Re: For Henri Wilson.
From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_hia.no)
Date: 09/17/04
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Speed of light as a constant."
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Russia gets it. Democrats don't."
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: For Henri Wilson."
- Next in thread: Myxococcus xanthus: "Re: For Henri Wilson."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:35:18 +0200
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:u34kk01d5dt5ehb3j0494piuj525uucfce@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:12:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:qe7fk0d9t1kvhqla2l0qflg9k2mbtksj0h@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:17:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >
> >>
> >> Paul I have now given you about five good reasons why you wont see the flashes
> >> that YOUR version of the ballistic theory expects.
> >
> >You are referring to these flashes, right?
> >
> >Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004:
> >| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory
> >| predicts HD80715 should look like.
> >| From:
> >| http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9912/9912158.pdf
> >| You can see from the spectrum that the H_alpha line split ca. 2.5A,
> >| which is a relative split of 3.8*10^-4.
> >| This means that the amplitude of each component is ca. 1.9*10^-4.
> >| The amplitude of the radial (from observer) component of
> >| the orbital speed will thus be v/c = 1.9*10^-4, or v = 57 km/s.
> >| The period is 3.8 days.
> >| From:
> >| http://astro.estec.esa.nl/hipparcos_scripts/HIPcatalogueSearch.pl
> >| we find that the distance is 24 parsecs.
> >|
> >| These number will give the ratio (2*pi*d*v/c^2)/p
> >| the value 9.
> >| So we will during one period see five stars all the time,
> >| and two additional stars part of the time. These two last
> >| stars will either merge in a brilliant flash, or suddenly
> >| appear in a brilliant flash and then split.
> >| These flashes will be brighter than 1 for 0.036 period,
> >| brighter than 10 for 0.0004 period,
> >| brighter than 100 for 0.000004 period.
> >| By adding the brightness of the stars, we will get
> >| the following light curve:
> >|
> >| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1.
> >| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star
> >| N is number of stars seen.
> >|
> >| phase brightness N
> >|
> >| 0.0 1.22 7
> >| 0.1 1.21 7
> >| 0.17 1.97 7
> >| 0.18 2.45 7
> >| 0.19 5.90 7
> >| 0.1913 60.00 7
> >| 0.191310 infinite 7->5
> >| 0.2 0.66 5
> >| 0.3 0.64 5
> >| 0.4 0.63 5
> >| 0.5 0.62 5
> >| 0.6 0.63 5
> >| 0.7 0.64 5
> >| 0.8 0.67 5
> >| 0.808719 infinite 5->7
> >| 0.8089 21.6 7
> >| 0.809 11.80 7
> >| 0.81 3.90 7
> >| 0.9 1.34 7
> >| 1.0 1.22 7
> >|
> >| Note that the integral over one period is 1,
> >| that is the average brightness is 1.
> >|
> >| The above is for one of the stars, you can get
> >| the light curve for both stars by translating
> >| the above half a period and adding.
> >
> >Henri Wilson responded:
> >| I can get these figures from my program.
> >|
> >| Surprisingly, they agree exactly with yours..... proves my program is
> >| correct.... not that I ever doubted it.
> >|
> >| So I could have saved you all that time and trouble.
> >| Just click your mouse a
> >| few times and...there is your curve.
> >
> >... which MY version of the ballistic theory predicts, eh? :-)
> >
> >And one of the reasons why we don't see the flashes
> >predicted by the ballistic theory is: sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0?
> >
> >> You are so brainwashed you have lost your powers of reason.
> >
> >Since the reason in your remark:
> >"Avoiding: sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0"
> >escapes me, I suppose I must be brainwashed.
> >But I am confident that you will explain the reason
> >in your remark:.Won't you?
> >
> >Paul, still having a good time
>
> Typical example of your snipping and lying to distort the facts.
>
> You know as well as I do that my reference to sin(t/T) + sin(t/T+pi) = 0 had
> nothing to do with the absence of flashes but to an entirely different question
> you raised, namely that relating to the absence of variation in the brightness
> curves of supposed close binaries.
Didn't know what else to say, eh? :-)
BTW, what DID you say? :-)
Paul
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Speed of light as a constant."
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Russia gets it. Democrats don't."
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: For Henri Wilson."
- Next in thread: Myxococcus xanthus: "Re: For Henri Wilson."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
