In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
on Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:41:36 +0200
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
>> <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:34:52 +0200
>> <det75h$7ec$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>The spectral class determines the temperature.
>> To a certain precision, yes. Is there a table mapping the two?
> Sure.
> You can find a graph here:
> page 6 and 7

Not bad...for a graph.

> This is related to how to classify a spectrum:
> >>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>>The two hypotheses are as follows.
>>>>[1] Cepheids are pulsating stars.
>>>And this "hypothesis" is proven beyond reasonable doupt.
>>>It is as close to a fact as it can get.
>> Absent more data. Admittedly, it would take a *lot* of data
>> showing otherwise.
> Data aren't absent.

I did say *more* data. :-)

> Cepheids have been studied for close to a century.
> Thousands of papers are written.
> That it isn't easy to find the raw data on the net
> doesn't mean they don't exist.
> Astronomers aren't idiots, you know.

No, but they are apparently a little reticent. Can't say
I blame them too much.

> No Astronomer question that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
> because the spectra tell an unambiguous story.
> Why don't you question Newton's laws of motion?
> Have you seen the raw data supporting it?

I've seen experimental conclusions against it.
At relativistic speeds Newton's laws do not apply (among
them velocity addition when shifting frames), to the great
consternation of Androcles, H. Wilson, and others.

LHC in particular is specced for lightspeed movement of protons,
despite said protons being far more energetic than lightspeed
protons (in Newtonian space) have a right to be -- 7 TeV versus
about .469 GeV (1/2 the energy equivalent of m_p). I'd say
the conclusion is pretty obvious that the LHC designers aren't
using Newtonian ballistic theory... :-)

Of course at the level of a traffic accident -- 10^-7 c or
thereabouts -- the error in using Newton's Laws is about
5 * 10^-15; the traffic cop or SuperBall(tm) designer needn't
worry overly much. :-)

And Newton's Third still applies, in some form.

>>>>[2] Cepheids are eclipsing binaries.
>>>Who says so?
>>>Not Androcles.
>>>Not Henri Wilson.
>>>You are the only one I have seen propose it.
>> In that case I'm misinterpreting Androcles. I'll admit
>> to some curiosity as to how an orbiting binary pair
>> in nBat-space (or Newtonian space) will actually *look*,
>> given the issues of gas molecular motion and light delay,
>> but it probably won't look like observations of Delta Cephei. :-)
> Actually I have studied that in some detail.
> I won't bother to get into it now, I will only say that
> thousands of known binaries which are NOT variables
> should according to the ballistic theory have been so.
> The "temperature effects" will have the effect to make
> a minimum possible period depending on the distance.
> Most Cepheids are so distant that the short observed period
> should be impossible according to the ballistic theory.
> In short, according to the ballistic theory
> binaries which are not variables should have been so,
> and Cepheids which are variables should not have been so.

And then there's binary Cepheids, which I assume are common enough;
we might get lucky and see an *eclipsing* binary Cepheid someday,
if we haven't already.

(And then there's such things as PSR B1913+16 and PSR
J0737-3039. No, neither is a Cepheid -- both are orbiting
pairs of neutron stars, and both are very conclusive
disproofs of nBaT. I don't know regarding BaT but I think
it disproves that, too.


> Paul

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