Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

Henri Wilson wrote: 
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:03:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:39:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:


On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:53:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



A Doppler shifted K2 spectrum is still a K2 spectrum,
and cannot be mistaken for anything else than the spectrum
emitted from a star with temperature ca. 3800K.

I have told you before, do you never learn?
The temperature of a star is NOT determined by where
the black body spectrum peaks.
The spectral class is determined by the relative positions
and intensities of the absorption lines, and these are
unaffected by a Doppler shift.


I don't think that is quite what you wanted to say. 

Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to say.
Each spectral class has a very characteristic pattern
of absorption lines, and this pattern isn't affected
by a Doppler shift. Their relative position and intensity
remain the same.


According to the standard interpretation of the willusion. 

This is a FACT.
This IS how the spectral class of a star is determined.



sounds pretty shonky to me.


The temperature is then determined by the spectral class. 


I think what you meant was that if absorption lines were distinguishable and
recognizeable, their doppler shift would be an indication of the star's radial



I think the doppler corrected peak of the curve would be a better indicator of
temperature.


Of course it is the best indicator of temperature.
(You also have to correct for the reddening of the black body
 spectrum in the atmosphere, though).
And this IS how the the temperature originally was determined.
A lot of close stars were observed, the spectrum AND the temperature
(determined by the peak) was measured.
We have learned from these observations that the correlation between
the spectral class and temperature is one. This is quite natural,
because it is the temperature that determines the absorption lines.
In cool M stars, there are molecules and non ionized gases, with
their characteristic spectral lines. In hot O stars, there are
no molecules, and all the gas is ionized. This give few spectral lines.

So we can conclude that the spectral class is a very good
indication of the temperature


I doubt it. 

Facts are facts even if you doubt them.

It is generally much easier to determine the spectral class
of a star, than it is to determine where the spectrum peaks.
And the difference is more pronounced the fainter the star is.

I will not insist that determining the spectral class by
recognizing the pattern of the absorption lines is
the only used way to determine a star's temperature, though.
The most used way is probably to measure the colour index,
also called B-V value. This is found by measuring the apparent
magnitude with a blue passband filter (B), and comparing this
to the apparent magnitude with a passband filter in the middle
of the visual range (green-yellow) (V).

The reason why this method is much used is that it is
easy to do. Just take two pictures with two filters.

I assume you will understand why this is a good indication
of temperature. It is nicely explained here:
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys445/lectures/colors/colors.html


That's bullshit. 

OK.
I overestimated you.
You do not understand why the (V-B) value is
a good indication of the stellar temperature
even when it is explained to you.

black body curves don't cross each other. 

Nobody said they do.



This method doesn't take the Doppler shift into consideration, though.
But few stars are so heavily Doppler shifted that it will affect
the measurements much.

There are other methods as well.
Most are variations of the colour index method.



All highly suspect.


But determining the position of the peak is very seldom
used, simply because it is practically difficult to do
with any precision.



It should be quite OK for hot stars.


Thus you were wrong when insinuating that a spectral class
can appear different because of Doppler



I think you are refering to chemical classifications rather than plain
temperature.


No.
A - say - G2 star can have different chemical compositions
and still be a G2 star. Sure the spectra of a population I
(metal rich) and a population II (metal poor) star are different,
that's how we can discriminate between them.
But the differences are small compared to what they have in common,
so if they have the same temperature, the spectral class will
still be the same.

You cannot flee from the fact that you were wrong
when insinuating that a spectral class
can appear different because of Doppler


Well I think the whole process is very suspect and even theoretically unsound. 

Your opinion of the "process" does not change the fact
that you were wrong when insinuating that a spectral class
can appear different because of Doppler

Really?
You claim the that only the B8 star exiats, and that
the K2 star really is a planet.



I said that I accepted the presence of another object.
I didn't say what it might be.


Fleeing again?
Henri Wilson wrote:
| A, I have supported you on this. In Algol's case, the WCH happens
| to be the
| large planet 'Androcles'. Do you have any objections to that?

I had an objection to that.
That's why we are having this conversation.



I said there might be another smaller star present.


So would you please explain what you meant by this comment?

Of course you cannot.


All you have is willusory information. 

Like I said.
You cannot.

It is of course ridiculous to claim that the observed K2
spectrum is a B8 spectrum reflected off a planet.



Strange things can happen
You canot judge the whole universe by what we see in OUR solar system.


Strange things can happen, but a planet will never
reflect a K2 spectrum when it is illuminated by a B8 star.

This is what it really looks like:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/alg2.jpg


Thanks for confirming my words.
You cannot show the light curve which is "distinctly
downwardly concave between the two major dips",
because it only exists in your imagination.



Hey tusselad, the one I gave here showed how the inclusion of molecular source
speeds could make curve fitting rather difficult. Concave could be 'drawn'
convex.

Have a look at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/pa1.jpg
for typical BaTh prediction for stars in highly eccentric orbits.

The curve on the right is interesting.
A second dip can be produced if a small second star is present in the primary
orbit but following 180 degrees behind the main star.
The lower curves show the type of spread produced when source speeds averaging
1000m/s are included.


The fact remains:
You claimed that the light curve of Algol is "distinctly
downwardly concave between the two major dips",
but you cannot show the light curve which is "distinctly
downwardly concave between the two major dips",
because it only exists in your imagination.

So don't we see the secondary minimum, then?

Let us calculate what the deepness of the minima would
be in the infra-red, lambda = 10um.
We use the same method as above:

Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)^2* W(10um,Ta)/W(10m,Tb) = 1.8

No eclipse = 2.8
B eclipses A: 1   (primary)
A eclipses B: 1.8  (secondary)

The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be:
Primary:   2.5*log(2.8) = 1.12 magnitudes
Secondary: 2.5*log(2.8/1.8) = 0.48 magnitudes.

Observation of the secondary minimum at 10um can be found in;

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf

If this long query doesn't make it through, try this one:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N&amp;
And retrieve the full article.

The observed deepness of the secondary minimum is ca. 0.35.
A little less deep than what I calculated it should be.
However, since B is larger than A, the eclipse will not be 100%,
and the minimum _should_ be less deep.


So we can conclude that the observed eclipses are as expected. 


No.
We can only conclude that your whole argument above involves circular
reasoning.

The parameters of the 'two stars' are largely based on your so called 'eclipse
depth'.

You - and they - have used the parameters of the illusion to justify the
illusion.


You pretend not to to get the point, do you?
The conventional explanation predicts that the light curve
should be different at different wavelengths.
The second minimum is observed in the infra-red at 10 um.
It is exactly as it should be according to the conventional explanation.


The conventional explanation is based on what is observed in the willusion. 

You do understand how stupid this answer is, don't you?
Look at the light curve in this again:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf
or
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N&amp;
And retrieve the full article.

Can you please explain in what way this light curve is illusory?


It is willusory by definition.
Because light is used for gaining information about the star, it is a
willusion.
The task is to find te truth that causes the willusion. 

If light curves are illusory by definition, why are you
then so eager to make your program produce those illusions?

You know you are babbling nonsense now, of course.


The ballistic theory does NOT predict such a difference.

The ballistic theory is thus falsified.
Again.


The ballistic theory WILL always predict what is observed.

Isn't it rather stupid to keep asserting what is proven false? 


Paul, I will have to remind you again that the christian belief about the Earth
being the centre of the universe is not true.
All starlight DOES NOT travel towards little planet Earth at precisely c. Why
should it?

If you think it does, then please tell us why. 

And the reason why you "will have to remind" me about an irrelevant
triviality is that you are desperate to divert the attention from
the fact that the BaT predicts no difference in the visible light
curve and the 10um light curve and thus is proven wrong.

However it involves a great deal of trial and error as well as some initial
speculation about what might be really happening. It also provides opportunity
for discovery.

I don't think we can model the rest of the universe on our own solar system. 

You are babbling.
You know very well that the ballistic theory does not predict
a frequency dependent light curve.
But the light curve of Algol IS frequency dependent
exactly as predicted by conventional theory.



I don't understand what you mean by 'frequency' here.
If you mean light frequency, then that is easy to explain.


So explain it.

Why is the secondary minimum practically unobservable
in visible light, while it is 0.35 magnitudes deep at 10um,
exactly as the conventional theory predicts they should be?

Paul

Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED
    ... >>>the spectral class of a Cepheid varies during the Cycle? ... >>>of Delta Cepeid varies between an F2 spectrum and a G3 spectrum? ... >> star is hard to detect without careful observation. ... >> observed temperature too much unless the star is moving ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED
    ... |> I don't see a spectrum, phuckwit, I see some reduced data. ... | So you cannot explain how a star with a planet would change ... When we say the "temperature" of the star, we mean the temperature which will give the same black body spectrum. ... same size as the center sun and touching it*, the probability of it doing anything even remotely like a Cepheid lightcurve is probably next to nil -- yet Cepheids are relatively common, and easily identifiable. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... >>A stellar spectrum is much more than a black body spectrum. ... can be mistaken for a change of temperature. ... >>That means that dramatic intrinsic changes in the star happens. ... of O giant, B giants, A giants, F giants, G giants or K giants ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... >>A stellar spectrum is much more than a black body spectrum. ... can be mistaken for a change of temperature. ... >>That means that dramatic intrinsic changes in the star happens. ... of O giant, B giants, A giants, F giants, G giants or K giants ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
    ... |>>and cannot be mistaken for anything else than the spectrum ... |>>emitted from a star with temperature ca. 3800K. ... He's either incredibly stupid or malicious, ... |>>is that the light curve is roughly flat between the primary ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)