Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson
From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_deletethishia.no)
Date: 03/04/05
- Next message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: RLC twins"
- Previous message: George Dishman: "Re: Expanding Space"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson"
- Reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:56:48 +0100
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:40:53 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:07:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>><paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:38:38 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>>>><paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>The kinetic energy for each degree of freedom is kT/2.
>>>>>>That means that along the line of sight, we have:
>>>>>>mv^2/2 = kT/2
>>>>>>v^2 = kT/m
>>>>>>where v^2 is the average square of the velocity
>>>>>>component along the line of sight.
>>>>>>If we assume that T = 6000K and that the atom is H,
>>>>>>we get v = 7 km/s.
>>>>>>The speed is distributed according to the Maxwellian
>>>>>>distribution:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The distribution of the velocity component in one
>>>>>>particular direction is like this. And this is drawn
>>>>>>to scale as far as it is possible in this medium:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>T = 6000K
>>>>>>Vertical scale is relative populaton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |
>>>>>>1.0| *
>>>>>> | * *
>>>>>>0.8| * *
>>>>>> | * *
>>>>>>0.6| * *
>>>>>> | * *
>>>>>>0.4| * *
>>>>>> | * *
>>>>>> | * *
>>>>>>0.1| * *
>>>>>> -----|----|----|----|----|----|----|---- v
>>>>>> -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 km/s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it is much broader than that.
>>>>
>>>>No. It is exactly like this.
>>>>Here is a printout of the function:
>>>>f(v_x) = N*sqrt(m/(2*pi*k*T))*exp(-m*v_x^2/(2*k*T))
>>>>T = 6000K
>>>>v[km/s] f(v)/f(0)
>>>> 0.0 1.000
>>>> 1.0 0.990
>>>> 2.0 0.960
>>>> 3.0 0.913
>>>> 4.0 0.851
>>>> 5.0 0.777
>>>> 6.0 0.695
>>>> 7.0 0.610
>>>> 8.0 0.524
>>>> 9.0 0.441
>>>> 10.0 0.364
>>>> 11.0 0.295
>>>> 12.0 0.234
>>>> 13.0 0.182
>>>> 14.0 0.138
>>>> 15.0 0.103
>>>> 16.0 0.075
>>>> 17.0 0.054
>>>> 18.0 0.038
>>>> 19.0 0.026
>>>> 20.0 0.018
>>>>
>>>>It is symmetric, same values for -v.
>>>
>>>
>>>All right. It IS something like a normal distribution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Now the the light from the atoms with zero
>>>>>>velocity will reach as after a time d/c, while
>>>>>>the light from an atom with the speed v will
>>>>>>reach us after a time d/(c+v).
>>>>>>The difference is ca. dv/c^2.
>>>>>>If d = 1 LY, the light from an atom moving at 10km/s
>>>>>>towards us will reach us 0.6 hours before the light
>>>>>
>>>>>>from an atom moving at 10km/s away from us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The light emitted from the star at a specific instant will
>>>>>>be received with a temporal distribution like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |
>>>>>>1.0| *
>>>>>> | * *
>>>>>>0.8| * *
>>>>>> | * *
>>>>>>0.6| * *
>>>>>> | * *
>>>>>>0.4| * *
>>>>>> | * *
>>>>>> | * *
>>>>>>0.1| * *
>>>>>> -----|----|----|----|----|----|----|---- v
>>>>>> |< 0.6 hour per LY >|
>>>>>> |<0.4h/LY>|
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This time is proportional to the distance.
>>>>>>Of course the time will vary with the temperature of
>>>>>>the star, but not very much, it will be of this order
>>>>>>of magnitude for all stars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The rather obvious consequence of this is that according
>>>>>>to the ballistic theory, any periodicity shorter than
>>>>>>0.4 hours per light year distance should be be pretty well
>>>>>>masked out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>the 'noise level' increases with distance, yes, but you cannot put a definite
>>>>>figure on it.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't put a "definite limit to it".
>>>>The ballistic theory will still predict that HD80715
>>>>should be a variable, because its period is considerably
>>>>longer than 0.4 hours per LY.
>>>>But it isn't a variable.
>>>>The ballistic theory fails.
>>>>
>>>>But if the periodicity is shorter than ca. 0.4 hours per LY,
>>>>we have:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>But since we do observe a vast number of variables
>>>>>>with periods shorter than this, the ballsitic
>>>>>>theory is falsified.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense. You are not considering the extinction effects as the light escapes
>>>>
>>>>>from the gaseous cloud around the star.
>>>>
>>>>>Since the ballistic theory must be true, we can learn a good deal about that
>>>>>cloud from any anomalies in brightness curves.
>>>>
>>>>So the very selective extinction is at work. :-)
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you say that Cepheids and Miras really are orbiting
>>>>stars and no intrinsic variables at all?
>>>>But since a vast number of these variables according to
>>>>the ballistic theory have a period which should be
>>>>impossible to observe, we have to invoke extinction.
>>>>And then the ballistic theory does NOT predict "orbiting stars"
>>>>to look like variables.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't be persistently difficult Paul.
>>>Obviously for many stars, extinction causes most of the emitted light to leave
>>>at around a common (c+v) where v is the orbital speed of the star wrt the
>>>distant observer.
>>
>>So the "thermal velocity" won't mask out the intense flashes
>>predicted from binaries after all?
>
>
> For some stars it will, others it wont.
And we have to look at the actual light curve
to say which it is, of course.
The ballistic theory obviously predicts what's observed.
So we will have to see what's observed before we can tell
what it predicts.
> Note: it can also affect the observed doppler shift and therefore the estimates
> of radial velocity.
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>| I can now add another one....thermal velocities of hthe emitting atoms.
>>| They can have a pronounced effect and are likely to dampen the exprected
>>| flashes so tat they are barely noticeable.
>>
>>
>>>There is also long term extinction which occurs as the light encounters low
>>>pressure gas clouds in space. This reduces the range of original 'c+v'.
>>>Hence, brightness curves can be much smaller than predicted by the BaT using
>>>raw data.
>>
>>Didn't you claim that the low pressure interstellar and intergalactic
>>gas slow down the photons?
>>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>| When light is deflected by matter, of any size, that matter is also accelerated
>>| very slightly towards the light.
>>| Where do you think that energy comes from Paul?
>>|
>>| If you don't believe me, try firing an electron past a positron at rest and see
>>| how the positron gains kinetic energy, the electron path bends and the electron
>>| slows.
>>
>>Why should they cease slowing when their speed are c relative to the gas?
>
>
> You are talking about two different topics here.
>
> A significant gas cloud will tend to unify the speed of any light that enters
> it. Whether it slows the light or speeds it up depends on the cloud's speed
> relative to the source and its density.
>
> The constant slowing that causes redshift only occurs in very rare gas and over
> very long distances.
> (if two electrons pass a positron equally but on opposite sides, the positron
> ends up with no nett movement. The electrons don't lose any energy to the
> positron)
I see.
If the gas is thick, the speed of the photons will be adjusted
to c relative to the gas.
But if the gas is very thin, the photons will be slowed down
to a small fraction of c.
That figures.
>>>>Does that mean that Cepheids and Miras are pulsating stars
>>>>after all? :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When astonomers finally realize their error, their science will be turned on
>>>>>its head.
>>>>
>>>>And the error is?
>>>
>>>
>>>The error is that all starlight does not travel through space at c relative to
>>>us.
>>>It moves at c wrt its source.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That since the ballistic theory due to extinction
>>>>doesn't predict binaries to look like variables,
>>>>variables are either intrinsic variables or
>>>>eclipsing binaries?
>>>
>>>
>>>The BaT predicts exactly what is observed.
>>
>>So what DOES the BaT predict HD80715 should look like?
>>Does it predict intense flashes every orbital period?
>
>
> Why should it? Intense flashes will only be expected under very rare
> conditions.
Why should it not?
Is it because:
>>Or does it predict that "the thermal velocity" will
>>mask these flashes out?
>>Or does the extinction in the stellar atmosphere cancel
>>the effects of the thermal velocity so the intense flashes
>>should be there after all?
>
>
> I have already told you the most probable reason.
>
> The two brightness curves from each member of the pair are 180 out of phase.
> They almost cancel each other out. This is clearly demonstrated by my program.
You mean your program predicts that flashes
at different time cancels?
What about extinction in the gas cloud?
Did you take that into consideration?
>
>>>You refuse to accept reality.
>>
>>I fully accept the reality that you condradict yourself
>>in just about every posting. :-)
>
>
> You simply don't understand the theory.
I understand the theory, and I have a great time observing
your explanations for why the theory doesn't apply when you
don't like its predictions.
>>>There are many factors which influence apparent brightness variation.
>>
>>And therefore it is impossible to say what the ballistic
>>theory predicts about anything?
>
>
> The shapes of typical brightness curves can be predicted quite efficiently.
> Add to that the fact that most curve periodicity is obviously dead constant and
> in synch with orbit period. ....which leaves little doubt that the BaT is the
> direct cause of most variation in star brightness.
I see.
It is impossible to say what the ballistic theory really
predicts, because so many weird things happens to light on its way,
- it may be diffused by thermal velocities - then again it may not be
because the gas cloud around the star will adjust the velocities
to c relative to the star and its gas cloud - and then the light may
be slowed down if the interstellar gas is thin - or it may be
adjusted to c again if the gas isn't so thin .. and ..
well - we can't really say what the ballistic theory predicts.
But when we observe a variable - then we know for certain that
this is exactly what the ballistic theory predicts a binary
should look like....which leaves little doubt that the BaT is the
direct cause of most variation in star brightness.
Very convincing indeed!
Well done, Henri.
>
>>So how can you claim that the BaT predicts exactly
>>what is observed when you cannot say what the BaT predicts?
>
>
> the curve shapes are the main interest. Extinction and molecular speeds only
> affect the size of the variation and the distances at which things happen.
>
>
>>I challenge you to give ONE example where you show
>>exactly what the BaT predicts.
>>So far, you have done that only once, and ever since
>>you have been desperate to explain why the BaT doesn't
>>predict what you said it predicts.
>>And then you are desperate to explain why the explanation
>>you gave isn't valid after all.
>
>
> Don't run away from the truth Paul.
> I have given plenty of examples.
Of course you have, Henri.
You have named a lot of Miras and Cepheids.
And if we ignore the fact that the spectra and
even interferometric measurements prove that these are
pulsating stars, and that we because of all the weird
things that may happen to the light on its way cannot
say what kind of binaries that according to the ballistic
theory would produce these light curves, the light curves
are obviously what the ballistic theory would have predicted
if the stars were binaries and not pulsating stars.
So they must be binaries - or was it "single orbiting stars?" -
anyway - the ballistic theory is obviously right.
Sorry for running away from the truth that you have
shown EXACTLY what the ballistic theory predicts
for concrete puls.. eh.. bina.. eh .. single orbiting stars.
>
>>"Exactly what the BaT predicts" indeed! :-)
>>
>>
>>But it IS fun to watch you acrobatics, Henri! :-)
>>
>>Paul, enjoying the show
>
>
> I suspect you are using me to provide facts for the paper you are presently
> writing, "How the world was fooled by Einstein for 100 years"
I am using you as a clown.
A very good one.
I find you very entertaining.
But clowning is a serious business.
So I take you very seriously.
As you can see from my posting.
Paul
- Next message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: RLC twins"
- Previous message: George Dishman: "Re: Expanding Space"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson"
- Reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
