Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS


"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ecahq3$66a$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:ec7bii$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.

Increasing average...
Let me see. 1+2+3 = 6, divide that by 3 and the average is 2.

What does "increasing average" mean, Tusselad? I'm confused,
explain it to me, since it is a fact I'm not aware of.


|
| Fact:
| You claim that cepheids really are stars orbited by a body
| (like a planet).

Correct. I'd even go so far as to call the body a planet, although
Wilson likes to call it a Wilson Cool Heavy for reasons of his ego.


| Thus the period/luminosity relation
| implies that the more luminous the star is, the more distant
| must the orbiting body be.

No, that is not a fact.
I made no such claim, that is your misunderstanding.

Our sun does not get brighter because it has outer planets.
You have not made my day by your stupidity.

[rest snipped, false assumption]

I'd give you more, but you call it a verbose lecture when I do
and fail to take notes.
Androcles


.

Quantcast