Re: to androcles 2

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 02/09/05 

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:59:40 GMT

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:14:25 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote:

>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:07:21 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>
>>

>> Paul, you are very confused.
>>
>> You obviously are not aware that at these distances, the light from many orbits
>> overlaps.
>> You don't just get TWO bright flashes per orbit you get hundreds, maybe
>> thousands..and they aren't all that bright. They might appear as high frequency
>> ripples on a steady background.
>> Also, when two stars are in close proximity, one has to contend with extinction
>> and local gas effects that tend to unify the light speeds.
>
>So you don't understand the ballistic theory after all?
>
>Since I have analysed the problem analytically, I know
>exactly what is predicted, and why. You don't seem
>to have a clue.
>
>Sure, the number of apparent stars increase with the distance.
>But exactly two will merge in an infinite intense flash each period,
>and exactly two will reappear in an infinite intense flash every
>period.

Paul, I know a lot more about the ballistic effects than you ever will. My
program enables me to see exactly what happens without having to solve the
equations myself. Why don't you learn to use it.

>
>So long as the distance multiplied by radial acceleration exceeds
>a critical value, the ballistic theory _always_ predicts exactly
>two infinite intense flashes per period (per component).

Paul, I have just incorporated into the program the effects of thermal
velocities of the source molecules. (only for circular orbits at this stage)

One reason 'intense flashes ' are not expected is that the 'v' in 'c+v' has not
ONE value but a random distribution. Thermal speeds are high enough to
completely blur the whole picture.
Those intense 'flashes' you expect are dampened down and spread out over a long
time intervals.
There is also the problem of local and interspatial extinction.

A thin gaseous atmosphere in the vicinity of a star will tend to unify the
speed of light emitted from any binary pair.
 
>
>These flashes do NOT average out.

Some maybe.
Most will 'spread out' so as to be are barely noticeable.

>
>And the eccentricity etc. does not matter at all.

Not as far as multiple imagery is concerned.

Binaries that exhibit multiple imagery are too far away to be resolved
optically.

>
>>>This crazy behaviour predicted by the ballistic theory
>>>is never observed in the real world, obviously.
>>>Which makes it exceedingly clear that the ballistic theory
>>>is wrong.
>>
>>
>> Like I said, you are very confused.
>
>It surprises me somewhat that you still haven't understood
>what the ballistic theory predicts.
>Did you think it was accidental that when you entered
>the data for HD80715 into your program, it predicted
>two flashes per period? The number of apparent stars
>varies between 5 and 7, so why do you think
>there was only two flashes per period?
>It will _always_ be two flashes.

Don't be silly, Paul.
At greater distances the 'two flashes' from one orbit catch up with or overtake
the 'two flashes' from the previous one.
You have greatly oversimplified the problem.

Have a good look at my program.

You can see how the moving light front from each orbit changes shape as it
moves away from the source. When its slope is vertical, a 'bright flash' could
appear. But it wont because when you plug in thermal velocities, you will see
how the lines become bropadened and merge into eachother.
This is only a very rough approximation but sufficient to illustrate the point.
 

>
>There are thousands and thousands of binaries which
>according to the ballistic theory should show these
>two intense flashes per period.
>
>None do.

You and DeSitter are completely wrong.

>
>Paul

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm