nothing but
> speculation from start to finish.
> What astronomers see when they view Algol type binaries is a willusion. The
> star may or may not involve an eclipsing pair. Most Algol type probably do not.
http://tinyurl.com/5ocloa
..showing that the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR.
In November 2005 Henry Wilson wrote:
"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"
So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
Had you forgotten that, Henri?
> The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
> or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
> control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
> brightness curves with wavelength.
So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/O-Gspect.gif
is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/G-Mspect.gif
A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)
Nothing is so stupid that... you know the rest. :-)
>
>> Emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
>> of the light curve at all.
>
> If you opened your eyes you would soon learn what BaTh can explain. There are
> many possibilities that haven't even been explored....and are not likely to be
> while Einsteiniana attracts so many brainwahsed fools.
In November 2005 Henri Wilson reluctantly opened his eyes and
realized that the emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
of the light curve at all. So he admitted:
"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"
So what, indeed! :-)
Will Henri admit that he has admitted that the emission theory cannot
explain the spectral band dependence of the light curve at all? :-)
I predict he won't.
Henri never admits having admitted what he has admitted. :-)
> I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
> variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
> universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
> c but at c+v.
Ah. Sagnac! :-)
We all know what Sagnac does to the emission theory, don't we?
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html
BTW, Henri.
About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
Only a very few of them are variables.
The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.
This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Conventional eclipsing binary theory has no problem
>>> modeling these curves.
>>
>> The above paper makes a mockery of that statement. It is nothing but
>> speculation from start to finish.
>> What astronomers see when they view Algol type binaries is a willusion. The
>> star may or may not involve an eclipsing pair. Most Algol type probably do not.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/5ocloa
>..showing that the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR.
>
>In November 2005 Henry Wilson wrote:
>"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"
>
>So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
>Had you forgotten that, Henri?
No. I have always stressed that stars with Algol type curves might or might not
be really eclipsing.
>> The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
>> or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
>> control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
>> brightness curves with wavelength.
>
>So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)
>http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/O-Gspect.gif
>is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
>http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/G-Mspect.gif
>A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)
Even YOU should know why some roses are red and others yellow in the same
sunlight.
>Nothing is so stupid that... you know the rest. :-)
Is physics still taught in Norway?
>>
>>> Emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
>>> of the light curve at all.
>>
>> If you opened your eyes you would soon learn what BaTh can explain. There are
>> many possibilities that haven't even been explored....and are not likely to be
>> while Einsteiniana attracts so many brainwahsed fools.
>
>In November 2005 Henri Wilson reluctantly opened his eyes and
>realized that the emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
>of the light curve at all. So he admitted:
>"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"
>
>So what, indeed! :-)
>
>Will Henri admit that he has admitted that the emission theory cannot
>explain the spectral band dependence of the light curve at all? :-)
>I predict he won't.
>Henri never admits having admitted what he has admitted. :-)
Henri has already explained such phenomena.
Different bands tend to originate from slightly different levels...which makes
the 'v' in c+v different.
Also, the local extinction rate is presumably wavelength dependent.
>> I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
>> variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
>> universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
>> c but at c+v.
>
>Ah. Sagnac! :-)
>We all know what Sagnac does to the emission theory, don't we?
>
>http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
>http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
>http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf
>http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html
All wrong. Quite hilarious really.
>BTW, Henri.
>About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>Only a very few of them are variables.
>The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
>should be variables.
Wrong. Quite hilarious really.
>This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?
Paul B. Andersen
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:22:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>> Conventional eclipsing binary theory has no problem
>>>> modeling these curves.
>>> The above paper makes a mockery of that statement. It is nothing but
>>> speculation from start to finish.
>>> What astronomers see when they view Algol type binaries is a willusion. The
>>> star may or may not involve an eclipsing pair. Most Algol type probably do not.
>> http://tinyurl.com/5ocloa
>> ..showing that the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR.
>>
>> In November 2005 Henry Wilson wrote:
>> "If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
>> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"
>>
>> So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
>> Had you forgotten that, Henri?
>
> No. I have always stressed that stars with Algol type curves might or might not
> be really eclipsing.
But since the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR, this statement of yours:
<<
If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
>>
..is an admission that Algol IS an eclipsing binary.
>>> The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
>>> or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
>>> control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
>>> brightness curves with wavelength.
>> So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)
>> http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/O-Gspect.gif
>> is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
>> http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/G-Mspect.gif
>> A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)
>
> Even YOU should know why some roses are red and others yellow in the same
> sunlight.
So you think the fact that roses come in multiple colours
can defend this quite hillarious statement:
<<
The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
[of an A8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
>>
But you are possibly too stupid to understand the gigantic
stupidity of this statement.
Nothing is too stupid .. etc.
>> Nothing is so stupid that... you know the rest. :-)
>
> Is physics still taught in Norway?
>
>>>> Emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
>>>> of the light curve at all.
>>> If you opened your eyes you would soon learn what BaTh can explain. There are
>>> many possibilities that haven't even been explored....and are not likely to be
>>> while Einsteiniana attracts so many brainwahsed fools.
>> In November 2005 Henri Wilson reluctantly opened his eyes and
>> realized that the emission theory cannot explain the spectral band dependence
>> of the light curve at all. So he admitted:
>> "If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
>> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"
>>
>> So what, indeed! :-)
>>
>> Will Henri admit that he has admitted that the emission theory cannot
>> explain the spectral band dependence of the light curve at all? :-)
>> I predict he won't.
>> Henri never admits having admitted what he has admitted. :-)
>
> Henri has already explained such phenomena.
> Different bands tend to originate from slightly different levels...which makes
> the 'v' in c+v different.
> Also, the local extinction rate is presumably wavelength dependent.
Should I remind you why you gave up these arguments back in 2005,
when you ended up admitting that:
<<
If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
>>
?
No, I won't bother.
What you admit one day, you have forgotten the next.
>>> I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
>>> variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
>>> universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
>>> c but at c+v.
>> Ah. Sagnac! :-)
>> We all know what Sagnac does to the emission theory, don't we?
>>
>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf
>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html
>
> All wrong. Quite hilarious really.
I challenge you to point out a single error in those articles.
We both know you won't do it because you can't.
Sagnac falsifies the emission theory.
No question about it.
>> BTW, Henri.
>> About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>> Only a very few of them are variables.
>> The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
>> should be variables.
>
> Wrong. Quite hilarious really.
Please point out which of these statement are wrong:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.
We both know you won't do it because you can't.
>> This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>
> You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?
From these statements which you are unable to refute:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.
it follows:
It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:22:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>>> So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
>>> Had you forgotten that, Henri?
>>
>> No. I have always stressed that stars with Algol type curves might or might not
>> be really eclipsing.
>
>But since the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR, this statement of yours:
><<
> If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
> >>
>..is an admission that Algol IS an eclipsing binary.
It is of little importance whether it is or is not. The undeniable fact
according to BaTh, is that many stars in moderately eccentric orbit with their
perihelia nearest Earth will exhibit brightness curves similar to genuinely
eclipsing binaries.
Spectral analysis may resolve the issue or it may be quite misleading.
Having been completely misled for 100 years already, Einsteinian relativists
are unlikely to notice the difference.
>>>> The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
>>>> or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
>>>> control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
>>>> brightness curves with wavelength.
>>> So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)
>>> http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/O-Gspect.gif
>>> is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
>>> http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/G-Mspect.gif
>>> A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)
>>
>> Even YOU should know why some roses are red and others yellow in the same
>> sunlight.
>
>So you think the fact that roses come in multiple colours
>can defend this quite hillarious statement:
><<
> The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
> [of an A8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
> >>
>
>But you are possibly too stupid to understand the gigantic
>stupidity of this statement.
>Nothing is too stupid .. etc.
Which is the star and which is the planet?
Have you not considered the possible existence of binaries that consist of a
small hot and bright star orbiting a very large cool object that appears maybe
as bright as the star.
In fact this configuration might explain some of the larger magnitude
fluctuations that are observed.
>>> So what, indeed! :-)
>>>
>>> Will Henri admit that he has admitted that the emission theory cannot
>>> explain the spectral band dependence of the light curve at all? :-)
>>> I predict he won't.
>>> Henri never admits having admitted what he has admitted. :-)
>>
>> Henri has already explained such phenomena.
>> Different bands tend to originate from slightly different levels...which makes
>> the 'v' in c+v different.
>> Also, the local extinction rate is presumably wavelength dependent.
>
>Should I remind you why you gave up these arguments back in 2005,
>when you ended up admitting that:
><<
> If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
So what?
Just because I others have finally exposed the relativity myth doesn't mean we
can produce all the answers overninght.
>No, I won't bother.
>What you admit one day, you have forgotten the next.
What I say one day you misquote the next.
>>>> I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
>>>> variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
>>>> universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
>>>> c but at c+v.
>>> Ah. Sagnac! :-)
>>> We all know what Sagnac does to the emission theory, don't we?
>>>
>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf
>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html
>>
>> All wrong. Quite hilarious really.
>
>I challenge you to point out a single error in those articles.
>We both know you won't do it because you can't.
>Sagnac falsifies the emission theory.
>No question about it.
Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh. Absolutely no doubt about it.
>>> BTW, Henri.
>>> About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>>> Only a very few of them are variables.
>>> The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
>>> should be variables.
>>
>> Wrong. Quite hilarious really.
>
>Please point out which of these statement are wrong:
>1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>2. Only a very few of them are variables.
>3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
> should be variables.
>
>We both know you won't do it because you can't.
I have already explained that most would not be expected to vary because the
conditions are not right.
Here again are a few reasons:
1) If the members of binary pair are fairly similar, the sum of the individual
brightness variations adds to nearly zero. (I have tried to explain that
sinx+sin(x+180) = zero....but apparently trig functions are not taught in
Norway.)
2) All the light emitted by close binaries leaves the vicinity at c wrt the
barycentre of the pair, hence no expected variation. The individual
contributions are still doppler shifted correctly.
3) The distance from earth is not conducive to brightness variation.
4) A statistical proportion of orbits are approximately face on to Earth.
>>> This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>>> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>>
>> You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?
>
> From these statements which you are unable to refute:
>1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>2. Only a very few of them are variables.
>3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
> should be variables.
>it follows:
> It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
It really is a tragedy that people like yourself are so indoctrinated at an
early age that they are quite incapable of seeing beyond their own belief
system..
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:28:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:22:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
>>>> So Henri Wilson have admitted that Algol is an eclipsing binary.
>>>> Had you forgotten that, Henri?
>>> No. I have always stressed that stars with Algol type curves might or might not
>>> be really eclipsing.
>> But since the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR, this statement of yours:
>> <<
>> If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
>> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
>> ..is an admission that Algol IS an eclipsing binary.
>
> It is of little importance whether it is or is not. The undeniable fact
> according to BaTh, is that many stars in moderately eccentric orbit with their
> perihelia nearest Earth will exhibit brightness curves similar to genuinely
> eclipsing binaries.
> Spectral analysis may resolve the issue or it may be quite misleading.
> Having been completely misled for 100 years already, Einsteinian relativists
> are unlikely to notice the difference.
The fact is that the BaTh fails to predict what we observe.
You have admitted that the obseved light curve of Algol in visible
and IR can only be explained by the conventional theory, and that it is
an eclipsing binary. But even if it is eclipsing, the BaTh still predicts
a variation due to the motion of the components. This variation
is _not_ opserved.
>>>>> The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
>>>>> or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
>>>>> control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
>>>>> brightness curves with wavelength.
>>>> So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)
That should be A B8 spectrum.
>>>> http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/O-Gspect.gif
>>>> is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
>>>> http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/G-Mspect.gif
>>>> A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)
>>> Even YOU should know why some roses are red and others yellow in the same
>>> sunlight.
>> So you think the fact that roses come in multiple colours
>> can defend this quite hillarious statement:
>> <<
>> The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
>> [of an A8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
>> But you are possibly too stupid to understand the gigantic
>> stupidity of this statement.
>> Nothing is too stupid .. etc.
>
> Which is the star and which is the planet?
There is no planet.
The spectrum tells us that it is an B8 and a K2 star orbiting
each other.
> Have you not considered the possible existence of binaries that consist of a
> small hot and bright star orbiting a very large cool object that appears maybe
> as bright as the star.
That would be a hot (young) white dwarf orbiting a red giant.
Sure there are binaries like that.
So what?
We are talking about Algol, which is a hot B8 star orbiting a cool K2 giant.
The cool object is larger than hot hot object, but not brighter.
> In fact this configuration might explain some of the larger magnitude
> fluctuations that are observed.
Was this meant to defend this statement of yours,
which you said about Algol?
<<
The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
[ of an B8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
>>
You _are_ too stupid to grasp the idiocy of this statement,
are you not? :-)
>>>> So what, indeed! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Will Henri admit that he has admitted that the emission theory cannot
>>>> explain the spectral band dependence of the light curve at all? :-)
>>>> I predict he won't.
>>>> Henri never admits having admitted what he has admitted. :-)
>>> Henri has already explained such phenomena.
>>> Different bands tend to originate from slightly different levels...which makes
>>> the 'v' in c+v different.
>>> Also, the local extinction rate is presumably wavelength dependent.
>> Should I remind you why you gave up these arguments back in 2005,
>> when you ended up admitting that:
>> <<
>> If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
>> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
>
> So what?
> Just because I others have finally exposed the relativity myth doesn't mean we
> can produce all the answers overninght.
And you have "exposed" that the conventional theory
is wrong because it so very well explains what is observed? :-)
And from this you conclude that the "BaTh" must be correct
because it is unable to explain what is observed? :-)
You are indeed doing very well now, are you not? :-)
>> No, I won't bother.
>> What you admit one day, you have forgotten the next.
>
> What I say one day you misquote the next.
>
>>>>> I have already shut you up about Sagnac, why don't you realise that most
>>>>> variable stars 'vary' because little planet earth is NOT the centre of the
>>>>> universe, as the religions preach, and starlight does not travel towards us at
>>>>> c but at c+v.
>>>> Ah. Sagnac! :-)
>>>> We all know what Sagnac does to the emission theory, don't we?
>>>>
>>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
>>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
>>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf
>>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html
>>> All wrong. Quite hilarious really.
>> I challenge you to point out a single error in those articles.
>> We both know you won't do it because you can't.
>> Sagnac falsifies the emission theory.
>> No question about it.
>
> Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh. Absolutely no doubt about it.
:-)
>>>> BTW, Henri.
>>>> About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>>>> Only a very few of them are variables.
>>>> The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
>>>> should be variables.
>>> Wrong. Quite hilarious really.
>> Please point out which of these statement are wrong:
>> 1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>> 2. Only a very few of them are variables.
>> 3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
>> should be variables.
>>
>> We both know you won't do it because you can't.
>
> I have already explained that most would not be expected to vary because the
> conditions are not right.
> Here again are a few reasons:
> 1) If the members of binary pair are fairly similar, the sum of the individual
> brightness variations adds to nearly zero. (I have tried to explain that
> sinx+sin(x+180) = zero....but apparently trig functions are not taught in
> Norway.)
This is nonsense, and you know it.
The predicted brightness variation from each component will almost
never be sinusoidal, so they will not cancel each other.
> 2) All the light emitted by close binaries leaves the vicinity at c wrt the
> barycentre of the pair, hence no expected variation. The individual
> contributions are still doppler shifted correctly.
Most binaries are not close.
> 3) The distance from earth is not conducive to brightness variation.
> 4) A statistical proportion of orbits are approximately face on to Earth.
Sure.
But those are the binaries we don't know about.
The vast majority of known binaries are spectroscopic,
and they are never face on to the Earth, of reasons so obvious
that even you must understand it.
http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~corcoran/sb8.html
You still haven't refuted any of these statements:
1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
2. Only a very few of them are variables.
3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
should be variables.
so the conclusion stands:
It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>>>> This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>>>> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>>> You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?
>> From these statements which you are unable to refute:
>> 1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>> 2. Only a very few of them are variables.
>> 3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
>> should be variables.
>> it follows:
>> It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>
> It really is a tragedy that people like yourself are so indoctrinated at an
> early age that they are quite incapable of seeing beyond their own belief
> system..
So you think I should convert to your belief system,
and share your blind faith in a theory which is thorowly
falsified? :-)
--
Paul
Androcles
news:480872C5...@hiadeletethis.no...
The fact is that there should be a significant velocity curve if
the eclipsing theory were credible.
The fact is emission fact is a fact.
The fact is Tusseladd is a proven liar and a jealous, prejudiced bigot, and
as we know, dishonest through and through.)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/DeriveMC2.htm
(Fox didn't write a single word of what Androcles "quoted" on his page
above. Androcles is, as we know, dishonest through and through.) - ASSistant
Professor Paul B. Andersen of Agder University College, Kristiansand,
Norway.
The fact is Mira doesn't have a tail, even if Andersen does.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:28:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>
>> It is of little importance whether it is or is not. The undeniable fact
>> according to BaTh, is that many stars in moderately eccentric orbit with their
>> perihelia nearest Earth will exhibit brightness curves similar to genuinely
>> eclipsing binaries.
>> Spectral analysis may resolve the issue or it may be quite misleading.
>> Having been completely misled for 100 years already, Einsteinian relativists
>> are unlikely to notice the difference.
>
>The fact is that the BaTh fails to predict what we observe.
How would YOU know.
You don't even understand the basics.
>You have admitted that the obseved light curve of Algol in visible
>and IR can only be explained by the conventional theory, and that it is
>an eclipsing binary. But even if it is eclipsing, the BaTh still predicts
>a variation due to the motion of the components. This variation
>is _not_ opserved.
I have admitted no such thing.
Whatever we observe is must be in accordance with BaTh. Light clearly moves at
c wrt its source and c+v wrt the observer.
>>>>>> The secondary spectrum could easily be a reflection from a large cool dead star
>>>>>> or planet. BaTh might also expect the extinction rate in the associated EM
>>>>>> control sphere to vary with wavelength, giving rise to different shaped
>>>>>> brightness curves with wavelength.
>>>>> So when an A8 spectrum (A8 is close to B0)
>
>That should be A B8 spectrum.
how weak is it?
>>>>> http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/O-Gspect.gif
>>>>> is reflected off "a large cool star", it is mysteriously transformed to a K2 spectrum.
>>>>> http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/G-Mspect.gif
>>>>> A very reasonable explanation indeed. :-)
>>>> Even YOU should know why some roses are red and others yellow in the same
>>>> sunlight.
>>> So you think the fact that roses come in multiple colours
>>> can defend this quite hillarious statement:
>>> <<
>>> The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
>>> [of an A8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
>>> But you are possibly too stupid to understand the gigantic
>>> stupidity of this statement.
>>> Nothing is too stupid .. etc.
>>
>> Which is the star and which is the planet?
>
>There is no planet.
>The spectrum tells us that it is an B8 and a K2 star orbiting
>each other.
What is the orbit eccentricity?
>> Have you not considered the possible existence of binaries that consist of a
>> small hot and bright star orbiting a very large cool object that appears maybe
>> as bright as the star.
>
>That would be a hot (young) white dwarf orbiting a red giant.
>Sure there are binaries like that.
>So what?
>We are talking about Algol, which is a hot B8 star orbiting a cool K2 giant.
>The cool object is larger than hot hot object, but not brighter.
I'm not particularly interested in Algol. Its brightness curve may or may not
indicate an eclipse. It may or may no be a consequence of c+v variation.
>> In fact this configuration might explain some of the larger magnitude
>> fluctuations that are observed.
>
>Was this meant to defend this statement of yours,
>which you said about Algol?
><<
> The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
>[ of an B8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
> >>
>
>You _are_ too stupid to grasp the idiocy of this statement,
>are you not? :-)
A small hot star refecting off a very large orbiting WCH could easily result in
two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out of phase.
>>> <<
>>> If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
>>> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
>>
>> So what?
>> Just because I others have finally exposed the relativity myth doesn't mean we
>> can produce all the answers overninght.
>
>And you have "exposed" that the conventional theory
>is wrong because it so very well explains what is observed? :-)
It doesn't. It tries to explain willusions and ends up in a helluva mess.
>And from this you conclude that the "BaTh" must be correct
>because it is unable to explain what is observed? :-)
>
>You are indeed doing very well now, are you not? :-)
BaTh explains what is observed.
>>>
>>> We both know you won't do it because you can't.
>>
>> I have already explained that most would not be expected to vary because the
>> conditions are not right.
>> Here again are a few reasons:
>> 1) If the members of binary pair are fairly similar, the sum of the individual
>> brightness variations adds to nearly zero. (I have tried to explain that
>> sinx+sin(x+180) = zero....but apparently trig functions are not taught in
>> Norway.)
>
>This is nonsense, and you know it.
>The predicted brightness variation from each component will almost
>never be sinusoidal, so they will not cancel each other.
Paul, run my program and see for yourself. I have done the work. You know
nothing about the subject and continue to make a fool of yourself.
Most binaries have fairly circular orbits. If the members are similar in size,
their brightness curves almost cancel each other.
In fact, if one is considerably larger than the other, it will move more slowly
and have a smaller magnitude variation. But its larger size makes it
brighter...so much of the cancellation remains.
>> 2) All the light emitted by close binaries leaves the vicinity at c wrt the
>> barycentre of the pair, hence no expected variation. The individual
>> contributions are still doppler shifted correctly.
>
>Most binaries are not close.
That's OK. see above.
>> 3) The distance from earth is not conducive to brightness variation.
>> 4) A statistical proportion of orbits are approximately face on to Earth.
>
>Sure.
>But those are the binaries we don't know about.
>The vast majority of known binaries are spectroscopic,
>and they are never face on to the Earth, of reasons so obvious
>that even you must understand it.
>
>http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~corcoran/sb8.html
>
>You still haven't refuted any of these statements:
>1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>2. Only a very few of them are variables.
>3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
> should be variables.
It does not. Usually the iindividual curves will canel each other. Read above.
>so the conclusion stands:
> It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
The only blatantly obvious conclusion is that you do not wish to improve your
knowledge or mind.
>>>>> This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>>>>> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>>>> You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?
>>> From these statements which you are unable to refute:
>>> 1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>>> 2. Only a very few of them are variables.
>>> 3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
>>> should be variables.
>>> it follows:
>>> It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>>> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>>
>> It really is a tragedy that people like yourself are so indoctrinated at an
>> early age that they are quite incapable of seeing beyond their own belief
>> system..
>
>So you think I should convert to your belief system,
>and share your blind faith in a theory which is thorowly
>falsified? :-)
BaTh is not a belief system. It is established fact. Every known light
experiment supports it.
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:mt8i04lvkt7ml4upo...@4ax.com...
>>You have admitted that the obseved light curve of Algol in visible
>>and IR can only be explained by the conventional theory, and that it is
>>an eclipsing binary. But even if it is eclipsing, the BaTh still predicts
>>a variation due to the motion of the components. This variation
>>is _not_ opserved.
>
> I have admitted no such thing.
> Whatever we observe is must be in accordance with BaTh. Light clearly
> moves at
> c wrt its source and c+v wrt the observer.
When you say "whatever we observe must be in accordance. . . " it seems that
you are demanding the right to define the rules that the universe must
follow.
Do you in any way accept that you could be wrong?
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:07:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:28:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>>> It is of little importance whether it is or is not. The undeniable fact
>>> according to BaTh, is that many stars in moderately eccentric orbit with their
>>> perihelia nearest Earth will exhibit brightness curves similar to genuinely
>>> eclipsing binaries.
>>> Spectral analysis may resolve the issue or it may be quite misleading.
>>> Having been completely misled for 100 years already, Einsteinian relativists
>>> are unlikely to notice the difference.
>> The fact is that the BaTh fails to predict what we observe.
>
> How would YOU know.
> You don't even understand the basics.
>
>> You have admitted that the obseved light curve of Algol in visible
>> and IR can only be explained by the conventional theory, and that it is
>> an eclipsing binary. But even if it is eclipsing, the BaTh still predicts
>> a variation due to the motion of the components. This variation
>> is _not_ opserved.
>
> I have admitted no such thing.
In November 2005 Henry Wilson wrote:
"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"
The secondary eclipse IS visible in IR.
> Whatever we observe is must be in accordance with BaTh. Light clearly moves at
> c wrt its source and c+v wrt the observer.
But it isn't.
You know Algol IS an eclipsing binary, whic accounts for the variation.
We do not see the consequence of the c+v variation, because there is none.
We do not observe what the BaTh predicts we should.
>>> In fact this configuration might explain some of the larger magnitude
>>> fluctuations that are observed.
>> Was this meant to defend this statement of yours,
>> which you said about Algol?
>> <<
>> The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
>> [ of an B8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
>> You _are_ too stupid to grasp the idiocy of this statement,
>> are you not? :-)
>
> A small hot star refecting off a very large orbiting WCH could easily result in
> two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out of phase.
So you ARE too stupid to understand the giant idiocy
in such a statement.
>
>>>> <<
>>>> If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
>>>> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
>>> So what?
>>> Just because I others have finally exposed the relativity myth doesn't mean we
>>> can produce all the answers overninght.
>> And you have "exposed" that the conventional theory
>> is wrong because it so very well explains what is observed? :-)
>
> It doesn't. It tries to explain willusions and ends up in a helluva mess.
So to predict what is observed is a mess? :-)
>> And from this you conclude that the "BaTh" must be correct
>> because it is unable to explain what is observed? :-)
>>
>> You are indeed doing very well now, are you not? :-)
>
> BaTh explains what is observed.
Is too, is too. :-)
>>>> We both know you won't do it because you can't.
>>> I have already explained that most would not be expected to vary because the
>>> conditions are not right.
>>> Here again are a few reasons:
>>> 1) If the members of binary pair are fairly similar, the sum of the individual
>>> brightness variations adds to nearly zero. (I have tried to explain that
>>> sinx+sin(x+180) = zero....but apparently trig functions are not taught in
>>> Norway.)
>> This is nonsense, and you know it.
>> The predicted brightness variation from each component will almost
>> never be sinusoidal, so they will not cancel each other.
>
> Paul, run my program and see for yourself. I have done the work. You know
> nothing about the subject and continue to make a fool of yourself.
>
> Most binaries have fairly circular orbits. If the members are similar in size,
> their brightness curves almost cancel each other.
> In fact, if one is considerably larger than the other, it will move more slowly
> and have a smaller magnitude variation. But its larger size makes it
> brighter...so much of the cancellation remains.
This still isn't true.
And in the vast majority ov binaries, the components are not of similar size.
http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~corcoran/sb8.html
>>> 2) All the light emitted by close binaries leaves the vicinity at c wrt the
>>> barycentre of the pair, hence no expected variation. The individual
>>> contributions are still doppler shifted correctly.
>> Most binaries are not close.
>
> That's OK. see above.
>
>>> 3) The distance from earth is not conducive to brightness variation.
>>> 4) A statistical proportion of orbits are approximately face on to Earth.
>> Sure.
>> But those are the binaries we don't know about.
>> The vast majority of known binaries are spectroscopic,
>> and they are never face on to the Earth, of reasons so obvious
>> that even you must understand it.
>>
>> http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~corcoran/sb8.html
>>
>> You still haven't refuted any of these statements:
>> 1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>> 2. Only a very few of them are variables.
>> 3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
>> should be variables.
>
> It does not. Usually the iindividual curves will canel each other. Read above.
The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of binaries
should be variables. And you know it even if you won't admit it.
That's one of the strange aspects of fanatics like you.
You claim what you must know is wrong.
>> so the conclusion stands:
>> It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>
> The only blatantly obvious conclusion is that you do not wish to improve your
> knowledge or mind.
>
>>>>>> This makes it blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>>>>>> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>>>>> You have never bothered to investigate. How would you know?
>>>> From these statements which you are unable to refute:
>>>> 1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>>>> 2. Only a very few of them are variables.
>>>> 3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
>>>> should be variables.
>>>> it follows:
>>>> It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>>>> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>>> It really is a tragedy that people like yourself are so indoctrinated at an
>>> early age that they are quite incapable of seeing beyond their own belief
>>> system..
>> So you think I should convert to your belief system,
>> and share your blind faith in a theory which is thorowly
>> falsified? :-)
>
> BaTh is not a belief system. It is established fact. Every known light
> experiment supports it.
Don't be ridiculous.
The emission theory is falsified by a vast number of experiments
and observations.
You must be a religious fanatic not to see that.
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:07:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>
>In November 2005 Henry Wilson wrote:
>"If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?"
>
>The secondary eclipse IS visible in IR.
>
>> Whatever we observe is must be in accordance with BaTh. Light clearly moves at
>> c wrt its source and c+v wrt the observer.
>
>But it isn't.
Oh well! There must be an absolute aether.
Einstein was completely wrong.
>>> The spectrum tells us that it is an B8 and a K2 star orbiting
>>> each other.
>>
>> What is the orbit eccentricity?
I thought you knew everything Paul.
>>>> Have you not considered the possible existence of binaries that consist of a
>>>> small hot and bright star orbiting a very large cool object that appears maybe
>>>> as bright as the star.
>>> That would be a hot (young) white dwarf orbiting a red giant.
>>> Sure there are binaries like that.
>>> So what?
>>> We are talking about Algol, which is a hot B8 star orbiting a cool K2 giant.
>>> The cool object is larger than hot hot object, but not brighter.
>>
>> I'm not particularly interested in Algol. Its brightness curve may or may not
>> indicate an eclipse. It may or may no be a consequence of c+v variation.
>
>You know Algol IS an eclipsing binary, whic accounts for the variation.
>We do not see the consequence of the c+v variation, because there is none.
>We do not observe what the BaTh predicts we should.
You have no idea what the BaTh predicts so how would you know.
>>>> In fact this configuration might explain some of the larger magnitude
>>>> fluctuations that are observed.
>>> Was this meant to defend this statement of yours,
>>> which you said about Algol?
>>> <<
>>> The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
>>> [ of an B8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
>>> You _are_ too stupid to grasp the idiocy of this statement,
>>> are you not? :-)
>>
>> A small hot star refecting off a very large orbiting WCH could easily result in
>> two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out of phase.
>
>So you ARE too stupid to understand the giant idiocy
>in such a statement.
Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a curve that had a
large dip something like an eclipse, for obvious reasons.
>>>>> If the secondary eclipse IS visible in IR it probably REALLY is a secondary
>>>>> eclipse and not just a product of the BaTh. So what?
>>>> So what?
>>>> Just because I others have finally exposed the relativity myth doesn't mean we
>>>> can produce all the answers overninght.
>>> And you have "exposed" that the conventional theory
>>> is wrong because it so very well explains what is observed? :-)
>>
>> It doesn't. It tries to explain willusions and ends up in a helluva mess.
>
>So to predict what is observed is a mess? :-)
Read any paper that attempts to explain brightness variation generally. You
will usually find just silly speculation.
>>> And from this you conclude that the "BaTh" must be correct
>>> because it is unable to explain what is observed? :-)
>>>
>>> You are indeed doing very well now, are you not? :-)
>>
>> BaTh explains what is observed.
>
>
>Is too, is too. :-)
Either Einstein's second postulate is nonsense or an absolute aether exists.
No doubt about that.
>> Most binaries have fairly circular orbits. If the members are similar in size,
>> their brightness curves almost cancel each other.
>> In fact, if one is considerably larger than the other, it will move more slowly
>> and have a smaller magnitude variation. But its larger size makes it
>> brighter...so much of the cancellation remains.
>
>This still isn't true.
>And in the vast majority ov binaries, the components are not of similar size.
that doesn't matter. see below
>
>http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~corcoran/sb8.html
>
>>>> 2) All the light emitted by close binaries leaves the vicinity at c wrt the
>>>> barycentre of the pair, hence no expected variation. The individual
>>>> contributions are still doppler shifted correctly.
>>> Most binaries are not close.
>>
>> That's OK. see above.
>>
>>>> 3) The distance from earth is not conducive to brightness variation.
>>>> 4) A statistical proportion of orbits are approximately face on to Earth.
>>> Sure.
>>> But those are the binaries we don't know about.
>>> The vast majority of known binaries are spectroscopic,
>>> and they are never face on to the Earth, of reasons so obvious
>>> that even you must understand it.
>>>
>>> http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~corcoran/sb8.html
>>>
>>> You still haven't refuted any of these statements:
>>> 1. About half of all stars are components of binaries or multiples.
>>> 2. Only a very few of them are variables.
>>> 3. The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of the binaries
>>> should be variables.
>>
>> It does not. Usually the iindividual curves will canel each other. Read above.
>
>The emission theory predicts that the vast majority of binaries
>should be variables. And you know it even if you won't admit it.
>
>That's one of the strange aspects of fanatics like you.
>You claim what you must know is wrong.
Paul, I have provided the explanations.
There is nothing more I can do to help you escape from your indoctrination.
I feel very sorry for you. Truth cannot enter your brain.
>>>>> It is blatantly obvious that the emission theory is wrong.
>>>>> We simply do not observe what the emission theory predicts we should.
>>>> It really is a tragedy that people like yourself are so indoctrinated at an
>>>> early age that they are quite incapable of seeing beyond their own belief
>>>> system..
>>> So you think I should convert to your belief system,
>>> and share your blind faith in a theory which is thorowly
>>> falsified? :-)
>>
>> BaTh is not a belief system. It is established fact. Every known light
>> experiment supports it.
>
>Don't be ridiculous.
>The emission theory is falsified by a vast number of experiments
>and observations.
Like sagnac, I suppose.. :)
>You must be a religious fanatic not to see that.
You relativists still believe that a rotating object viewed in its rotating
frame behaves exactly as it does when not rotating and viewed in the
nonrotating frame.
This is so amusing. For one thing, it proves conclusively that no winds ever
blow on planet Earth.
hahahahahaaha!
Paul B. Andersen
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:41:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:07:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>>> Was this meant to defend this statement of yours,
>>>> which you said about Algol?
>>>> <<
>>>> The secondary [K2] spectrum could easily be a reflection
>>>> [of an B8 spectrum] from a large cool dead star or planet.
>>>> >>
>>>> You _are_ too stupid to grasp the idiocy of this statement,
>>>> are you not? :-)
>>> A small hot star refecting off a very large orbiting WCH could easily result in
>>> two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out of phase.
>> So you ARE too stupid to understand the giant idiocy
>> in such a statement.
>
> Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a curve that had a
> large dip something like an eclipse, for obvious reasons.
Good grief!
I must be talking to a complete moron.
--
Paul
Jerry
> > Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a
> >curve that had a large dip something like an eclipse, for
> <>obvious reasons.
>
> Good grief!
> I must be talking to a complete moron.
>
Of course, Henri consistently succeeds in fitting curves assuming
this scenario... by drawing in points by hand...
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
Jerry
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
this is obviously way too hard for you.
A large cool planet, orbiting a star would periodically change brightness for
the simple reason that its illuminated side would be partially hidden from an
Earth viewer by a roughly sinusoidally varying amount. When it was in line with
Earth, it could be completely dark if in an edge on orbit.
.....get it so far?
Of course its reflected spectra would contain only the lines of the star but in
considerably different proportions depending on the nature of its surface.
The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a cooler
star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase wrt the
star.
......Understand now?
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
> cooler
> star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase wrt
> the
> star.
>
What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
Dr. Henri Wilson
BaTh is not refuted by the refusal of its opponents to read or understand the
reasons why their pathetic refutation attempts are themselves refuted.
>Jerry
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:10:06 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
> <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 20, 7:09 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
>><paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>
>>> > Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a
>>> >curve that had a large dip something like an eclipse, for
>>> <>obvious reasons.
>>>
>>> Good grief!
>>> I must be talking to a complete moron.
>>>
>>
>>Of course, Henri consistently succeeds in fitting curves assuming
>>this scenario... by drawing in points by hand...
>>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
>
> BaTh is not refuted by the refusal of its opponents to read or understand
> the
> reasons why their pathetic refutation attempts are themselves refuted.
>
True.
That is not the reason.
Paul B. Andersen
And the spectrum of Mars can easily be mistaken for what kind of star?
> ......Understand now?
Indeed. I AM talking to a complete moron.
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:10:06 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
> <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 20, 7:09 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>>> Pleae tell me more. Of course this would also give rise to a
>>>> curve that had a large dip something like an eclipse, for
>>> <>obvious reasons.
>>>
>>> Good grief!
>>> I must be talking to a complete moron.
>>>
>> Of course, Henri consistently succeeds in fitting curves assuming
>> this scenario... by drawing in points by hand...
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
>
> BaTh is not refuted by the refusal of its opponents to read or understand the
> reasons why their pathetic refutation attempts are themselves refuted.
Since "the BaTh" doesn't actually predict anything which can be measured,
it doesn't meet the first criterion of a scientific theory: it must
be falsifiable. "The BaTh" isn't a theory of physics, it is a religion.
The Ritz emission theory, OTOH, _is_ falsifiable and _is_ falsified
by numerous experiments and observations.
The Sagnac experiment is one of them:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
This is obviously far too hard for you. Stop making a fool of yourself and go
quietly away.
Dr. Henri Wilson
hahahahahaha!
Completely wrong....
Dr. Henri Wilson
The spectrum of Mars will contain most if not all of emission and absorption
lines of our Sun but in different proportions to the original.
The relevant factor is that the peak wavelength in the distribution curve
WHICH IS AN INDICATOR OF TEMPERATURE, IE., STAR TYPE will probably be lower in
the case of Mars.
>> ......Understand now?
>
>Indeed. I AM talking to a complete moron.
No, YOU are writing messages like one.
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:52:29 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:uodn04t4oe5pt6igi...@4ax.com...
>>> The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
>>> cooler
>>> star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
>>> wrt
>>> the
>>> star.
>>>
>>
>>What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
>
> This is obviously far too hard for you. Stop making a fool of yourself and
> go
> quietly away.
Stop blustering - explain yourself.
Paul B. Andersen
Whenever you use the very convincing argument "hahahahahaha!",
you show that you are unable to prove what you claim.
So thanks for confirming your inability to find any error in these:
Paul B. Andersen
Indeed.
That's because I am quoting messages by one:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
Here is your Ritzian analysis:
"""""""""""""""""""""
The prediction of the Ritz Emission Theory
The difference in transit times method.
According to the Ritz Emission Theory the speed of light is c+v in the forward
beam and c-v in the backward beam.
The transit time tf of the beam emitted in the forward direction =
The transit time tb of the beam emitted in the reverse direction =
2pir/c
The difference in transit times = 0
"""""""""""""""""""""
Correct so far.
The predicted phase difference is thus = 0
WRONG!!!!!!
You fail to take account of the fact that in the nonrotating frame, the two
rays are doppler shifted by (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c.
Since the travel times are the same (in the nonrotating frame) the two rays are
out of phase at the (stationary) point where they reunite at the
detector/source.
BaTh predicts a fringe displacement of = 4Aw /clambda
That is your first mistake.
In your 'wavelength method', you wrongly use the rotating frame to claim that
the path lengths are the same, namely 2piR.
This second mistake is a typical example of the relativist's inability to
understand physical processes. You claim that the rotating ring when viewed in
the rotating frame is exactly the same situation as the non-rotating ring
viewed in the nonrotating frame.
You fail to take into account that, in the rotating frame, the emission point
of each element appears to MOVES BACKWARDS.
The path lengths are thus different - namely: 2piR(c-v)/c and 2piR(c+v)/c .
Wavelength is indeed constant. The correct analysis gives the experimentally
verified result.
Path length difference = 4piRv/c
= 4Aw /c
Fringe Displacement
= 4Aw /clambda
Dr. Henri Wilson
You didn't read it properly.
I said the light from a small hot star when reflected off a close orbiting
planet could easily be mistaken for light being emitted from a second
star....since the doppler shifts of light from the two would be 180 out of
phase.
The wavelength distribution would also likely be different, probably with the
mode shifted towards the red, making the 'second star' appear cooler.
Paul B. Andersen
Your mindless babble is refuted numerous times by
numerous people, including me.
This statement of your sums up your confusion pretty well:
Henri Wilson wrote:
| YOUR 'wave' is a frozen sinewave that 'moves'.
|
| MY wave is one in which the phase of the leading edge
| is cycling as it moves.
Hilarious, no? :-)
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:29:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>>> The spectrum of Mars will contain most if not all of emission and absorption
>>> lines of our Sun but in different proportions to the original.
>>> The relevant factor is that the peak wavelength in the distribution curve
>>> WHICH IS AN INDICATOR OF TEMPERATURE, IE., STAR TYPE will probably be lower in
>>> the case of Mars.
>>>
>>>>> ......Understand now?
>>>> Indeed. I AM talking to a complete moron.
>>> No, YOU are writing messages like one.
>> Indeed.
>> That's because I am quoting messages by one:
>> "A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
>> easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
>> of phase."
>
> You didn't read it properly.
I quoted you litterally, and I read what you wrote.
> I said the light from a small hot star when reflected off a close orbiting
> planet could easily be mistaken for light being emitted from a second
> star....since the doppler shifts of light from the two would be 180 out of
> phase.
>
> The wavelength distribution would also likely be different, probably with the
> mode shifted towards the red, making the 'second star' appear cooler.
Not much better.
Light reflected off a planet will never
be mistaken for the light from a star.
But is this an attempt to flee your statement about Algol,
namely that the secondary K2 spectrum could easily be a reflection
of the primary B8 spectrum from a large cool dead star or planet?
Do you retract this statement, or do you defend it?
Or is this another case where you didn't say what you said? :-)
--
Paul
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:52:29 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:uodn04t4oe5pt6igi...@4ax.com...
>>> The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
>>> cooler
>>> star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
>>> wrt
>>> the
>>> star.
>>>
>>
>>What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
>
> This is obviously far too hard for you. Stop making a fool of yourself and
> go
> quietly away.
You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>>> That's because I am quoting messages by one:
>>> "A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
>>> easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
>>> of phase."
>>
>> You didn't read it properly.
>
>I quoted you litterally, and I read what you wrote.
You omitted vital words.
>> I said the light from a small hot star when reflected off a close orbiting
>> planet could easily be mistaken for light being emitted from a second
>> star....since the doppler shifts of light from the two would be 180 out of
>> phase.
>>
>> The wavelength distribution would also likely be different, probably with the
>> mode shifted towards the red, making the 'second star' appear cooler.
>
>Not much better.
>Light reflected off a planet will never
>be mistaken for the light from a star.
Oh?
What would be the main differences?
>But is this an attempt to flee your statement about Algol,
>namely that the secondary K2 spectrum could easily be a reflection
>of the primary B8 spectrum from a large cool dead star or planet?
>
>Do you retract this statement, or do you defend it?
>
>Or is this another case where you didn't say what you said? :-)
B8 is considerably hotter than a K2.
Where is the problem?
Reflected B8 light could easily lose much of the shorter wavelength
contributions.
The radiation curve could conceivably resemble that of a faint K2.
Dr. Henri Wilson
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:lh4q045ho8sphv13b...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:52:29 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>>news:uodn04t4oe5pt6igi...@4ax.com...
>>>> The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
>>>> cooler
>>>> star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
>>>> wrt
>>>> the
>>>> star.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
>>
>> This is obviously far too hard for you. Stop making a fool of yourself and
>> go
>> quietly away.
>
>You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.
I appreciate it is difficult....and maybe you are also Norwegian.
Here is a linear analogy of a ring gyro:
Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a distant
'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are initially in
phase.
S1_________________________________D
S2
Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is different,the number
of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different speeds,
such that they arrive at D together.
Since they move through different path lengths, the number of wavecrests from
each oscillator arriving at D before the two sources arrive is also different,
causing the observed phase displacement.
Alternatively, the frequency of 'wavecrest arrival' at D from the two
oscillators is not the same. The two rays appear doppler shifted by (c+v)/c and
(c-v)/c. Since they travel for the same time and are initially in phase, they
are out of phase when they meet at the detector.
Get it now?
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:59:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
>>>> That's because I am quoting messages by one:
>>>> "A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
>>>> easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
>>>> of phase."
>>> You didn't read it properly.
>> I quoted you litterally, and I read what you wrote.
>
> You omitted vital words.
Henri Wilson never said what he said, eh?
>>> I said the light from a small hot star when reflected off a close orbiting
>>> planet could easily be mistaken for light being emitted from a second
>>> star....since the doppler shifts of light from the two would be 180 out of
>>> phase.
>>>
>>> The wavelength distribution would also likely be different, probably with the
>>> mode shifted towards the red, making the 'second star' appear cooler.
>> Not much better.
>> Light reflected off a planet will never
>> be mistaken for the light from a star.
>
> Oh?
> What would be the main differences?
If you measure the visual spectrum from one of the terrestial
planets and try to determine the spectral class as if it was
a stellar spectrum, you will find that it is a G2 spectrum
like the Sun. Of course there would be differences telling you
that the spectrum isn't from a star, but the main point
is that it cannot be mistaken for any other type of spectrum
than G2.
See why below.
>> But is this an attempt to flee your statement about Algol,
>> namely that the secondary K2 spectrum could easily be a reflection
>> of the primary B8 spectrum from a large cool dead star or planet?
>>
>> Do you retract this statement, or do you defend it?
>>
>> Or is this another case where you didn't say what you said? :-)
>
> B8 is considerably hotter than a K2.
> Where is the problem?
> Reflected B8 light could easily lose much of the shorter wavelength
> contributions.
> The radiation curve could conceivably resemble that of a faint K2.
How do you manage to stay this ignorant after having
discussed these issues for years?
I have told you this numerous times, PLEASE LEARN IT THIS TIME:
The spectral class of a star is determined by the relative
positions and strengths of the absorption lines,
not by where the black body spectrum peaks.
That's why a Doppler shift doesn't affect the determination
of the spectral class.
There is a strong (one to one) correlation between
the spectral class and the temperature of a star,
so when the spectral class is determined, so is the
temperature.
Look at the B0 spectrum here:
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/O-Gspect.gif
compare it to the K0 spectrum here:
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/G-Mspect.gif
You can also see the spectra here:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html
Note that the B spectrum has few absorption lines in
the red end of the spectrum, while the K spectrum
has a lot of absorption lines in the red end.
The spectra are very different, _and have *very* different
sets of absorption lines_. There is no way you can make
a B spectrum look like a K spectrum by "shifting it towards
the red."
If you want to learn about the determination of spectra,
go here:
http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~marschal/clea/speclab.html
and download the SpecLab program.
You can then measure the spectra of different stars
with a virtual telescope, and classify them by comparing
them to standard spectra.
Have fun. :-)
Bottom line:
You have to be - if not a moron - extremely ignorant of
the most basic issues of astronomy not to realize that
the statement:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."
is incredible stupid.
But staying ignorant about the issues you talk about
every day for years is a speciality of yours.
Isn't it?
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> news:lh4q045ho8sphv13b...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:52:29 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>> news:uodn04t4oe5pt6igi...@4ax.com...
>>>> The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
>>>> cooler
>>>> star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
>>>> wrt
>>>> the
>>>> star.
>>>>
>>> What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
>> This is obviously far too hard for you. Stop making a fool of yourself and
>> go
>> quietly away.
>
> You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.
And your are obviously asking what it means in this context:
Henri Wilson:
" .. its spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
wrt the star."
I see that Henri has tried to answer this question, but he has obviously
forgotten what he is talking about, and is giving an incredible
confused answer. :-)
It is quite simple.
We are talking about the B8 spectrum and the K2 spectrum from
respectively the primary and the secondary component of the Algol binary.
Since the components are orbiting each other in circular orbits,
the radial velocity of the stars will vary sinusoidally, and
the variation will be 180 degrees out of phase.
When one star is approaching, the other is receding, and vice versa.
Since the radial velocity varies, the Doppler shift of
the spectrum will vary sinusoidally. The spectrum is blue shifted
when the star is approaching, red shifted when it is receding.
So when the A8 spectrum is blue shifted, the K2 spectrum is red
shifted, and vice versa.
Loosely said:
"The two spectra are Doppler shifted 180 out of phase."
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:22:58 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>> news:lh4q045ho8sphv13b...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:52:29 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>>> news:uodn04t4oe5pt6igi...@4ax.com...
>>>>> The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
>>>>> cooler
>>>>> star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
>>>>> wrt
>>>>> the
>>>>> star.
>>>>>
>>>> What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
>>> This is obviously far too hard for you. Stop making a fool of yourself and
>>> go
>>> quietly away.
>> You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.
>
> I appreciate it is difficult....and maybe you are also Norwegian.
Well, let's hope he is not from down under,
because being upside down seems to lead to confusion:
> Here is a linear analogy of a ring gyro:
>
> Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a distant
> 'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are initially in
> phase.
>
> S1_________________________________D
> S2
>
> Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is different,the number
> of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
> At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different speeds,
> such that they arrive at D together.
>
> Since they move through different path lengths, the number of wavecrests from
> each oscillator arriving at D before the two sources arrive is also different,
> causing the observed phase displacement.
>
> Alternatively, the frequency of 'wavecrest arrival' at D from the two
> oscillators is not the same. The two rays appear doppler shifted by (c+v)/c and
> (c-v)/c. Since they travel for the same time and are initially in phase, they
> are out of phase when they meet at the detector.
>
> Get it now?
Try standing on your head.
It must be better, because it can't be worse.
--
Paul
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
When you say '*they* arrive at D together' - what is the *they* that you are
referring to? 'S1 & S2 themselves' or the 'waves from S1 and S2'
> Since they move through different path lengths, the number of wavecrests
> from
> each oscillator arriving at D before the two sources arrive is also
> different,
> causing the observed phase displacement.
The difference in path length isn't constant, does this mean that the phase
displacement is also not constant?
> Alternatively, the frequency of 'wavecrest arrival' at D from the two
> oscillators is not the same. The two rays appear doppler shifted by
> (c+v)/c and
> (c-v)/c. Since they travel for the same time and are initially in phase,
> they
> are out of phase when they meet at the detector.
Where does v come from?
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>OG wrote:
>> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>> news:lh4q045ho8sphv13b...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:52:29 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>>> news:uodn04t4oe5pt6igi...@4ax.com...
>>>>> The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
>>>>> cooler
>>>>> star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
>>>>> wrt
>>>>> the
>>>>> star.
>>>>>
>>>> What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
>>> This is obviously far too hard for you. Stop making a fool of yourself and
>>> go
>>> quietly away.
>>
>> You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.
>
>And your are obviously asking what it means in this context:
>Henri Wilson:
>" .. its spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
> wrt the star."
Are you drunk? We are discussing Sagnac.
>I see that Henri has tried to answer this question, but he has obviously
>forgotten what he is talking about, and is giving an incredible
>confused answer. :-)
>
>It is quite simple.
>We are talking about the B8 spectrum and the K2 spectrum from
>respectively the primary and the secondary component of the Algol binary.
>Since the components are orbiting each other in circular orbits,
>the radial velocity of the stars will vary sinusoidally, and
>the variation will be 180 degrees out of phase.
>When one star is approaching, the other is receding, and vice versa.
>Since the radial velocity varies, the Doppler shift of
>the spectrum will vary sinusoidally. The spectrum is blue shifted
>when the star is approaching, red shifted when it is receding.
>So when the A8 spectrum is blue shifted, the K2 spectrum is red
>shifted, and vice versa.
>
>Loosely said:
>"The two spectra are Doppler shifted 180 out of phase."
So now you are agreeing with me. Do you also apologise for your stupidity?
In the absence of a third object, the doppler shifts are exactly 180 out of
phase.
Dr. Henri Wilson
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:smcv0417b78cgdjre...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:22:58 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I appreciate it is difficult....and maybe you are also Norwegian.
>> Here is a linear analogy of a ring gyro:
>>
>> Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a
>> distant
>> 'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are initially
>> in
>> phase.
>>
>> S1_________________________________D
>> S2
>>
>> Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is different,the
>> number
>> of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
>> At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different
>> speeds,
>> such that they arrive at D together.
>
>When you say '*they* arrive at D together' - what is the *they* that you are
>referring to? 'S1 & S2 themselves' or the 'waves from S1 and S2'
...a particular infinitesimal element that leaves the source and is split into
the two, Each half goes into a different ray. The two leave together and arrive
at the detector together. One travels further than the other.
The source actually emits two traveling waves in opposite directions..
In the source frame, the wavelength (distance between point of equal phase) in
both rays is the same. Therefore, since the path lengths are different, there
are more whole wavelengths in one ray than the other.
>> Since they move through different path lengths, the number of wavecrests
>> from
>> each oscillator arriving at D before the two sources arrive is also
>> different,
>> causing the observed phase displacement.
>
>The difference in path length isn't constant, does this mean that the phase
>displacement is also not constant?
At zero rotation speed, there is no fringe displacement.
At any other rotation speed, there is a finite and constant displacement.
Fringe MOVEMENT occurs only during a change in rotation speed.
>> Alternatively, the frequency of 'wavecrest arrival' at D from the two
>> oscillators is not the same. The two rays appear doppler shifted by
>> (c+v)/c and
>> (c-v)/c. Since they travel for the same time and are initially in phase,
>> they
>> are out of phase when they meet at the detector.
>
>Where does v come from?
'v' is the peripheral speed of the ring wrt the nonrotating frame.
Hence the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt that frame.
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
I was talking about YOUR analogy. Please stick to the terms of YOUR
explanation
S1, S2 and D
Now - please explain how this helps explain the term - 'doppler shifted 180
out of phase'. If you can.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:59:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>
>>>> The wavelength distribution would also likely be different, probably with the
>>>> mode shifted towards the red, making the 'second star' appear cooler.
>>> Not much better.
>>> Light reflected off a planet will never
>>> be mistaken for the light from a star.
>>
>> Oh?
>> What would be the main differences?
>
>If you measure the visual spectrum from one of the terrestial
>planets and try to determine the spectral class as if it was
>a stellar spectrum, you will find that it is a G2 spectrum
>like the Sun. Of course there would be differences telling you
>that the spectrum isn't from a star, but the main point
>is that it cannot be mistaken for any other type of spectrum
>than G2.
Oh, rubbish.
Do you really believe that our sun's spectrum could be determined solely by
examining the spectrum of Jupiter?
>See why below.
>
>>> But is this an attempt to flee your statement about Algol,
>>> namely that the secondary K2 spectrum could easily be a reflection
>>> of the primary B8 spectrum from a large cool dead star or planet?
>>>
>>> Do you retract this statement, or do you defend it?
>>>
>>> Or is this another case where you didn't say what you said? :-)
>>
>> B8 is considerably hotter than a K2.
>> Where is the problem?
>> Reflected B8 light could easily lose much of the shorter wavelength
>> contributions.
>> The radiation curve could conceivably resemble that of a faint K2.
>
>How do you manage to stay this ignorant after having
>discussed these issues for years?
>
>I have told you this numerous times, PLEASE LEARN IT THIS TIME:
>The spectral class of a star is determined by the relative
>positions and strengths of the absorption lines,
>not by where the black body spectrum peaks.
As I already stated, both emission and absorption lines are reflected from the
planet. Their relative proportions will likely be considerably affected by the
planet's albedo and atmosphere.
>That's why a Doppler shift doesn't affect the determination
>of the spectral class.
I didn't mention doppler shift. You are becoming quite confused.
>There is a strong (one to one) correlation between
>the spectral class and the temperature of a star,
>so when the spectral class is determined, so is the
>temperature.
Of course.
>Look at the B0 spectrum here:
>http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/O-Gspect.gif
>compare it to the K0 spectrum here:
>http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/G-Mspect.gif
>You can also see the spectra here:
>http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html
>
>Note that the B spectrum has few absorption lines in
>the red end of the spectrum, while the K spectrum
>has a lot of absorption lines in the red end.
That would imply different atmospheres. In the third reference above, the F
type has an additional element in its atmosphere.
>The spectra are very different, _and have *very* different
>sets of absorption lines_. There is no way you can make
>a B spectrum look like a K spectrum by "shifting it towards
>the red."
I didn't say the lines were doppler shifted.
I said the DISTRIBUTION (hystogram of wavelengths) would probably be shifted
towards the red.
You are now terribly confused.
>If you want to learn about the determination of spectra,
>go here:
>http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~marschal/clea/speclab.html
>and download the SpecLab program.
>You can then measure the spectra of different stars
>with a virtual telescope, and classify them by comparing
>them to standard spectra.
>Have fun. :-)
>
>Bottom line:
>You have to be - if not a moron - extremely ignorant of
>the most basic issues of astronomy not to realize that
>the statement:
> "A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
> easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
> of phase."
>is incredible stupid.
You are now hopelessly confused.
>But staying ignorant about the issues you talk about
>every day for years is a speciality of yours.
>Isn't it?
You seem to be confusing the discussion of Sagnac with that relating to star
spectra.
Dr. Henri Wilson
Oh for christs's sake, thanks to Paul Tusselad, there are two entirely
unrelated topics being discussed here.
Andersen has a habit of changing the subject and misquoting me when he knows he
has lost the argument.
The 180 phase shift statement refers to the spectra of the members of a binary
pair of stars. It has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect or my ring gyro
analysis.
See the SR diagram at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
to see what is happening.
SR says the light speed of both rays is c in the inertial frame and the travel
times are different, leading to a phase displacement.
BaTh says the speeds are c+v and c-v in the inertial frame, the travel times
are the same but the frequencies are different, leading to the same phase
displacement as predicted by SR.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:32:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:59:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>> The wavelength distribution would also likely be different, probably with the
>>>>> mode shifted towards the red, making the 'second star' appear cooler.
>>>> Not much better.
>>>> Light reflected off a planet will never
>>>> be mistaken for the light from a star.
>>> Oh?
>>> What would be the main differences?
>> If you measure the visual spectrum from one of the terrestial
>> planets and try to determine the spectral class as if it was
>> a stellar spectrum, you will find that it is a G2 spectrum
>> like the Sun. Of course there would be differences telling you
>> that the spectrum isn't from a star, but the main point
>> is that it cannot be mistaken for any other type of spectrum
>> than G2.
>
> Oh, rubbish.
> Do you really believe that our sun's spectrum could be determined solely by
> examining the spectrum of Jupiter?
Is Jupiter one of the terrestrial planets?
(We have to exclude Venus as well, because of it's
atmosphere.)
Look:
The colour of Mars and Mercury is mainly grey,
(even if Mars is slightly reddish).
That means that the albedo is approximately independent
of the wavelength for light in the visible range.
So the light reflected off them will contain exactly
the same set of absorption lines as the Sun, which
is a G2 spectrum. No new lines will appear, and no
lines will disappear. So even if the continuum may
be altered, the light can still be identified as
originally coming from a G2 star, and _never_ from
any other spectral class.
If you don't believe it, look at:
http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=13877
download the full text.
Look at the Sun's spectrum in fig.5 and compare
that to the visible part of the spectrum
of the reflected light in the lower diagram in fig.8.
(The spectra are very different in IR, because of
the albedo's strong dependence of wavelength in that range.
That's why I explicitly said the _visible_ spectrum.)
I did however say that there are differences which will
reveal that the light is _not_ coming directly
from a star, and the most important difference will
be change in the continuum because the albedo is
not strictly independent of the wavelength.
If we include the spectrum outside of the visible
range, the difference is very obvious.
The spectrum of the light reflected off the gas
planets or Venus will be very different, because
of the spectral lines from the atmosphere.
The spectrum will be nothing like the spectrum
from any star, and can never be confused with
a stellar spectrum.
The bottom line is that when the light from a star
is reflected off a planet, the spectrum of the reflected
light can never be confused with the spectrum of a star,
and certainly not with the spectrum of a star of a different
spectral class.
Your statement was:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."
The idea is absolute ridiculous, and reveals a complete
ignorance of what a stellar spectrum is and how it
is identified.
In the rest of this posting, you yet again demonstrate
your utter ignorance and your inability and unwillingness
to even consider remedy that ignorance.
Inability to learn is the hallmark of a moron.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:25:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> OG wrote:
>>> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>> news:lh4q045ho8sphv13b...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:52:29 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uodn04t4oe5pt6igi...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
>>>>>> cooler
>>>>>> star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
>>>>>> wrt
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> star.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
>>>> This is obviously far too hard for you. Stop making a fool of yourself and
>>>> go
>>>> quietly away.
>>> You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.
>> And your are obviously asking what it means in this context:
>> Henri Wilson:
>> " .. its spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
>> wrt the star."
The conversation so far:
HW:
The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
cooler star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out
of phase wrt the star.
OG:
What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
HW:
This is obviously far too hard for you.
Stop making a fool of yourself and go quietly away.
OG:
You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.
> Are you drunk? We are discussing Sagnac.
Is anybody drunk? Who is that? :-)
>> I see that Henri has tried to answer this question, but he has obviously
>> forgotten what he is talking about, and is giving an incredible
>> confused answer. :-)
>>
>> It is quite simple.
>> We are talking about the B8 spectrum and the K2 spectrum from
>> respectively the primary and the secondary component of the Algol binary.
>> Since the components are orbiting each other in circular orbits,
>> the radial velocity of the stars will vary sinusoidally, and
>> the variation will be 180 degrees out of phase.
>> When one star is approaching, the other is receding, and vice versa.
>> Since the radial velocity varies, the Doppler shift of
>> the spectrum will vary sinusoidally. The spectrum is blue shifted
>> when the star is approaching, red shifted when it is receding.
>> So when the A8 spectrum is blue shifted, the K2 spectrum is red
>> shifted, and vice versa.
>>
>> Loosely said:
>> "The two spectra are Doppler shifted 180 out of phase."
>
> So now you are agreeing with me. Do you also apologise for your stupidity?
OK, I apologise.
Your failure to know what 'we' are talking about is obviously my stupidity.
I can't guarantee that you won't repeat my stupidity
and again forget what 'we' are talking about, though.
> In the absence of a third object, the doppler shifts are exactly 180 out of
> phase.
Quite.
That's what the sober person explained to OG since
the drunk person had forgotten what 'we' were talking about.
The latter person actually thought that two spectra
Doppler shifted 180 out of phase is "discussing Sagnac"!
How drunk can you get? :-)
--
Paul, still able to be amused by Henri's confusion
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
You what? Don't blame someone else - You started an 'explanation', then
talked about Sagnac when I asked for clarification
> The 180 phase shift statement refers to the spectra of the members of a
> binary
> pair of stars. It has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect or my ring gyro
> analysis.
Yes, but you claimed it's doppler related, but not explained why.
> See the SR diagram at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> to see what is happening.
> SR says the light speed of both rays is c in the inertial frame and the
> travel
> times are different, leading to a phase displacement.
But since it's 'nothing to do with Sagnac' I don't know why you are posting
a link to a page about 'Sagnac'. Is there a reason?
> BaTh says the speeds are c+v and c-v in the inertial frame, the travel
> times
> are the same but the frequencies are different, leading to the same phase
> displacement as predicted by SR.
You're *still* talking about Sagnac
I want to know why orbiting binary stars can have a '180 phase shift' due
to doppler. You said they do, but you've totally screwed up your
explanation.
Nothing more about Sagnac please.
Just to remind you, I'm asking for your clarification about the following
> Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a
> distant 'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are
> initially in phase.
>
> S1_________________________________D
> S2
>
> Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is different,the
> number of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
> At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different
> speeds, such that they arrive at D together.
When you say '*they* arrive at D together' - what is the *they* that you are
referring to? 'S1 & S2 themselves' or the 'waves from S1 and S2'
> Since they move through different path lengths, the number of wavecrests
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Of course it is not.
Our own planet is a good example of that.
>If we include the spectrum outside of the visible
>range, the difference is very obvious.
>
>The spectrum of the light reflected off the gas
>planets or Venus will be very different, because
>of the spectral lines from the atmosphere.
>The spectrum will be nothing like the spectrum
>from any star, and can never be confused with
>a stellar spectrum.
>
>The bottom line is that when the light from a star
>is reflected off a planet, the spectrum of the reflected
>light can never be confused with the spectrum of a star,
>and certainly not with the spectrum of a star of a different
>spectral class.
You are rambling. Why don't you just admit you are wrong.
A large planet or cool object with an atmosphere will reflect the light from a
nearby star. The relected spectrum will likely contain the same lines but in
different proportions.
You pointed out, yourself, some time ago that a star's temperature was assessed
from the ratios of various emission and absorption lines not from the
spectrum's peak value.
>Your statement was:
> "A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
> easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
> of phase."
>
>The idea is absolute ridiculous, and reveals a complete
>ignorance of what a stellar spectrum is and how it
>is identified.
Much of physics today would have been classified as ridiculous even one hundred
years ago.
You should bring youself up to date.
>In the rest of this posting, you yet again demonstrate
>your utter ignorance and your inability and unwillingness
>to even consider remedy that ignorance.
>
>Inability to learn is the hallmark of a moron.
..takes on to know one...
>>> I have told you this numerous times, PLEASE LEARN IT THIS TIME:
>>> The spectral class of a star is determined by the relative
>>> positions and strengths of the absorption lines,
>>> not by where the black body spectrum peaks.
>>
>> As I already stated, both emission and absorption lines are reflected from the
>> planet. Their relative proportions will likely be considerably affected by the
>> planet's albedo and atmosphere.
>>
>>> That's why a Doppler shift doesn't affect the determination
>>> of the spectral class.
>>
>> I didn't mention doppler shift. You are becoming quite confused.
>>
>>> There is a strong (one to one) correlation between
>>> the spectral class and the temperature of a star,
>>> so when the spectral class is determined, so is the
>>> temperature.
>>
>> Of course.
>>
.
>>
>> You are now hopelessly confused.
>>
>>> But staying ignorant about the issues you talk about
>>> every day for years is a speciality of yours.
>>> Isn't it?
>
>Quod erat demonstrandum.
Yes. You have an inability to learn.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:25:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>> Henri Wilson:
>>> " .. its spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase
>>> wrt the star."
>
>The conversation so far:
>HW:
> The planet's reflection could easily be mistaken for emission from a
> cooler star since it spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out
> of phase wrt the star.
>OG:
> What does 'doppler shifted 180 out of phase' actually mean ?
>HW:
> This is obviously far too hard for you.
> Stop making a fool of yourself and go quietly away.
>OG:
> You have still to explain how doppler shifting can cause phase change.
>
>> Are you drunk? We are discussing Sagnac.
>
>Is anybody drunk? Who is that? :-)
.You have deliberately caused this confusion by changing the subject from
Sagnac to variable stars. OG is not aware that this is a regular tactic of
yours when in a tight spot.
OG is now totally confused.
>>> I see that Henri has tried to answer this question, but he has obviously
>>> forgotten what he is talking about, and is giving an incredible
>>> confused answer. :-)
>>>
>>> It is quite simple.
>>> We are talking about the B8 spectrum and the K2 spectrum from
>>> respectively the primary and the secondary component of the Algol binary.
>>> Since the components are orbiting each other in circular orbits,
>>> the radial velocity of the stars will vary sinusoidally, and
>>> the variation will be 180 degrees out of phase.
>>> When one star is approaching, the other is receding, and vice versa.
>>> Since the radial velocity varies, the Doppler shift of
>>> the spectrum will vary sinusoidally. The spectrum is blue shifted
>>> when the star is approaching, red shifted when it is receding.
>>> So when the A8 spectrum is blue shifted, the K2 spectrum is red
>>> shifted, and vice versa.
>>>
>>> Loosely said:
>>> "The two spectra are Doppler shifted 180 out of phase."
>>
>> So now you are agreeing with me. Do you also apologise for your stupidity?
>
>OK, I apologise.
>Your failure to know what 'we' are talking about is obviously my stupidity.
>
>I can't guarantee that you won't repeat my stupidity
>and again forget what 'we' are talking about, though.
The original topic of this thread was Algol's light curve.
YOU then claimed that BaTh was refuted by Sagnac. I have repeatedly shown you
why that is incorrect. Sagnac is completely compatible with BaTh. You refuse to
even learn why...even though the explaination is very simple.
>> In the absence of a third object, the doppler shifts are exactly 180 out of
>> phase.
>
>Quite.
>That's what the sober person explained to OG since
>the drunk person had forgotten what 'we' were talking about.
>The latter person actually thought that two spectra
>Doppler shifted 180 out of phase is "discussing Sagnac"!
>How drunk can you get? :-)
OK, you have now proved that OG is drunk most of the time. Where do we go from
here?
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Henri - you really ought to pay attention.
You see the thread title? Maybe you missed the bit that said 'Algol' - just
to be sure its actually mentioned twice in the title.
Algol - 5 letters, a variable star
Now look for a 6 letter word in the title beginning with S and ending in
agnac - can you see it? No nor can I. So why are you still insisting that
this thread is about Sagnac
The thread *is* about variable stars.
So let's get back to the discussion in hand, which is 'Can Henri explain how
the doppler effect gives rise to a phase shift of 180 degrees?'
Dr. Henri Wilson
Andersen introduced the Sagnac red herring when he realised he was losing the
argument. That's typical...
>The thread *is* about variable stars.
>So let's get back to the discussion in hand, which is 'Can Henri explain how
>the doppler effect gives rise to a phase shift of 180 degrees?'
What are you talking about? The 'doppler effect' is an EFFECT not a cause.
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
No he bloody well didn't
You introduced the 'Sagnac red herring' in your response to Jerry at 03:14
on 14.04
>>The thread *is* about variable stars.
>>So let's get back to the discussion in hand, which is 'Can Henri explain
>>how
>>the doppler effect gives rise to a phase shift of 180 degrees?'
>
> What are you talking about? The 'doppler effect' is an EFFECT not a cause.
So complete the explanation of your own exact words
"spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase wrt the star."
you started with the following
>> Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a
>> distant 'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are
>> initially in phase.
>>
>> S1_________________________________D
>> S2
>>
>> Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is different,the
>> number of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
>> At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different
>> speeds, such that they arrive at D together.
At which I asked
OG
"OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:67i5l1F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> you started with the following
>>> Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a
>>> distant 'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are
>>> initially in phase.
>>>
>>> S1_________________________________D
>>> S2
>>>
>>> Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is different,the
>>> number of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
>>> At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different
>>> speeds, such that they arrive at D together.
>
> At which I asked
When you say '*they* arrive at D together' - what is the *they* that you are
Dr. Henri Wilson
Dr. Henri Wilson
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:mfk7141gemnvprm8i...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:45:27 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Algol - 5 letters, a variable star
>>>
>>>Now look for a 6 letter word in the title beginning with S and ending in
>>>agnac - can you see it? No nor can I. So why are you still insisting
>>>that
>>>this thread is about Sagnac
>>
>> Andersen introduced the Sagnac red herring when he realised he was losing
>> the
>> argument. That's typical...
>
>
>No he bloody well didn't
>You introduced the 'Sagnac red herring' in your response to Jerry at 03:14
>on 14.04
Whenever I or anyone else demonstrates that BaTh is aive and well people like
Andersen and Jerry immediately claim that Sagnac refutes it.
They are indoctrinated morons who don't ..or can't...understand how and why the
Sagnac effect is a fully explained by ballistic theory
I don't think you are any better.
>>>The thread *is* about variable stars.
>>>So let's get back to the discussion in hand, which is 'Can Henri explain
>>>how
>>>the doppler effect gives rise to a phase shift of 180 degrees?'
>>
>> What are you talking about? The 'doppler effect' is an EFFECT not a cause.
>
>So complete the explanation of your own exact words
>"spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase wrt the star."
Listen you bloody idiot, if you knew anything about physics or astronomy you
would know that the light from the two members of a binary pair is doppler
shifted roughly sinusoidally because of the sources' relative velocity wrt
earth. The doppler shift of the spectrum of one is 180 out of phase wrt that of
the other. This is very basic stuff...so stop making a fool of yourself..
>you started with the following
>>> Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a
>>> distant 'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and are
>>> initially in phase.
>>>
>>> S1_________________________________D
>>> S2
>>>
>>> Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is different,the
>>> number of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
>>> At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different
>>> speeds, such that they arrive at D together.
>
>At which I asked
.......to be admited to an institution for the mentally impaired....
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:10:37 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>So complete the explanation of your own exact words
>>"spectrum lines would be doppler shifted 180 out of phase wrt the star."
>
> Listen you bloody idiot, if you knew anything about physics or astronomy
> you
> would know that the light from the two members of a binary pair is doppler
> shifted roughly sinusoidally because of the sources' relative velocity wrt
> earth. The doppler shift of the spectrum of one is 180 out of phase wrt
> that of
> the other. This is very basic stuff...so stop making a fool of yourself..
Finally, you have explained yourself.
Your inept initial phrase "spectrum lines would be doppler shifted ... out
of phase wrt the star"
and your aborted explanation of what you meant made me wonder whether you
had some insight into physics; but in fact it was my error was in taking
your words at face value.
OG
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:13:09 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:67i5l1F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> you started with the following
>>>>> Two identical oscillators are positioned at different distances from a
>>>>> distant 'detection point', D. They are emitting continuous waves and
>>>>> are
>>>>> initially in phase.
>>>>>
>>>>> S1_________________________________D
>>>>> S2
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the distance between the oscillators and point D is
>>>>> different,the
>>>>> number of wavelengths in each path is not the same.
>>>>> At a particular instant, they are set moving towards D at different
>>>>> speeds, such that they arrive at D together.
>>>
>>> At which I asked
>>
>>When you say '*they* arrive at D together' - what is the *they* that you
>>are
>>referring to? 'S1 & S2 themselves' or the 'waves from S1 and S2'
>
> Run this program: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe
> It explains everything.
It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation if
you are able.
YBM
....
> It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation if
> you are able.
Arguing with Ralph Rabbidge (aka Henry Wilson) is quite a pleasant game,
and a useless one isn't it ? I'd undertand how successfull you feel to
show how right you are in front of such elementary stupidity. You are
completely right : Wilson is an idiot of the worse kind.
BTW, you was supposed to enlight all of us by explaining us how using
c=1 (or 2, or whatever) would break dimensional analysis as you are
suposed to have studied it (what I doubt). Then you became suddenly
silent. Did you lost your thongue ?
YBM
....
> It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation if
> you are able.
Arguing with Ralph Rabbidge (aka Henry Wilson) is quite a pleasant game,
and a useless one isn't it ? I'd undertand how successfull you feel to
show how right you are in front of such elementary stupidity. You are
completely right : Wilson is an idiot of the worse kind.
BTW, you was supposed to enlight all of us by explaining us how using
c=1 (or 2, or whatever) would break dimensional analysis as you are
suposed to have studied it (what I doubt). Then you became suddenly
silent. Did you loose your thongue ?
Paul B. Andersen
Quite.
So your statement below _is_ ridiculous, isn't it? :-)
Henri Wilson wrote:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
of phase."
That says it all.
And he is calling himself a "Doctor"! :-)
Maybe it's time for Ralph Rabbidge to change his name again?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ChangeName.html
"We can say what we like without fear of
losing our reputation. We can put forward any
hypothesis no matter how stupid it might appear."
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:481593DC...@hiadeletethis.no...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| "A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
| easily result in two different spectra, B and K, shifted 180 out
| of phase."
|
| That says it all.
Pick the spectral type out of this:
http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/cyberspace/sun/images/spectrum02.jpg
That says it all.
Dr. Henri Wilson
How could it do any damage when I wrote the thing.
If you want to see why a ring gyro works, run it.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Quite easily.
>That says it all.
You are still rambling. Why don't you just admit you are wrong.
OG
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:48152e86$0$6975$426a...@news.free.fr...
No, I've been thinking about it.
Explain again how c can be be made to be dimensionless - given that it
represents both distance and time
I'm listening.
YBM
What's are you babbling ? Making c=1 is not making c dimentionless.
BTW, in a way this could be done in SR, but I'm afraid going on this
would confuse you even more.
OG
Ah, that's where the confusion lies.
I said "But c cannot = = 1, as c is not a dimensionless number"
So whar happened is that I said 'c is not dimensionless' and you said I was
wrong. You now agree that c is NOT dimensionless, so you agree with me in
that c is not 'a dimensionless 1'
Glad we cleared that up - was there anything else?
Dr. Henri Wilson
Roberts seemed to think it does.
>BTW, in a way this could be done in SR, but I'm afraid going on this
>would confuse you even more.
Tell us how, Yodelling Babbonbrained Marauder.