Re: Spectrum!

Androcles wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:det2f0$prp$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:den4va$fv8$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | >
| > | > Jeez... This is so simple you can do it in your kitchen.
| > | >
| > | > Look at the spectrum of a common tungsten light bulb. It is continuous.
| > | >
| > | > With a rheostat or triac, control the current through the tungsten
| > | > so that it glows red instead of white, and look again.
| > | >
| > | > Would you believe white-hot is hotter than red-hot?
| > | >
| > | > So.... a red-hot star will show more intensity in the red part of the
| > | > spectrum, a blue-hot star will show more intensity in the blue
| > | > part of the spectrum, our sun is a yellow star.
| > | >
| > | > When you doppler shift the Frauenhofer lines you shift the entire
| > | > spectrum.
| > | > You shift the intensity also, that makes the star appear hotter or
| > | > cooler.
| > |
| > | Yet again demonstrating that you don't know what the spectral class
| > | of a star is, Androcles? :-)
| >
| > You are such a phuckwit grinning ape, Andersen, it is incredible
| > how stupid you can be.
| >
| > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html
| >
| > lambda = 380 - 740 nanometres, visible range.
| > c = lambda * nu
| >
| >
| > c lambda nu
| > 30000 380 79
| > 30000 400 75
| > 30000 420 71
| > 30000 440 68
| > 30000 460 65
| > 30000 480 63
| > 30000 500 60
| > 30000 520 58
| > 30000 540 56
| > 30000 560 54
| > 30000 580 52
| > 30000 600 50
| > 30000 620 48
| > 30000 640 47
| > 30000 660 45
| > 30000 680 44
| > 30000 700 43
| > 30000 720 42
| > 30000 740 41
| >
| >
| >
| > So simple, straight from a spread***.
| > Now google Rydberg.
| >
| > Convert hydrogen lines to frequency, you'll see frequency
| > equally spaced.
| >
| > Equally spacing nu, increase c by 10%,
| >
| > c lambda nu
| > 33000 418 79
| > 33000 434 76
| > 33000 452 73
| > 33000 471 70
| > 33000 493 67
| > 33000 516 64
| > 33000 541 61
| > 33000 569 58
| > 33000 600 55
| > 33000 635 52
| > 33000 673 49
| > 33000 717 46
| > 33000 767 43
| > 33000 825 40
| >
| >
| > Decrease c...
| >
| > c lambda nu
| > 27000 342 79
| > 27000 355 76
| > 27000 370 73
| > 27000 386 70
| > 27000 403 67
| > 27000 422 64
| > 27000 443 61
| > 27000 466 58
| > 27000 491 55
| > 27000 519 52
| > 27000 551 49
| > 27000 587 46
| > 27000 628 43
| > 27000 675 40
| >
| >
| > See the shift for the same frequency, phuckwit?
| > It is throughout the entire spectrum.
|
| And what is the relevance of this naivety, Androcles?


A demonstration of your stupidity, Assistant. 

Androcles, when you Doppler shift a spectrum, then it
is blatantly obvious that ALL the spectral lines shift
by the same amount.

That is WHY a Doppler shift does NOT change the spectral class
of a star. The spectral class is determined by the intensity of
the different absorption lines, which is unaffected by
a Doppler shift.


| >
| > Androcles, tossing Assistant Andersen a banana.
|
| Quite.
| But you won't address the issue, will you?

What issue, bone head? 

You claim that approcahing stars will appear
to be hotter than they are, and receding stars
will appear cooler than they are because of the Doppler
shift of the black-body radiation spectrum.
This is of course true (even if the effect is tiny.)

But the issue is that Astronomers do not determine
the temperature of the star this way.
They use the spectral class which does NOT change even
if the star is approcahing or receeding.
So the surface temperature of a Cepheide do really
change during the period, it can NOT be an apparent
effect only.

THIS is the issue you didn't address and never will address.

You are the phuckwit that claims M is a spectral class
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html
without any alignment of absorption lines with K.


So are you blind?

A K and an M spectrum are quite different. That's why
the spectral class is easier to determine than the position
of the peak of the black body spectrum.
In an M spectrum there will be absorption lines from molecules
which are not present in hotter stars.
But of course they have common absorption lines.
Don't you see them?

| > | Doppler shift changes the spectrum, but it doesn't change
| > | the spectral class.
| > | The temperature is determined from the spectral class.
| > |
| > | So when the spectral class of a star changes, its surface
| > | temperature changes. Nothing apparent about that.
|
| So how do you explain that the surface temperature
| of the star changes during the period.

You have yet to produce ONE spectrum for a cepheid, numbskull.
I have nothing to explain, you do. Six years of bull*** to explain,
actually.


So it doesn't matter that a lot of Astronomers claim to have
measured a changing spectral class from Cepheids when _I_
cannot show you their raw data?
I am flattered, Androcles. :-)

So you will keep pretending that the spectral class of Cepheids
do not change during the period? :-)

BTW Androcles.
Do you really believe Newton's laws of motion when _I_
never showed you the raw data supporting them?

Paul
.

Quantcast