Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS

In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:48:02 +0200
<ecahq3$66a$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Sorcerer wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ec7bii$ihf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:ec46mp$edu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > | > news:ec031f$alf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > | > I will not excuse you for claiming that I did not know
| > | > | > what luminosity was, you arrogant hypocritical cretin.
| > | > | > It is you that is unable to learn or to reason sensibly.
| > | > |
| > | > | Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| > | > || Luminosity is the same as absolute magnitude, that is
| > | > || the intrinsic brightness of the star.
| > | > |
| > | > | Androcles responded:
| > | > || Luminosity at 10 parsecs is different to luminosity at 20 parsecs
| > | > || and in the case of a cepheid will change the shape of the curve.
| > | > |
| > | > | If that is your way of saying that the luminosity of a star
| > | > | is independent of the distance to the observer, you sure
| > | > | are expressing yourself ambiguously.
| > | >
| > | > Good. I like to confuse a troll.
| > | > Let's make it unambiguous then.
| > | >
| > | > Apparent luminosity is the same as apparent magnitude,
| > | > that is the apparent intrinsic brightness of the star.
| > |
| > | That is correct.
| > | But it is not what we are discussing.
| > |
| > | My statement which started this discussion, was:
| > | "And what's even more amazing is that their [the cepheid's]
| > | period depend on their luminosity."
| >
| > And I pointed out that you have it backwards because you always
| > were backward.
| > The apparent luminosity depends on the period; it isn't amazing, it is
| > predicted. The absolute luminosity is constant.
| > You ASSUME a constant speed of light in your aether, and if you
| > do not have aether then you assume the distance to the star is varying
| > as per the relativists solution to MMX so that time dilates and
| > distances shrink. In other words, you are off your rocker.
| >
| > It is pretty easy to model a stream of bullets from a rotating
| > carousel and if the bullets travel far enough some later bullets
| > will pass earlier bullets and arrive first. Make the carousel
| > into a Keplerian ellipse and one can model eclipsing binaries,
| > flare stars, recurrent novae and cepheids.
| > You've got you head up your arse about one speed of light,
| > no physical explanation for it at all, the aether is long gone.
| > All that is left is Einstein's crazy math that he uses c+v, c-v
| > to derive his cuckoo transformations.
| >
| >
| >
| > | "luminosity" unqualified is intrinsic (or absolute) luminosity,
| > | so it should be unambiguous that I was referring to the well
| > | known (intrinsic) luminosity/period relationship of cepheids.
| >
| > I don't care about your semantics or your nit-picking, you are crazy.
| >
| >
| > | But you answered as if I had said "apparent brightness"
| > | and not "luminosity".
| > |
| > | I pointed that out by saying:
| > || Luminosity is the same as absolute magnitude, that is
| > || the intrinsic brightness of the star.
| > |
| > | You responded:
| > || Luminosity at 10 parsecs is different to luminosity at 20 parsecs
| > || and in the case of a cepheid will change the shape of the curve.
| > |
| > | and kept on talking as if I had said "apparent brightness".
| >
| > There is only apparent luminosity/brightess/magnitude out there.
| > 10 parsecs is a reference that we use and call "absolute", just as
| > we measure years from 2006 years ago or refer to "candlepower"
| > where one candle is a reference and is brighter than a star.
| > A candle at 10 parsecs will be outshone by a star, though.
| > All magnitudes are relative and are a function of distance.
| >
| > Cepheids are ordinary constant emitters, the APPARENT
| > variation is a result of c+v because they MOVE in periodic orbits.
| > Systems of 3 bodies or more I have not modelled, there are no
| > solutions.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > Since you will NEVER know the absolute magnitude because
| > | > you do not know distance, you are expressing yourself
| > | > ambiguously.
| > |
| > | - Hipparcos has determined the distance d to more than
| > | 200 cepheids with good precision.
| > | - The period is easy to observe.
| > | - The apparent magnitude m is easy to observe.
| > | - The absolute magnitude M can easily be calculated:
| > | M = m + 5 - 5*log(d) (inverse square law)
| > |
| > | This is an irrefutable fact for all these 200+ cepheids:
| > | There is a strong correlation between a cepheid's luminosity
| > | and its period. The period increases with increasing luminosity
| > | in a well known way.
| >
| > Bull***. The APPARENT luminosity increases with the period in
| > an obvious way, the ABSOLUTE luminosity is constant.
| > That is an irrefutable fact that you cannot refute because it is a fact,
| > and I refute your refutable fiction. You BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY
| > do not know fact from theory. All you have given me was what was
| > always known, absolute magnitude (at 10 parsecs) can be calculated.
| >
| >
| > | > | But why is it that you refuse to answer my question?
| > | >
| > | > *** off, troll. Your question was answered.
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | No, you never answered the question, Androcles.
| > | You have evaded it by:
| > | 1. Pretending to believe that I said "apparent luminosity"
| > | when I said "luminosity".
| >
| > There is only apparent luminosity out there.
| > "The absolute magnitude M can easily be calculated:
| > M = m + 5 - 5*log(d) (inverse square law)"
| > Saying "luminosity" alone is ambiguous.
| > Your question was answered, I pretended nothing.
| > *** off, lying troll.
| >
| > Androcles.
|
| Well, Androcles, you twist and turn to evade the point.

You have not answered my points as I have answered yours.

| But I am stubborn.

I know. And you are a proven lying troll. Have a nice day.

Androcles


Thank you.
You have indeed made my day by demonstrating that you are
incapable of answering the question below.

Fact:
There is a strong correlation between a cepheid's luminosity
and its period, and this correlation is there even if the variation
in the luminosity is apparent.
The period increases with increasing average luminosity in
a well known way.

Just out of curiosity: what's the set of Cepheids whose distance
can be measured by parallax? Are we talking a couple, a
few dozen, a few hundred?

And then there's Algol, which is according to Androcles
orbited by the planet Androcles. I for one would see
Algol's distance being directly measurable by parallax,
and readily observable by spectroscopes. (In fact, I have
some graphs in the UV region that I downloaded awhile ago.
Regrettably, I've forgoten the significance and didn't take
notes except for the location of the graphs:
http://ines.laeff.esa.es/ .)


Fact:
You claim that cepheids really are stars orbited by a body
(like a planet). Thus the period/luminosity relation
implies that the more luminous the star is, the more distant
must the orbiting body be.

The question Androcles can't answer:
Why can't two equally luminous stars be orbited by bodies
at different distances?


The reason why you keep fleeing the challenge is obviously
that according to the emission theory, there should be no
correlation between the period and luminosity of cepheids.
There is.
Emission theory falsified.

There are of course also a fair number of other effects that emission
theory predicts -- for example, that supernovae should not be possible
in their readily observed form (brightness many times the original
stars' for a few weeks, then fade down).


Paul


--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.

Quantcast