Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:37:32 GMT
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154189259.137352.127430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1154165913.303985.255670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Henri Wilson wrote:
| > | > On 28 Jul 2006 14:32:02 -0700, "Jerry"
<Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| > wrote:
| > |
| > | > >Show how you SIMULTANEOUSLY match the IR, visible, and X-ray
| > | > >light curves for Algol.
| > | >
| > | > You show me the curves....
| > | > I don't believe you can...
| > |
| > | Sheesh, you are LAZY!!! As well as insulting...
| > |
| > | For IR curves, here are three just for starters:
| > | http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/research/journey.html
| >
| >
| > Spectra for RZ Oph, Au Mon, TT Hya, SW Cyg, U Sge.
| > No spectra for beta-Perseus.
| > H asked for the light curves for Algol.
|
| Perhaps there is a problem with your browser. When I click on
| http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/research/journey.html
| I get to a page titled "The Journey Begins".
| About 15% down the page is a diagram "Light curves of beta Per"
| showing six light curves ranging from 1920 A to 1.2 um.
Ok, right now there is a problem with my mind. My apologies, I
should not have said that. My granddaughter went ahead tonight
with her concert as scheduled and danced on stage. That in my
book is the right stuff. Alas, her mother could not be there, so I
went in her place to show my support and I was in a hurry.
That doesn't excuse me, I know, so all I can do is say I'm sorry.
The point is, neither H or myself are disputing empirical data.
We dispute the popular theory expounded by John Goodricke
in 1782 as to the CAUSE of the light curve. It doesn't matter that
you can fit your theoretical curve to the data, both Henri and I
can fit our respective and independent "theoretical" curves to the
same data.
The vector addition of velocities is an AXIOM, not a theory,
and is born out by Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Aether was a theory, and it was wrong. Time dilation cannot
explain the light curve of Algol (if you think it can, then produce
a computer simulation), there is no aether, hence the light curve
is as modelled by H and myself, and Algol is a "cepheid".
The difference in the curves is one of distance, eccentricity, period,
angle of inclination and longitude of periastron only.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/A2C.gif
John Goodricke guessed and he got it wrong, he omitted c+v.
Another misfortune is Henri's propensity to create his own crackpot
theory of "velocity unification" as he calls it, to boost his own ego.
Henri omits the angle of inclination of the orbit to the line of sight,
so that he is compelled to assume this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/unification.JPG
Henri's theory would indeed produce a luminosity curve but
no velocity curve, there is no doppler shift. Henri does not model
doppler.
| Also, don't you know the difference between a "light curve"
| and a "spectrum"?
Yes, of course I do, you are being facetious.
Let's stick to the facts, Tom and Jerry. (Are they not well-known
cartoon characters, Tom a cat and Jerry a mouse?)
| Henri only challenged me for light curves. I've
| ALREADY provided a reference to spectral data in a previous post.
| You've been preoccupied, so you may have missed it.
|
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978ApJ...222L.119T
|
| >
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
| >
| > No spectra at all. A shot at the secondary minimum is given.
| > H asked for the light curves for Algol.
|
| Androcles, don't you know the difference between a "light curve"
| and a "spectrum"? Henri only challenged me for light curves. I've
| ALREADY provided a reference to spectral data in a previous post.
|
| Or perhaps there is a problem with your browser. When I click on
| the above link, I get to a paper titled "The light curve at 10 um
| of Algol near secondary minimum" which is exactly what it says it
| is, a very focused study of the secondary minimum. Not "a shot"
| at all.
|
| >
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1998ASPC..145...19P&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
|
| Perhaps there is a problem with your browser. When I click on
| the above link, I get a paper titled "Modelling Spectro-photometric
| characteristics of eclipsing binaries" which features a comparison
| in Figure 3 of the match between theoretical versus actual light
| curves of Algol at two wavelengths.
|
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algolagain.JPG
|
| And what does your link have to do with the price of eggs?
|
| > | For X-ray info, here are a couple for starters:
| >
| > We've had enough starters.
| > Don't be so sheesh LAZY, and quit insulting our intelligence.
|
| You've just demonstrated either an abysmal lack of reading
| comprehension, or a broken browser that picks up unrelated articles.
| Take your pick.
It was an abysmal lack of humour. I'm not my usual acid self
at this time, somehow I can't even work up a decent cuss or I'd
brow-beat you right back. Let's stick to the facts and forget
the one-up-manship, shall we?
| > We are not interested in dogma. Please try to understand, I know it is
| > difficult, but we want the light curves and spectra for ALGOL.
| > Not RZ Oph, Au Mon, TT Hya, SW Cyg, U Sge, but ALGOL.
|
| As I said, either you have a broken browser, or your reading
| comprehension is sadly deficient.
|
| I prefer to think that your browser is acting up.
|
| Jerry
Yes, ok... vertvergon has the best grasp on physicists...
too much ego and not enough mathematics. You should heed his
words. You might heed Einstein's as well.
"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler."
See if you can find a PHOTOGRAPH of the spectrum of Algol.
We'll compute the velocities from that. Good luck.
Androcles.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: Jerry
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- References:
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: Jerry
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: Jerry
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: Jerry
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: Jerry
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: Jerry
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- From: Jerry
- Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- Prev by Date: COLLIDER FOLLY
- Next by Date: Re: A Million Miles a Day
- Previous by thread: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- Next by thread: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
