Re: A Ballistic photon theory

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 06/20/04 

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:38:33 GMT

"Ballisticus" <B@..> wrote in message
news:v9p9d0dad50rvg18at2h72h9r550a2c5ct@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:11:18 GMT, "Androcles"
| <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Ballisticus" <B@..> wrote in message
| >news:7rc7d0hc6i423l2p9colsht702e24b02n0@4ax.com...
| >| On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:18:31 GMT, "Androcles"
| >| <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in message
| >| >news:caulkf$icj$1@dolly.uninett.no...
| >| >|
| >| >| "Ballisticus" <B@..> skrev i melding
| >| >news:r4asc0tcn448veb42i59nhao56e6u5p4oo@4ax.com...
|
| >| >| > Paul, I will give you a clue as to why you and the other
traditional
| >| >| > anti-ballisticians are wrong.
| >| >| >
| >| >| > When you did your 'calculations' you forgot to take into account
the
| >| >motion of
| >| >| > the C of G of the binary pair.
| >| >| >
| >| >| > It makes all the difference you know.
| >| >|
| >| >| Sure.
| >| >| All you have to show is that the CG of 57 Gyg
| >| >| for decades has been accelerating away faster
| >| >| than the maximal acceleration of the radial
| >| >| component of the orbital motion.
| >| >|
| >| >| But I look forward to see your next program
| >| >| show that 57 Cyg according to the ballistic theory
| >| >| should not be a variable.
| >| >|
| >| >| Since the current version of your program falsifies
| >| >| the ballistic theory, you sure will have a hell of a job
| >| >| do do. :-)
| >| >|
| >| >| Paul
| >| >
| >| >"In recent years, according to Struve, evidence has been accumulated
to
| >show
| >| >that close binary systems are usually surrounded be a gaseous
| >envelope". -
| >| >J.G. Fox, AMJ, Volume 30, 1961, "Experimental Evidence for the Second
| >| >Postulate of Special Relativity", section IV.
| >| >
| >| >Thus close binaries such as 57 Cyg should not be variable.
| >| >You almost had me worried, nTaul.
| >| >Not any more, though.
| >| >Kick and scream and hold your breath all you want, stamp your feet all
| >you
| >| >want. The evidence is there.
| >| >
| >| >Androcles
| >| >
| >|
| >| Thankyou A.
| >|
| >| Paul is very persistent about this even though I have already given him
| >two
| >| reasons why 57Cyg should not vary.
| >|
| >You're welcome. I've been rather quiet recently because such research
isn't
| >always easy.
| >I'm not happy with your answers though, because you assume they ARE
| >binaries.
|
| No I don't.
| I have shown how a single star rotating around a dark companion can appear
to
| behave like a binary.

Ok. Maybe I just don't like the term "dark companion" for "planet" and
"rotate around" for being "orbited by". You make it sound like "the Earth
rotates around the moon". Any two bodies will have a common point about
which they revolve and it only takes a wobble and some distance for c+v to
show up.

| >I've said this often, one fish seen through the side pane and also seen
| >through the front pane of an ordinary rectangular glass tank gives the
| >appearance of two fish swimming identically. Does that mean there are
binary
| >fish?
| >If there is a gaseous envelope, that doesn't necessarily mean there are
two
| >stars, particularly when, as Andersen is claiming, they are of identical
| >type. If a single star is wobbling within the envelope, counterbalanced
by a
| >large nearby planet, then the envelope thickness is varying in our
| >direction. That will vary the velocity of light from the star, being c+v
| >when the star is at the edge and c when on the far side.
| >let ( and ) = envelope
| >let O = star
| >let o = planet
| >let > = observer
| >
| >then when t = 0,
| >
| >(O---) o -------------c---------->
| >Light is limited to c by envelope.
|
| I se your argument but what about the speed of the envelope relative to
| observer?
At rest, or in uniform motion. The kids in the car bounce around, but the
car holds a steady course.

|
| >
| >and when t = P/2
| >o (---O) ------------c+v------->
| >Light is NOT limited to c by envelope.
| >and of course the limitation won't apply at t = P/4 or t = 3P/4 either.
| >
| >What nTaul totally failed to address is my analysis of the period of
Algol,
| >giving
| >only his usual bluster.
| > Referring to http://www.manybody.org/cgi-bin/starlab/binary_demo.pl
| >cited by nTaul Andersen, calculate the orbit of Algol.
| >Empirical data. Round figures:
| >Period = 70 hours
| >Eclipse = 10 hours.
| >That's 1/7 * 360 degrees = 52 degrees
| >Letting radius = 1 for the larger star, the secondary can be no further
than
| >2 / sin(26 degrees) = 4.56 radii separation. See diagram at
| >http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AlgolEclipse.JPG
| >
| >The calculation according to Andersen must then be:
| >0.8 days ~ 20 hours for the period, but it is known to be 70 hours.
| >This implies the separation is greater than 4.56.
| >If the separation is greater then 4.56, then the eclipse angle will be
less
| >than 52 degrees.
| >Andersen would calculate the separation as slightly over 11 radii to get
the
| >70 hour period, but that reduces the observed eclipse angle to less than
1/7
| >of the period.
| >asin(1/5.6) ~ 10 degrees.
| >So the eclipse of Algol should be 20*70 /360 about 4 hours, not 10
hours.
| >But it isn't. How come?
| >No matter how we try, we cannot reconcile the 10 hour eclipse with
| >separation distance.
| >
| >In other words, Algol CANNOT be a binary.
|
| The curve for Algol is undoubtedly that of a single star having
eccentricity
| above about 0.75 and its perihelion nearest to the observer.
| It is easy to produce with my program.
Yep. Mine too, although we could bicker about the eccentricity.
My point is, the "eclipse" interval is 1/7 the total period. If it were
really an eclipse, then that places limitations on the relative size and
separation of the two bodies. They cannot be more that 4.56 * the diameter
of the larger apart.
|
| Paul thinks he knows a lot about the ballistic theory and loves to
introduce a
| few equations. What he doesn't realise is that my program solves his
equations
| very quickly and gives a 4D output.
| In all, 12 variables can be changed.

Of course.

| I gather Paul has gone for a holiday so it's not much good talking about
| him.

He isn't interested in science anyway.

Androcles

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
    ... You know that I was refering to a situation where the large central star was ... |>curve and the 10um light curve and thus is proven wrong. ... BaTh predicted brightness curve is merely superimposed on any eclipse effect. ... observe at 10 um infra-red? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Spectrum!
    ... Androcles wrote: ... "the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour. ... and ends when they tangent each other ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Spectrum!
    ... |> different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark ... | Androcles wrote November 2004: ... You were a tusselader then, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
    ... axial and orbital motion using the return of a star to a location,the ... the Sun discovered by Kepler only is true if we take the length of ... and conclusions of astronomy and particularly heliocentric astronomy ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Goto Nixed for Club by AAVSO Oldtimer
    ... axial and orbital motion using the return of a star to a location,the ... is worth.The change in orbital orientation replaces the pseudo-dynamic ... orbital orientation change of the Earth to the Sun,due to the Earth's ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)