Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson
From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: TomGee: "Re: Part1: Another BIG Flaw in 1971 Time Dilation Flight Experiment"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Measuring Our Absolute Velocity"
- In reply to: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:00:07 GMT
In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
<paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no>
wrote
on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:34:32 +0100
<cubepr$fib$1@dolly.uninett.no>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
>> <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:01:08 +0100
>> <cu9rk6$7pf$1@dolly.uninett.no>:
>>
>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>www.britastro.com/vss/
>>>>
>>>>I can reproduce any of those curves with my program and tell you a great deal
>>>>about the star.
>>>
>>>Really? Do it then.
>>>But your light curves are obviously of no value whatsoever
>>>if you enter made up fantasy data.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure they're all that valuable if the theory's
>> wrong (except in proving the theory wrong), even if
>> he enters legitimate data. The link above apparently
>> points to the British Astronomical Association Variable
>> Star Section, which among other things gives a table of
>> stars of various forms. The table is badly laid out but
>> otherwise looks useful; one entry, for example, is
>>
>> Star name = 3C66A
>> RA = And 02 23 +43 02
>> Type = BLLAC
>> Range = 14 15.8
>> Period = unspecified
>> Chart = TA
>> Prog = unspecified
>> * = Alert
>>
>> BLLAC refers to a BL Lac object. No doubt this is a standard
>> designation but I'd have to dig.
>
> 3C66A isn't a star, it is a quasar.
> BL Lac is the "class name" for this particular type of quasar.
> The reason why the prototype BL Lac has a star-like name is
> that it was named before it was realized that quasars are
> not stars.
Ah.
>
>>
>>
>>>Even you understand that much, don't you?
>>>
>>>You have to enter real, measured data for known binaries, obviously.
>>>And there are thousand of such binaries you can use to test
>>>the predictions of the ballistic theory.
>>>
>>>Why not start with HD80715?
>>
>>
>> Not part of that star list, unfortunately.
>
> I was referring to the fact that Henri Wilson has used
> his program to find the light curve of this particular
> binary, and demonstrated that the ballistic theory
> predicts a lightcurve which is very different from
> the observed one.
> Henri has thus falsified the ballistic theory,
> a fact he hate to be reminded of, and which I
> therefore love to remind him of. :-)
>
> See below.
>
> > However, Google coughs
>> up, among other things,
>>
>> http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~wwwphys/ritter/archive/ra.html
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/operations/ccdcassobsPh_2004-.html
>>
>> though I don't know how to get the actual data files.
>>
>> http://xml.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/adc/xml_archives/journals/AJ/115/2397/J_AJ_115_2397_note1.dat
>>
>> has the line
>>
>> HD 80715 Equal-component spectroscopic binary, P=3.8days; a BY
>> Draconis type variable
>>
>> http://www.aip.de/groups/activity/CABS2/table5.dat
>>
>> suggests the distance is 29 parsecs, or 8.95 * 10^14 km.
>> With an assumed orbital speed of 200 km/s and an orbital
>> radius of about 160,000 km (which are probably way off),
>> my simulator shows some very interesting artifacts for the
>> emissive theory -- and these are quite different from my
>> earlier attempts. Basically, the newton brightness rises
>> through a hyperbolic curve to an apex that looks very close
>> to a delta/impulse function (this might very well be the
>> "flash" that H.W. is referring to) then drops to below the
>> mean, sitting there in a flat well until it flashes again,
>> in reverse. The rest of the curve exhibits a slow curved
>> trough, in this theoretical calculation. For its part
>> the SR curve is constant -- which is mostly because I've
>> not modeled the variability of the actual luminosity of
>> the two stars but have assumed that both are indeed constant.
>
> I think your calculations are correct.
>
> Here are my calculations of the same.
> Paul B. Andersen wrote June 3, 2004:
>
>
> | But 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/c2)/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
This does look a lot like my program, although I'm displaying
the results visually as opposed to generating lists of numbers.
Of course, internally I'm doing calculations, too. You've even
got the curved trough I've got.
Granted, I'm not using your parameters; I'm using a different
star -- but the c' = c+v artifacts are startling similar.
(They're also nonexistent in the real world, AFAIK. :-) )
> |
> | 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.
>
> Henry 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.
>
> Henri Wilson must have been unconscious when he freely admitted
> that the one time he used real, measured data in his program,
> he falsified the ballistic theory.
> He has regretted it ever since. :-)
>
>
>>
>> These artifacts are very stable as I vary orbital speed,
>> although the position and width of the gap and the depth
>> of the curved trough differ.
>>
>> My simulator is a fairly stupid little beastie which
>> basically runs through 5 million theoretical photons,
>> then computes a histogram of how many hit a hypothetical
>> detector back on Earth, as it runs through the orbital period,
>> after letting the photons travel through the intervening space.
>> (The program doesn't care which period the photon actually
>> ends up in, only where in the period -- using fmod().
>> It uses C.)
>>
>> Cutting down the number of photons to 50,000 makes the
>> program much faster, if a bit less accurate; it doesn't
>> change the artifacts significantly though the SR shows
>> some evidence of minor "pitting", which looks like a
>> computational artifact.
>>
>> It does not model eclipsing, either, but does assume the
>> orbit is circular and that the stars would eclipse. (Any
>> eclipsing would be near the start or the end of the histogram
>> range -- which is not where the flatspot is; depending on
>> the assumed orbital velocity it moves around.
>>
>> I doubt we are seeing anything even close to this
>> doublespike in the actual observations, but would need
>> more data to simulate it properly. I might have to refine
>> my simulation to show spectral line shift as well, to do
>> this properly. Ideally I'd be able to compute the orbital
>> velocity from the mean wavelength and the wavelength shift,
>> using SR.
>
> Yes, but remember that the spectrum shows the radial (from
> observer) velocity, not the orbital velocity.
> See:
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9912/9912158.pdf
>
> This binary is not eclipsing.
> But the brightness varies a little bit, 0.05 of a magnitude.
> The period is not equal to the orbital period.
> This variation is thought to be caused by large
> starspots.
>
>> I'm somewhat open on how to improve this thing, but don't
>> want to make it too complicated. Best I can do is allow the
>> keying in of the orbital velocity, orbital radius, distance
>> to mass center, and orbital period. I'm not sure I can
>> even model eccentricity properly, though I could add
>> orbital tilt relative to Sol (90 degrees tilt should make
>> both curves flat).
>
> I would say that it isn't much point in having a program
> where you enter the orbital parameters such as eccentricity
> etc. This is because these data very seldom are known.
> It is the radial velocities which are measured, and it is
> the radial velocities which determine what the ballistic
> theory predicts.
> Besides, close binaries tend to have low eccentricity,
> look at these:
> http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/research/binaries_prog.html
> Note that the measured radial velocities in all cases
> are very close to sinusoidal. So it would be better to
> make a program where you can enter the measured radial
> velocities. It doesn't really matter what the angle of
> the orbit, the distance between the components, or
> the orbital velocities are.
I'm assuming you're referring to something like
"astrometric radial velocity"
which is what Google coughed up on this.
http://www.astro.lu.se/~dainis/HTML/ASTRVEL.html
The binary I simulated is perfectly circular, and is loosely
based on HD 80715. (Loosely because I don't have the
orbital velocity or period thereof.) I'm not all that
well equipped to do non-circular, at this point, though it
looks possible to do a (rather ugly) series solution.
>
> My analysis was analytic.
I would hope so! :-)
> You get a clearer picture
> of what happens that way. (I did use a computer to
> calculate the values, though.)
At this point I'm primarily interested in the correlation
of predictions with some real data, or as real data as
a layman with no access to something more complicated
than a computer and maybe a pair of binocs can get at.
Some of the data looks pretty good, but some of it
looks little more than a few dots.
>
> Note that whenever the ratio (2*pi*d*v/c2)/p > 1
> (where d is distance, v is amplitude of radial velocity,
> and p is the period) the ballistic theory
> will always predict two intense flashes per period.
>
> There are thousands and thousands of binaries out there
> where this is fulfilled.
> But no such flashes are ever observed.
If the stars are close enough to Earth and moving fast enought
relative to each other, one should see telltale SR-computable
spectrum shifts.
>
> Paul
>
-- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
- Next message: TomGee: "Re: Part1: Another BIG Flaw in 1971 Time Dilation Flight Experiment"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Measuring Our Absolute Velocity"
- In reply to: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
