Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?

From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_hia.no)
Date: 09/03/04 

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:22:40 +0200

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:qfofj0p65orhj3eh81jbcj0lc4mpd9077h@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:31:10 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><H@..> skrev i melding news:fimdj019nrh3fdbpop6uorfvucqsakf8u2@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:28:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Henri Wilson" <h@..> skrev i melding news:n1v9j0t45v2nknjmutt42ij3t186076sld@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:37:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> >> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Ah. OBVIOSLY! :-)
> >> >> >Henri can answer all I throw at him. :-)
> >> >> >Henri .... :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Read the comments by the honourable gentleman who runs britastro. He explains
> >> >> these inaccuracies like I said. Factors like atmospheric pollution are common
> >> >> causes.
> >> >> You are starting to make a real fool of yourself Paul.
> >> >
> >> >Don't pretend that you actually believe that
> >> >the irregularities in this light curve:
> >> >http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifm/00349a.gif
> >> >is caused by "Factors like atmospheric pollution".
> >> >
> >> >This is but another idiotic attempt to deny facts.
> >> >You screw up again, Henry.
> >>
> >> Read: http://www.britastro.org/vss/tm-aovso.html
> >
> >From where I quote:
> >"Although it is generally accepted that, under good conditions,
> > visual estimates can be accurate to +/- 0.1 mag, we have to
> > be careful in how we interpret this accuracy."
> >His point being that the uncertainty sometimes may be greater,
> >maybe up to +/- 0.4 mag. (conditions are not always good.)
> >So?
> >
> >> .....and please apologise.
> >> You are gettting into deeper and deeper trouble Paul.
> >
> >Don't pretend that you actually believe that
> >the irregularities in this light curve:
> >http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifm/00349a.gif
> >is caused by "Factors like atmospheric pollution"
> >even if you allow for an uncertainty of several tenth
> >of magnitudes.
> >
> >As each dot represents a measurement, and the observations
> >are made by several different observers, it is obvious from the curve
> >that the uncertainty is several tenths of an magnitude.
> >It is equally obvious that the maxima varies considerably, up to
> >two magnitudes in some cases.
> >
> >> >You conveniently snipped your statement:
> >> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> >| Paul, I don't doubt that there are a number of reasons why some stars are
> >> >| intrinsically unstable at certain times of their lives. That doesn't explain
> >> >| why the periods of so many variable stars, including T Uma, are precisely
> >> >| regular when the type of phenomenon you are talking about should at least be
> >> >| partly chaotic.
> >> >
> >> >The type of phenomena I am talking about ARE indeed chaotic,
> >> >and very obviously far from "precisely regular".
> >>
> >> Bull!!!
> >> For mos. the periods and amplitudes hardly change over up to a hundred years.
> >> You are really starting to rave uncontrolledly now!
> >
> >We are talking about long period variables, Miras, Henri.
> >Here are a few lightcurves for an arbitrary collection of such:
> >S Persei
> >http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00292.gif
>
> That is obviously a compound system.
>
> >U Orionis
> >http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifm/00271a.gif
>
> The variation between maxima and mimima is obviousl;y due to measurement
> factors.
> The curves are very typical of ballistic predictions.
>
> >R Leo:
> >http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifm/00222a.gif
>
> Same thing. You only have to look at the differences between readings of
> different observers at the same time to see these discrepancies are
> observational.
>
> >R And
> >http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifm/00003a.gif
> >http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00003.gif
> >Z UMa:
> >http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifm/00354a.gif
>
> This one is a perfect example of measurement limitations.
>
> >R Tri:
> >http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifm/00354a.gif
> >R Ser:
> >http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifm/00315a.gif
>
> There is possibly a third body involved here.
>
> >
> >You will find several more light curves in this article:
> >http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1997JAVSO..25...57M
>
> All these curves are typical of ballistic predictions.
>
> chi Cyg is probably a ternary. you can see the little dip in the curve.
>
> Brightness curves are quite sensitive to variatiuons in eccentricity.The
> presence of another object might have a profound effect.
>
>
> >
> >I don't think I have to state who is right.
> >The evidence speeks for itself.
>
> That is correct. The evidence in favour of the ballistic theory is quite
> overwhelming.

Don't even try, Henri.
All your hand waving above only make you look pathetic.
The observational evidence is indisputable.

The light curve of Mira variables are not strictly periodic,
and the maximum brightness varies - sometimes drastically -
from period to period.

Thus you were very wrong when stating:
Henri Wilson wrote:
| That doesn't explain why the periods of so many variable stars,
| including T Uma, are precisely regular when the type of
| phenomenon you are talking about should at least be
| partly chaotic.

The FACT is that the periods of ALL Mira type stars,
including T UMa, are at least partly chaotic as can be expected
by an unstable, pulsating star.

So the light curves confirm what the spectra so clearly shows.
Miras ARE unstable, pulsating stars.

[..]

> >You are pretending not to get the point, aren't you? :-)
> >
> >As you know very well does the ballistic theory
> >predict that just about all _close_ binaries should be
> >variables - but few of them are.
>
> The ballistic theory DOES NOT say any particular group should be more variable
> than any other. They are all very distance dependent.

The important parameter is - as you well know -
the radial acceleration multiplied by the distance.
Since the former is high in all CLOSE binaries,
the ballistic theory WILL predict that just about all
close binaries are variables, unless the distance is very small.

But you know this.

> >In one of your desperate attempts to "explain" why
> >the ballistic theory gets this wrong, you invented
> >the temperature fluctuations in close binaries.
>
> .and one of your own DHR colleagues agreed with me.
>
> >Do I have to say more?
>
> you don't ...but you probably will...because your faith is collapsing.
>
> >
> >Hilarious! :-)
>
> Like Einsteiniana.

Henry:
> >> >Will you please explain how the alleged temperature variations
> >> >which you say cancels out anyway can make the ballistic
> >> >theory predict that they should NOT be variables?

This IS hard to explain, isn't it? :-)

> >> >This is hilarious, Henry.
> >> >This "explanation" was another great blunder, wasn't it? :-)

Well, wasn't it? :-)

> >> >Sure. The faint giants, right? :-)
> >>
> >> Have you gone completely mad?
> >
> >I see you have snipped your faint giants. :-)
> >I can understand why.
> >
> >Henry wrote:
> >| The large companion is -> a red giant.
> >| It is much the same mass as ever but it is very large.
> >| It is also dull red so doesn't contribute much to the brightness curve.
> >
> >I think "completely mad" is an appropriate description. :-)
>
> You are showing complete ignorance.
> I think Androcles is right about you.

Out of words, Henry? :-)

I can understand why.
Having to defend the invention of a red giant which is dull
compared the red giant T UMa so that the former doesn't
contribute to the light curve of the latter, but still is
so warm that it is able to heat T UMa by 500K on
one side compared to the other, is no easy task.

It is however incredible funny! :-)

Henri can answer everything I throw at him!
Gaaasp. :-)

Paul

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... >>His point being that the uncertainty sometimes may be greater, ... >>are made by several different observers, it is obvious from the curve ... you can see the little dip in the curve. ... The evidence in favour of the ballistic theory is quite ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... >are made by several different observers, it is obvious from the curve ... The variation between maxima and mimima is obviousl;y due to measurement ... The evidence in favour of the ballistic theory is quite ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... >are made by several different observers, it is obvious from the curve ... The variation between maxima and mimima is obviousl;y due to measurement ... The evidence in favour of the ballistic theory is quite ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... stars such as U Boo and AH Dra are interesting complex systems where both max ... >> Exactly what the ballistic theory predicts. ... one star is too cool to play much part in the brightness curve. ... >> There are plenty of 'distant' Miras. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... stars such as U Boo and AH Dra are interesting complex systems where both max ... >> Exactly what the ballistic theory predicts. ... one star is too cool to play much part in the brightness curve. ... >> There are plenty of 'distant' Miras. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast