Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 25 Jul 2006 20:19:00 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 25 Jul 2006 17:18:08 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sorcerer wrote:
There is NO secondary, it would break up, it would be within the Roche
limit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_Limit
Excuse me? Two stellar spectra are visible, and the orbits
and mass characteristics of the components are readily
determined.

The "secondary" is a jovian planet named "Androcles"
(although I'd be loath to call Jupiter a "secondary" of our sun)
and the orbit is almost face-on, 85 degrees from the line of sight.
There is a similar planet orbiting d-Ceph named "Cassandra".
I chose that name from mythology, Cassandra spoke truth but was
not believed. The planet orbiting WR20 (southern hemisphere)
is named "Wilson's Folly", although Henri Wilson prefers to call
it "Wilson2". He's a shithead who thinks all worbits are seen edge-on
and his star is 0.3 LY away, so he ignores the angle of inclination
to the celestial plane. Nor does he understand Kepler's equation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG
Orbits are not worbits. Worbits have points like the ace of spades.
You see Jerry, he is so envious over the fact that my program is far superior
to his that he has to resort to insults.

He is actually right about Mercury's precession and Algol's possession of the
orbiting WCH "Androcles". The second observed spectrum is the reflection of
light from the main star from 'Androcles'.
>From the observed radial velocities, it can be computed that your
so-called planet "Androcles" is 22% as massive as Algol A, and 0.81
times as massive as our Sun. That's unreasonably large for a planet.

It's a WCH (Wilson Cool Heavy)

There are quite a few around....dead stars, huge planets, and other
conglomerations of matter.

The ballisticusants seem pretty desperate. :-)

BTW, Henri.
How did you say the BaT explains why the secondary dip
hardly is observable in visible light while it is very
obvious in 10um infra-red?

Here is how conventional theory explains it:

We have two stars.
Algol A: temperature Ta = 12000K, radius Ra = 2.88 solar radii
Algol B: temperature Tb = 4880K, radius Rb = 3.54 solar radii

Their relative brightness at the wavelength lambda will be:
Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)^2* W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb)
where W(lambda,T) is Planck's radiation law.
Now we have:
(Ra/Rb)^2 = 0.66
W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) =
(exp(C/(lambda*Tb))-1)/(exp(C/(lambda*Ta))-1)
where C = 0.00144 m degree

In the visible spectrum lambda = 0.5 um.
W(0,5um,Ta)/W(0,5um,Tb) = 40

So their relative visual brightness will be:
Ba/Bb = 26.
That is A is 26 times brigter than B.
The binary is 27 times brighter than B.

If we assume that the eclipses are 100%,
we get the following brightnesses (B as unit):
No eclipse = 27
B eclipses A: 1 (primary dip)
A eclipses B: 26 (secondary dip)

The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be:
Primary dip: 2.5*log(27) = 3.58 magnitudes
Secondary dip: 2.5*log(27/26) = 0.04 magnitudes.

We see that the deepness of the primary minimum fits
quite well with what is observed.
But the secondary minimum is hardly observable at all
in the visible spectrum!


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 dip)
A eclipses B: 1.8 (secondary dip)

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://tinyurl.com/mywm8

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 I repeat my question:
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
.

Quantcast