Re: Spectrum!

Androcles wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dg93d3$fq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:dg7foq$37q$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Androcles wrote [about Algol]:
| > | > It is obvious it is not a binary. Blatantly obvious.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | Right.
| > | Algol is a triple system.
| > |
| > | Two of the stars form a short period binary, while
| > | a third star orbits the inner binary every 1.86 year.
| >
| >
| > ROFLMAO!!!
|
| ..while farting uncontrollably?
|
| > | The spectra of the stars make it clear that
| > | the inner binary is a B8 and a K2.
| > | You know what a spectral class is, don't you?
| >
| > Yes, it is something you've imagined for Algol and have never seen
| > or you'd produce it.
|
| I am flattered for the importance you ascribe to me.
| Just think of it:
| The data for Algol you can find in several star catalogues
| are something I have imagined!

Produce the spectrum, tusselad. 

Quite.
Since I cannot dig up the raw data behind the data
given in the star catalogues, it is proven that said
data are my imaginations.
I am still flattered.


|
| > |
| > | BTW, Androcles, do you remember when you tried to use
| > | elementary trigonometry to calculate the duration
| > | of the eclipse of Algol?
| >
| > Yep.
| > |
| > | Androcles wrote November 2004:
| > || Andersen claims to know the radius of each star. 2.88 and 3.54
| > || solar radii.
| > || Note he is also claiming e = 0, a perfectly circular orbit.
| > || He also says the separation distance is 13.6 solar radii.
| >
| > Yes, I remember that.
| >
| >
| >
| > ||
| > || By elementary trigonometry, we have a right triangle of
| > || sides 3.54 and 13.6.
| > || arctan( 3.54/13.6) = 14.6 degrees.
| > || Multiply that by 2 = 29.2 degrees
| > || Dividing by 360 and multiplying by the period, the eclipse last for
| > || 2.79 hours.
| > ||
| > || This does not agree with observation of circa 10 hours.
| > ||
| > || "All the relevant data for Algol are very well known,
| > || there are no mysteries. It all adds up perfectly."
| > || - Paul "Moron" Andersen.
| > ||
| > || Imagine using 3 significant figures to be 300% in error.
| > ||
| > || Yes, you are very good at ignoring anything you choose.
| > || What you are unable to do is reconcile the period of the orbit
| > || (70 hours) with the duration of the eclipse (10 hours).
| > |
| > | Paul B. Andersen responded:
| > || OK.
| > || I will show you the correct calculation of
| > || the duration of the eclipse of Algol.
| > ||
| > || The known data of the Algol binary:
| > || A: B8-V, 3.59 solar masses, 2.88 solar radii, 12000K
| > || B: K2-IV, 0.79 solar masses, 3.54 solar radii, 4888K
| > || Distance A-B 13.6 solar radii, e = 0, period 68.75 hours.
| > || Inclination of orbital plane to line of sight: 11 degrees
| > ||
| > || The eclipse starts when the star tangent each other
| > || when approaching, and ends when they tangent each other
| > || when receding.
| > ||
| > ||
| > || The figure below shows the stars projected into a plane
| > || perpendicular to the line of sight when the stars
| > || tangent each other.
| > ||
| > || A------------
| > || |\Ra
| > || | \ Rb'
| > || |<-*-->|
| > || Ra' \ |
| > || Rb\a|
| > || \|
| > ||------------B---- orbital plane
| > ||
| > ||A and B mark the centers of the A and B stars,
| > ||The * mark the tangential point.
| > ||
| > ||"Vertical" and "horizontal" will in the following
| > ||refer to this figure.
| > ||The vertical distance between the two centers will
| > ||be h = 13.6*sin(11 deg.) = 2.6 solar radii
| > ||The angle a = arccos(h/(Ra+Rb)) = 66 degrees
| > ||The horizontal components of the radii will
| > ||then be: Ra' = Ra*sin(a) = 2.63 solar radii,
| > ||Rb' = Rb*sin(a) = 3.24 solar radii
| > ||
| > ||The figure below shows the stars projected into
| > ||a plane through the Earth and the binary,
| > ||where the intersection with the orbital
| > ||plane is perpendicular to the line of sight.
| > ||(The whole thing "seen from above".)
| > ||
| > ||
| > || .
| > || .
| > || . \
| > || Ra'/ . . \Rb'
| > || / . . d \
| > || A-------.----------B -> observer
| > || \ . . /
| > || \. . /
| > || . /
| > || .
| > || .
| > ||
| > ||d is the horisontal component of the distance between
| > ||the stars, d = 13.6*cos(11 deg) = 13.35 solar radii
| > ||
| > ||All observers in the angle a_e between the dotted
| > ||lines will see the primary eclipsed by the secondary.
| > ||Note that it does not matter where the barycentre is.
| > ||(Because the distance binary-observer is very big.)
| > ||The line A-B will rotate 360 degrees per period,
| > ||and the eclipse will last for the time it takes
| > ||the angle a_e to pass the observer.
| > ||
| > ||Simple geometry tells us:
| > ||a_e = 2*arcsin((Ra'+Rb')/d) = 52.2 degrees
| > ||
| > ||So the duration of the eclipse should be:
| > ||68.75*52.2/360 = 9.97 hours
| > ||
| > ||Exactly as observed.
| > ||
| > ||I can assure you that I don't ignore this.
| > ||What about you?
| > |
| > | So the Paul "Moron" Andersen was right:
| > | "All the relevant data for Algol are very well known,
| > | there are no mysteries. It all adds up perfectly."
| > |
| > | How could you screw up such a simple case of elementary
| > | trigonometry and get it 300% wrong, Androcles?
| > |
| > |
| > | Paul, the moron phuckwit leprechaun
| >
| > 2/sin(26) = 4.56, tusselader. How could you get that wrong?
| > Two stars the same size (1), surface to surface separation
| > is 2.56 stellar diameters.
| > One minute later and the model becomes this:
| > http://www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html
|
| I am sure you with your great knowledge of the dynamics
| of celestial bodies know that the Roche limit for two stars
| with equal radius and density is d = ca. 2.44R.

That was maximum separation, tusselader. 

That was YOUR example.
"Two stars the same size (1), surface to surface separation
 is 2.56 stellar diameters."

The two stars in YOUR example will NOT come apart
because each is outside of the Roche limit of
the other. In other words, neither fill its Roche lobe.

But you, who are such an expert on tides and Roche limits
knew that, didn't you?

YOUR densities are
A: B8-V,  3.59 solar masses, 2.88 solar radii, 12000K
3.59 /4pi * 2.88^3 = 3.59/300 = 0.012 solar mass/solar volume

B: K2-IV, 0.79 solar masses, 3.54 solar radii, 4888K
0.79/557 = 0.0014, or about 1/10th the density of the brighter, more massive but denser star. 

Right.

So YOU have a red tenuous star in orbit about a B8 at a separation
2.56 times the diameter of the red star that hasn't become a ring as the
outer limb orbits less frequently and has further to go than the inner limb. 

Funny! :-)
I too can tell jokes:
We have a Moon that hasn't become a ring as the
outer limb orbits less frequently and has further to
go than the inner limb.

One minute later and the model becomes this:
 http://www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html


Since Algol is still a binary, you are proven wrong.

| So your two equal stars will not be torn apart because
| each is just outside of the Roche limit of the other.

Phuckwit. 

A very strong argument, indeed.

|
| But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and
| density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit
| of the K2,  while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8.
| That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass
| is transferred to the B8.  So the K2 IS torn apart and there
| is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn.

Yep.

| (This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient
| disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface
| of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.)
|
| It doesn't happen in a minute, though.
| The mass transfer is in the order of 10^-11 solar masses per year.
| A star isn't a rigid body which suddenly can break apart.
| The outer layers are very thin gas.

That's right, it comes apart very easily. It's ALL gas, like you. LOL! 

So if you scoop a little gas from the outer layer of a very
low density star, it will come apart? :-)

Look at this again:
http://www.manybody.org/cgi-bin/starlab/binary_demo.pl
enter the data:
 Orbital semi-major axis (solar radii): 13.6
 Orbital eccentricity : 0
 Mass of component #1 (solar masses): 3.59
 Mass of component #2 (solar masses): 0.79

This program doesn't get the radii right, because
it assumes that the stars are new born main sequence stars,
which is not the case.
But it DOES get the Roche lobes right, because these
only depend on the stellar masses and orbital separation.
If you measure the average radius of the Roche lobe of
component #2, you will find that this is about 0.26 of
the orbital separation, that is about 0.26*13.6 = 3.54
solar radii. This is very close to the actual diameter
of component #2.
So the K2 just fills its Roche lobe.

When a star overflows its Roche lobe, it doesn't come apart.
The part of the star within the Roche lobe will be unaffected
even if the overflowing mass will fall onto the other star
and make an accretion disk around it.
Which is just what is happening.

What did YOU imagine would happen, Androcles?
That the Roche lobe would be sucked empty two minutes
after the star overflowed it? :-)

You can roll farting on the floor as much as you want,
the data given for Algol make perfectly sense.

| > NOT this:
| > http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/gal_earth_moon.jpg
| > where the surface to surface separation is 30 diameters
|
| Right.
| It is more like this:
| http://www.solstation.com/stars2/algol2ab.jpg
|
| In this drawing, the accretion disk isn't very prominent,
| but it is there if you look closely.
|
| > Of course a moron phuckwit leprechaun doesn't understand tides.
|
| Of course not. This way beyond me.


And then you get another delirium:

I know that. You know that. I also know that you are a tusselad, and I know
that Einstein said quite sensibly:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and quite stupidly
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

all because he fooled you with
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

and you are stupid enough the believe the tusselad Einstein. 

Quite.

|
| But I am sure the expert Androcles could tell me a lot about
| Roche limits and their significance for close binaries.

There are no close binaries. The light curve of Algol is
reproduced by modelling c+v.
Saturn demonstrates Roche.


Quite.
Close binaries are products of my imagination, of course.
Just see which influence my imagination has on the Astronomical
community:
http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/research/binaries_prog.html

| You knew for example that two equal stars with surface
| distance 2.56 stellar radii are not torn apart because
| each star is outside of the Roche limit of the other,
| didn't you?
| Or didn't you?

I know you are a tusselad. You know you are a tusselad.
I know that an 18 year-old kid with a toy telescope was never
an astrophysicist.


Sure we both know that I am a tusselad.
That is rather irrelevant, though.

What IS relevant is that you, who are an expert on tides
and as such know everything about Roche limits and Roche lobes,
must know that the given data for Algol make perfectly sense,
and the K2 star won't "come apart".

Or didn't you know?
Just a thought.
Of course you know.
You ARE an expert on tides.
Or aren't you?

I know that the velocity of light in vacuo is source dependent,
and I know that because I get the light curve of Algol when I model
it, so does Henri Wilson with a completey different model to mine
and I know you cannot produce the spectrum.


To model the light curve of Algol, you have demonstrated
that you must use data we know are wildly wrong.
A fine falsification of your theory.
Well done.

Paul, the tusselad
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Glass a speed to frequency transformer?
    ... |>Algol is not a binary. ... limit on the separation of the supposed two stars of ... HDC hDC; ... "Androcles". ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Spectrum!
    ... | Androcles wrote [about Algol]: ... | Two of the stars form a short period binary, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Spectrum!
    ... | Androcles wrote [about Algol]: ... | Two of the stars form a short period binary, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Long-Period Eclipsing Binary Stars and GR
    ... >> one or two stars is irrelevant. ... >that the light curve of Algol should be very different ... >Algol falsifies the ballistic theory. ... Paul, don't distort my statements. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Androcles and Henris Theory of Diffraction Grating Behavior
    ... | has mass transferring from one star to the other, ... | know anything regarding Algol. ... | For his part Androcles is on record as stating that Aql 1493 ... I'm not too fond of stars blowing up twice in three months, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)