Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED

In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:01:08 +0200
<den3ql$q19$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
>> <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:26:41 +0200
>> <deld2i$fqe$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
>>>><Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote
>>>>on Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:15:33 GMT
>>>><pLhPe.34874$Il.2032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>news:dek4v7$nl4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>| Androcles wrote:
>>>>>| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>| > news:dehpog$qbc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>| > | Androcles wrote:
>>>>>| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>>>>>in
>>>>>| > | > message news:lirqt2-unm.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>| > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
>>>>>| > | > | <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>| > | > | wrote
>>>>>| > | > | on Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:54:15 GMT
>>>>>| > | > | <XVjOe.11182$5m3.6548@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>| > | > | >
>>>>>| > | > | > A cepheid is either
>>>>>| > | > | > 1) A specialized puff-puff star because Einstein decreed
>>>>>| > | > | > the speed of light invariant.
>>>>>| > | > | > 2) An ordinary star with a planet.
>>>>>| > | > | > 3) Something else.
>>>>>| > | > | >
>>>>>| > | > | > Heard of Ockham's Razor?
>>>>>| > | > |
>>>>>| > | > | I've heard of it. Care to explain how a star with a planet
>>>>>| > | > | would change the luminosity *and spectrum* of the star,
>>>>>| > | > | as observed here?
>>>>>| > | >
>>>>>| > | > It does no good to talk about the bright green flying elephant's
>>>>>| > | > eggs at the bottom of a black hole.
>>>>>| > | > Produce your evidence and we'll look at it together, ok?
>>>>>| > |
>>>>>| > | Would it not be more reasonable that YOU produced the evidence
>>>>>| > | showing that a star with a planet would change the spectrum as
>>>>>| > | observed?
>>>>>| > |
>>>>>| > | Take for example delta Cephei.
>>>>>| > | The spectrum changes from a F2 to a G3 spectrum during the period.
>>>>>| > | (I will not insult you by explaining what an F2 and a G3 spectrum
>>>>>is.)
>>>>>| >
>>>>>| > If you want to *** in, half-...err..dim-...err...nit-...err
>>>>>phuckwit
>>>>>| > you
>>>>>| > should explain it for Ghost's benefit.
>>>>>| >
>>>>>| > | http://www.cosmovisions.com/cep01.htm
>>>>>| >
>>>>>| > I don't see a spectrum, phuckwit, I see some reduced data. A
>>>>>spectrum
>>>>>| > looks like this:
>>>>>| > http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/
>>>>>|
>>>>>| So you cannot explain how a star with a planet would change
>>>>>| the spectrum as observed in delta Cephei.
>>>>>| Thought so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So you cannot produce any evidence to back your claim.
>>>>>Knew so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No raw data. Androcles wins by default.
>>>>
>>>>[The cosmovisions website has only digested/interpreted data.
>>>>While the data is interesting it is far from clear where
>>>>precisely it came from.
>>>
>>>Does this mean that you seriously doubt that
>>>the spectral class of a Cepheid varies during the Cycle?
>>>Does this mean that you don't believe that the spectral class
>>>of Delta Cepeid varies between an F2 spectrum and a G3 spectrum?
>>>Does this mean that you have to see the raw data of the spectrum
>>>to belive that it is an F2 spectrum?
>>>
>>>You can find find equivalent data a lot of places.
>>
>>
>> The cooked data is readily available, which suggests
>> that there is quite a bit of raw data around.
>
> It occurs to me that you are evading the point.
> In the reference I gave:
> http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1916ApJ....43..217S&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf
> It is clearly stated which spectral class the star is _measured_
> to have at different phases.
> You call this "cooked" data, but when the spectral class is
> given, e.g. A7, then the spectrum IS given.
> Anybody can easily look up what an A7 spectrum is.
>
> So to say that I have not supplied the data is plain wrong.

What is the precision of an "A7" measurement? Is it sufficient
to distinguish nBaT from SR?

Is there such a thing as an A7.52?

I know the "A" stands for a general spectral class --
Oh Be A Fine Young Girl Kiss Me Right Now Sweetie is
one way of putting it, and I don't know if that has
all the letters -- but presumably there has to be
a rigorously defined mapping from peak amplitude of
the blackbody to the letter-number designation, or
this isn't all that useful except as a human interpretation
of raw measurement data.

Admittedly, in a pinch one can express it in degrees Kelvin.

>
>
>> I don't
>> think that Androcles will ever be convinced, but I
>> for one do like the He3 theory; it has the merit of
>> extreme simplicity, compared to the orbiting planet,
>> though I'm also hopeful someone is simulating it to
>> increase understanding as well. Androcles, of course,
>> thinks otherwise -- but that orbiting planet has to have
>> just the right characteristics to occlude the center sun
>> with the right frequency, and with the right lightcurves.
>>
>> Given a random orientation of an orbiting planet *the
>> same size as the center sun and touching it* (a clear
>> impossibility for various reasons), the probability of it
>> doing anything even remotely like a Cepheid lightcurve is
>> probably next to nil (though the planet will occlude unless
>> we're on the normal of the astral ecliptic, even if only
>> a small sliver) -- yet Cepheids are relatively common,
>> and easily identifiable. The probability drops off rapidly
>> as the distance between star and planet increases -- to the
>> point where a Jupiter-sized entity very near to a Sun-sized
>> star is hard to detect without careful observation.
>
> But why bother to speculate?
>
> The spectrum together with the light curve make
> it clear that a Cepheid is a pulsating star.
> If you add the interferometric measurements of
> the diameter, it is even clearer.
> This is as close to a fact as you can get.

Given data that actually shows this observation, yes.

Part of the problem is that a lot of people speculate that
Elvis is still alive, for example.

>
>>
>> The temperature difference is a big plus, too, if
>> accurately observed. It's fairly obvious that an orbiting
>> planet won't do much to the luminosity characteristics of
>> the central star (it might dim it, but it won't change the
>> observed temperature too much unless the star is moving
>> *very* fast, resulting in various lightshift effects --
>> and stars are too big to move that fast).
>
> Doppler shift does not change the spectral class of a star,
> so no orbital motion can make the spectral class change.
>
>> There are also issues regarding tidal effects and
>> what I'd call "slurping" -- Algol in particular is
>> an interesting case study of one star stealing gas
>> from the other, but it's not a Cepheid by any stretch
>> of the imagination, and the lightcurves are quite different.
>>
>>
>>>>Temperature data in particular is
>>>>almost useless, although easily derivable from the raw spectrum.
>>>
>>>The temperature is given when you know the spectral class.
>>>And it isn't "useless", it gives a wealth of information.
>>
>>
>> It's an aggregate value and not all that useful for this
>> particular issue unless one can show from the raw data the
>> results of a good curvefit.
>
> I don't understand what you are talking about.
> What particular issue is it that the temperature
> is of no value for?
> The important point in relation to Cepheids is of
> course that the temperature changes during the period,
> which is a very valuable information, indeed.

Hmm...if a dual-orbiting system of two stars touching each
other exists, what would the shift be? And would a Cepheid
shift more than that amount? (Obviously if the two stars
were closer together things get dicey. If one prefers one
can state 'just beyond their Roche limits' as opposed to
'touching one another'. I know that much about orbiting
stars, scanty though my knowledge is otherwise.)

>
>> I for one would assume that that's done routinely anyway, though.
>
> What is done routinely?

Curvefitting of raw luminosity vs. wavelength data to temperature,
using the blackbody radiation formula.

> What curve fit do you refer to?
> When the spectral class is known, the temperature is known.
>
>>>>Ditto for the velocity of the star, which is calculable from
>>>>the raw spectrum Frauenhofer lineshift --and that calculation is
>>>>*different* depending on whether one is using SR, nBaT, or
>>>>BaT.]
>>>
>>>Don't be ridiculous.
>>>The variation of the spectrum together with
>>>the brigtness curve tell an unambiguous story.
>>>A Cepheid is a pulsating star.
>>>
>>>Claiming otherwise is just too stupid.
>>
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree. There's additional data that can be brought
>> to bear -- for starters, what is the percentage of Cepheids to regular
>> stars? If one assumes that *all* Cepheids are eclipsing binaries,
>> there's a fair number of issues that have to be worked out -- for
>> starters, how they all have very similar lightcurves and periods;
>> eclipsing binaries will have different lightcurves depending on yaw,
>> planet size, planet mass, stellar mass, and other such things.
>
> What are you talking about?
> There ARE Cepheids that also are eclipsing binaries,
> but they are very few indeed.
> So why even mention them?

The two hypotheses are as follows.

[1] Cepheids are pulsating stars.

[2] Cepheids are eclipsing binaries.

The first hypothesis can be compared with the second, using
various approximation methods -- the most obvious one
being the computation of how close the orbiting partner
of the central star has to be in order to observe the
effect desired. As you've no doubt already figured out
in H. Wilson's case, the usual solution involves the
star partly swallowing the planet, which makes it a
"beyond the bounds" solution -- or, in other words, ridiculous.

>
> Cepheids are pulsating stars. No question about it.

Certainly it's a far better fit.

> Explaining _why_ they are pulsating is another question.
> But you don't have to be able to explain WHY they are pulsating
> to know that they ARE pulsating.
> (But the Astronomers CAN explain why quite well.)

I for one think the ionized He3 sufficient for now, given
more simulation data. Why does an incandescent light bulb
light up when current is applied? Because conditions are
exactly right for it to do so.

Admittedly that's not the greatest of examples, as bulbs
are manufactured -- but one could state the same regarding
things such as building collapses, earthquakes, and comet
collisions; conditions were right for something to happen
-- and if we're there during the event, something nasty
does happen.

Why did Shoemaker-Levy collide with Jupiter?
Because it was in the way... :-) And we got lucky
and were able to observe it.

>
>> This would of course make for a variety of observations of Cepheid
>> variables -- yet the light-curves are only two-dimensional, depending
>> only on the size and general age of the star.
>
> The light curve of a star tell you very little.
> Just about _everything_ we know about stars is deduced from the spectra.

Hmm...maybe that's not the best way of making my point; the
issue was that the lightcurves don't show all kinds of
variation effects as one might expect from the orbiting
of planets, which have the following variation parameters,
as far as I can tell:

[1] partner distance
[2] partner size
[3] partner mass
[4] orbit eccentricity
[5] orbit inclination

However, the Cepheids only vary in two: mass and temperature,
as I understand it. Or perhaps mass, temperature, and general
composition. This admittedly gets slightly messy.

But you're right; the spectrum gives one far more
information; temperature is but a single measurement,
much like the general description of a forest fire ("it
burned 2,000 acres") gives one no real information about
how hot it was, how fast it spread, how many structures
it threatened, what direction it went, the number of years
it will take for the woods to grow back, ...

>
>>
>> We've already observed a fair number of *existing known* eclipsing
>> binaries with wildly differing periods -- yes, even Delta Cephei
>> is a binary, though with a period of a few million years.
>> Since its luminosity varies on an about 5 1/2 day cycle clearly
>> that's not the cause of its distress.
>
> What has eclipsing binaries with Cepheids to to?
> Why do you keep mentioning them?

Because it's the alternate, and hopefully by now
discredited, theory to what's really (as far as we can
tell given our somewhat isolated vantage-point!) going on.


>
>> And then there's presumably -- somewhere -- spectroscopic data.
>>
>> So Androcles wins because no one's provided data that
>> he will accept.
>
> So according to you, Androcles will always win.
> Androcles will never accept any evidence falsifying his theory.
>
> I am inclined to use a different definition of "winning".

So am I, after a fashion. I wish clue-by-fours were more
effective at times.

>
>> There's (at least) two problems here,
>> only one of which is all that interesting.
>>
>> [1] Where's the raw data?
>> [2] Will he accept it?
>>
>> I am interested here in [1], as I'm rather fond of the
>> notion of looking at Compton scattering results myself
>> (a piece of evidence for SR) especially if one
>> knows going in what the light and electron are doing with
>> sufficient precision to differentiate between nBaT and SR.
>>
>> [2] is more in the province of other newsgroups.
>>
>> Androcles' explanation is simpler on the surface -- but after
>> a bit of digging, it falls flat.
>
> Androcles' "explanation" is no explanation because
> it doesn't explain what is observed.

Ah, but it *does* explain what is observed (or tries to),
when one has observed only the luminosity. Subsequent
observations of spectra and such are what does that
explanation in.

And even the luminosity may be enough, if there's sufficient
precision and number of measurements. Eclipsing light
curves a la Algol's look far different from a Cepheid's.

> Its simplicity is then irrelevant.

True enough.

>
> Paul


--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

Quantcast