Re: Spectrum!

Androcles wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dge41j$8dt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:dgbss3$8a8$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:dg93d3$fq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:dg7foq$37q$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | 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 for2.79 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."
| >
| > Yep.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | The two stars in YOUR example will NOT come apart
| >
| > Of course they will.
|
| Of course they won't.

Of course they will, it's blatantly obvious.

| The situation will be something like this:
| (Fixed width fonts!)
|
|
|      *  *
|    *      *
|   *        *
|  *          *
|  *          *
|   *        *
|    *      *
|     *    *
|       **
|
|
| ---------------
|
|
|       **
|     *    *
|    *      *
|   *        *
|  *          *
|  *          *
|   *        *
|    *      *
|      *  *
|
| The stars are orbiting around the axis in the middle.

I know what an orbit looks like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentre

|
| The gaseous stars are held together by gravity only,
| so their shapes are distorted by the tidal forces.
| The outer parts that are orbiting "too fast" are
| pulled away from the common CG, and the inner parts
| that are orbiting "too slowly" are pulled towards
| the common CG.

Which shears the star apart. What you have is the second or third animation
at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentre

but with the larger and smaller bodies reversed, the larger being
1/10 the density of the smaller.
My model of Algol is the fourth animation, the smaller body being a planet.

|
| If you bring the stars closer together, the situation
| will be something like this:
|
|
|       *
|     *   *
|    *     *
|   *       *
|   *       *
|   *       *
|    *     *
|     *   *
|      * *
| ----- * -----
|      * *
|     *   *
|    *     *
|   *       *
|   *       *
|   *       *
|    *     *
|     *   *
|       *
|
| This is when both stars just fill their
| Roche lobes. They will still not come apart.

Crap. Near Earth orbit takes 90 minutes, the Moon takes a month.
Extend a rigid rod between the ISS and the Moon, both have to take
a month, the orbiter hangs like a pendulum and the Moon keeps
the same face toward the Earth, you can't have the orbiter on the
opposite side of the Earth.
Your star doesn't have a rigid rod, so the near side will be on the opposite
side of the companion star to the far side in one orbit, the result is a ring.
Saturn's inner rings complete an orbit faster than it's outer rings.
Your model of Algol is impossible.


|
| You can even have a situation like this:
|
|       *
|     *   *
|    *     *
|   *       *
|   *       *
|   *       *
|    *     *
|     *   *
|      * *
|      * *
|     *   *
|    *     *
|   *       *
|   *       *
|   *       *
|    *     *
|     *   *
|       *
|
| Both stars overflow their Roche lobes,
| or rather, they have a common Roche lobe.
| This is a contact binary.
| They really exists in the real world.


Bull***. A contact like that would merge like two drops of mercury.
A star is GAS! Mercury does it by surface tension, never mind gravity.

| http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311081.pdf
| see fig 25.

Get off. I'm not interested in your phuckwit papers or your unstable systems.
The fourth animation at wiki with the light coming from the larger body
is my model, and it fits the light curve of Algol perfectly. Henri has
modelled it too, but he went off on a tangent thinking the smaller body
was the light source and I had to straighten him out on that. That's where his
"Wilson Cool Heavy" idea came from, he needed the larger body to be
a mass he could orbit.


|
|
| > The moon keeps the same face to the earth
| > because the far side has further to go in its orbit than the nearside.
| > Being a single object it is compelled to keep the same face toward
| > the Earth or suffer tremendous forces.
| > The Earth DOES suffer similiar forces and we live on a crust that
| > is cracked, the continents wander.
| > http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/~greg/Gond.html
|
| So?
So your knowledge of tidal forces is sadly lacking, and your double star
concept is impossible.
The reason you have for retaining it is that an 18-year-old kid with
a toy telescope decided it, deSitter backed him, Einstein backed him,
and none of you realised what would happen if you got rid of Maxwell's aether,
the speed of light is source dependent.
All that time-dilation crap, double star crap, huff-puff star crap, exploding star crap
and flare star crap all reduce to a single model, far simpler than any of you realise.


 |
| > | 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?
| >
| >
| > Not at all. A gaseous body will come apart easily and form a ring,
| > example Saturn.
| > There are no short period binaries.
|
| OK.
| So I will have to accept that you don't know the significance
| of Roche limits and Roche lobes.

Bull***. Saturn has a ring, Jupiter has a ring, the Sun has a ring.
The asteroid belt is well outside any Roche limit, too, but Jupiter's
and Saturn's rings are not, and that is the significance of Roche.
What you need to accept is Ockham's Razor. I don't expect that
from a tusselad, though.



|
| > | > 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.
| >
| > It keeps the same face toward the Earth. How funny is that?
|
| Its isn't funny at all.
| What's hilarious is that you said the outer limb
| orbits less frequently than the inner limb.

It can't, of course, because the Moon is near as dammit solid;
If it were a fluid it would break apart like droplets of mercury.


An interesting claim. :-)
You really have no clue whatsoever, do you? :-)
Now you made a bigger fool of yourself than ever.

Androcles, if you placed a bowl of water on the Moon,
what do you think would happen? Would the water fly
out of the bowl to form a ring around the Earth?
Of course not.
And what do you think would happen if the the Moon
was covered by an ocean? Would the water fly off
the Moon? Of course it wouldn't.
And what happens to the dirt, sand and stones
on the surface of the Moon? Does it fly off
the surface to form a ring around the Earth?
Of course it doesn't.

What an extraordinary stupid idea!

You would have to bring the Moon very close to
the Earth before anything like that would happen.
The critical distance is the Roche limit.
The Roche limit for a liquid Moon is 2.86 Earth radii.
The orbital radius is 21 times bigger than that.
A liquid Moon would do just fine.
And its shape would be the same.
(A sphere slightly distorted by the tidal forces.)

| > If it were close enough it would form a ring. How funny is that?
| > Jupiter has a ring too. How funny is that?
| > The Sun has a ring (asteroid belt). How funny is that?
| > Jupiter has a hot volcanic moon. How funny is that?
| > "Voyager 1 found hundreds of volcanic calderas. Some of the volcanoes
| > are active! Striking photos of actual eruptions with plumes 300 km high
| > were sent back by both Voyagers (right) and by Galileo (bottom left
| > image on this page) "
| > http://www.nineplanets.org/io.html
| > Jupiter has a cracked surface moon. How funny is that?
| > http://www.nineplanets.org/europa.html
| >
| > You really know nothing about tides, tusselad, and think it funny that
| > someone does.
|
| You mean someone like Androcles? :-)
| I do indeed find it hilarious that someone can
| be so ignorant of own ignorance.

Look to yourself, tusselad. You always were phuckwit.
Remember this, when you claimed my computer was wrong?


Indeed I do. :-)
But I didn't say your computer was wrong.
I said YOU were wrong.
You know - garbage in, garbage out.

My comment is the same:
I do indeed find it hilarious that someone can
be so ignorant of own ignorance.


_____________________________________
Ok...
Let's see what a computer makes of it.

(I'll just tidy it up a little here to make it clearer.)
        x     v    t=x/v    tau-out     tau-back
       4.00   0.86   4.65        2.37 years out
      -4.00  -0.86   4.65        back      15.86
       4.00   0.86   4.65                  15.86
      -4.00   0.86  -4.65   wrong.        -15.86
       4.00  -0.86  -4.65   wrong.        -15.86

       Total
       18.23 years

Now, I've said a computer did this. It's from a spread***.
Where a negative time is shown, I've written 'wrong'.
This is for lines 5 and 6, columns 3 and 5.
I have also given Andersen the answer he likes in row 1.
BUT... The moronic Andersen doesn't like the answer he finds in row 2.

The lying Andersen changes this to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl842194965d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=c278m1%24oo9%241%40dolly.uninett.no&rnum=49

2.37 years out, that is correct.

But you made a tiny error with the sign back.
_____________________________________________

My computer made a tiny error with the sign.
Not Andersen, he's better than any computer.
What a phuckwit!


I also find it hilarious that you are too stupid
to realize when you have made a blunder, and that you even
repost your blunders because you think they will make me
look like a fool. :-)

But please, keep doing it, Androcles. :-)

|
| >
| > |
| > | > One minute later and the model becomes this:
| > | > http://www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html
| > |
| > | Since Algol is still a binary, you are proven wrong.
| >
| > You don't know what a proof is, tusselad. Your assertions are not proof.
| > Algol was NEVER a binary, and certainly not on the say-so of an
| > 18-year-old with a toy telescope that know nothing of tidal forces and
| > didn't consider the variable
| > speed of light.
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > | 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.
| >
| > In your case it's the appropriate one.
| > If I were debating with someone that actually knew something and could
| > think
| > my response might be different, but I'm conversing with an out-of-date
| > textbook
| > that is incapable of reason and doesn't have any spectra to back up it's
| > claims.
| > It's a phuckwit.
|
| Quite.
|
| > | > |
| > | > | 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? :-)
| >
| > It certainly will, grinning ape.
| > Once the outer layer goes the next layer soon follows.
|
| And the star is sucked empty in two minutes. :-)
| The ape is still grinning.

I expected nothing else.

|
| > | 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.
| >
| >
| > As I said, a talking textbook that is out-of-date and knows nothing
| > about tidal forces and cannot think.
|
| Do you mean that Roche's work is outdated because he used
| Newtonian mechanics rather than relativistic mechanics?

What an idiot you are. 

Quite. But my idiocy is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that you now have repeated
over and over that everything Roche said was wrong.
Roche limits and Roche lobes follows from
Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian gravitation.
Consequently you are claiming that Newtonian
mechanics is wrong.

Roche was an expert on tidal forces and their
consequences for orbiting bodies, and he got it right.

You, OTOH, have thoroughly demonstrated that you have no
clue whatsoever.

In fact, you have an unparalleled ability to
get just about everything horribly wrong.



|
| > |
| > | What did YOU imagine would happen, Androcles?
| >
| > I've told what would happen.
| > One minute later and the model becomes this:
| > http://www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html
|
| In other words:
| > | 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.
| >
| > You don't have any sense, tusselad, or any spectra either.
| >
| > ( "the data given for Algol makes perfect sense"-English translation.
| > Your English is excellent, tusselad, and very understandable, but not
| > perfectly make)
|
| OK.
| You can roll farting on the floor as much as you want,
| the data given for Algol make perfect sense.

Only to a phuckwit.

| >
| > | > | > 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.
| >
| > Not YOUR imagination, you don't have one. They are the imagination
| > of John Goodricke, an 18-year-old with a toy telescope who lived
| > in the mid-1700s. Originality is a not a property you possess.
| > You are not alone, most people don't have it.
| > Those that do write fiction, the libraries of full of it. The difference
| > between you and I is knowing the fantasy from the reality.
| > Psychotics cant tell the difference, can you?
|
| OK.
| The data in the following paper and the thousands of other
| papers on close binaries are the product of Goodricke's imagination.
| That makes of course much more sense.

Ptolemy was right, Copernicus was wrong, the Earth is the centre of the universe.
The data of retrograde motion makes perfect sense. The planets move in epicycles. Right, grinning ape?



|
| > | Just see which influence my imagination has on the Astronomical
| > | community:
| > | http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/research/binaries_prog.html
| >
| > Research? I like research! Got any spectra, tusselad?
| > Paper I (Lu, W. and Rucinski, S.M. 1999, AJ, 118, 515):
| >
| >   a.. GZ And, V417 Aql, LS Del, EF Dra
| >   b.. V829 Her, FG Hya, AP Leo, UV Lyn
| >   c.. BB Peg, AQ Psc
| > Paper II (Rucinski, S.M. and Lu, W. 1999, AJ, 118, 2451):
| >
| >   a.. AH Aur, CK Boo, DK Cyg, SV Equ
| >   b.. V842 Her, UZ Leo, XZ Leo, V839 Oph
| >   c.. GR Vir, NN Vir
| > Paper III (Rucinski, Lu and Mochnacki, 2000, AJ, 120, 1133):
| >
| >   a.. CN And, HV Aqr, AO Cam, YY CrB
| >   b.. FU Dra, RZ Dra, UX Eri, RT LMi
| >   c.. V753 Mon, OU Ser
| > LOL! Yes, I get the same velocity curves from a single star.
| > Amazing, but true. Henri's working on the problem as we write.
| > You won't though. You are just a phuckwit tusselad that already
| > thinks he knows.
|
| I am sure this strong and coherent argument will convince
| the world that none of these binaries exist.

Not your world, you and millions of others still think the planets move in epicycles,
the speed of light is invariant, Algol is a double star and sticks in water really are bent, it's blatantly obvious they are, we can SEE they are.

|
| > | > | 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've told you above.
|
| You sure did.
| You know nothing about Roche limits and Roche lobes.
| But why should you care?
| Roche knew nothing about tidal forces, and his
| work is outdated because it is based on Newtonian mechanics.
|
| Wasn't this what you told me?

A tusselad will make up any story to protect his religion, I saw you misquote Henri only yesterday. Your willful ignorance knows no bounds. 

Quite.
But my ignorance is irrelevant to your ignorance.

Your claim that the Moon would break up if it was liquid
because the outer limb would orbits less frequently than
the inner limb, is such a convincing demonstration of
your ignorance that we can consider the matter settled:

 Androcles is ignorant of tidal forces, Roche limits
 and Roche lobes.

|
| > | > 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.
| >
| > Now you are babbling. The only data is the spectrum, which
| > you cannot produce.
| >
| >
| > | A fine falsification of your theory.
| > | Well done.
| >
| > Babble talk of the tusselad that can't produce a single spectrum.
|
| It's very simple.
| Enter the well known real parameters of Algol into
| your program, and it will predict a light curve very
| different from the observed one.
| Your theory is falsified.

Go ahead, enter the vert simple well-known real epicycles into Copernicus's
heliocentric theory and falsify it. It's blatantly obvious Ptolemy was right,
isn't it, Paul "Blatantly Obvious" Andersen? 

Quite.
It is blatantly obvious


Androcles.




|
| Paul 

.

Quantcast