Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_hia.no)
Date: 10/01/04
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:28:53 +0200
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:b3kpl0521gflgtle55onqo452jbn07ee9g@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:06:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > Henry Wilson wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> Temperature is correlated with the period, you see Paul.
> >
> >http://aa.springer.de/papers/7317003/2300761/small.htm
> >
> >> >> >> >> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >As can be expected, of course.
> >> >> >> >> >Miras are intrinsic variables, and then it obviously is
> >> >> >> >> >correlation between the period and the other intrinsic
> >> >> >> >> >properties of the star, like its temperature.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Thanks for pointing that out. :-)
> >
> >> >> >> > Henry Wilson wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Exactly what the ballistic theory predicts.
> >
> >> >> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> >> >Your stupidity never cease to amaze.
> >> >> >How the hell did you come up with the ridiculous idea
> >> >> >that the ballistic theory predicts a relationship between
> >> >> >the period of a binary and the temperature of its components?
> >
> >> > Henry Wilson wrote:
> >> >> jesus christ, I thought that would be obvious.
> >> >> The observed temperture varies with the orbit period because that is the same
> >> >> as your view of the day and night face of the bright member of the pair.
> >
> >> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> >Sober up, Henri.
> >> >This is too bloody stupid.
> >> >There is a correlation between the temperature and the period,
> >> >not with the temperature _variations_ and the period.
> >
> >Henry Wilson wrote:
> >> How can you determine if there is any difference?
> >> Obviously, if a temperature variation occurs perfectly regularly over many
> >> years, one could assume that it was due entirely to reflective heating and was
> >> exactly in synch with the orbital period.
> >>
> >> If you want to refer me to some temperature variation curves from a star that
> >> is also varying in brightness, I will tell you how the ballistic theory
> >> explains the relationship.
> >
> >"How do you know the difference between the effective temperature
> > of a Mira star and the variation in it's temperature."
>
> Did you mean 'reflective'?
Certainly not. :-)
> >Henri .... :-)
> >If I didn't know you never had it,
> >I would have asked if you had lost it completely. :-)
>
> I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.
That is indeed very obvious. :-)
> >> >You ARE confused, aren't you?
> >>
> >> The ballistic theory is NOT confusing. It is extremely simple. It also offeres
> >> straightforward explanations as to why stars vary in brightness.
> >> Why do you want to deny yourself the obviuos truth?
> >>
> >> If light from distant stars does NOT travel at c wrt the source, what
> >> determines its speed, Paul?
> >
> >You are babbling incoherently, Henri.
> >The issue is the correlation between the temperature of Miras
> >and their period which YOU pointed out in the reference
> >http://aa.springer.de/papers/7317003/2300761/small.htm
> >
> >Your confused mind seems to think that this correlation
> >supports you claim that Miras are binaries.
> >Which was a giant blunder, because no theory whatsoever
> >predicts a correlation between the temperature of a binary
> >(or one of its components) and the orbital period of the binary.
>
> Paul you just aren't cut out for physics, are you. You don't even recognize a
> new theory when it strikes you head on.....and you are the first to know about
> it.....!
>
> I'll try to explain.
>
> Consider a fairly close binary pair that has one large dull red member and one
> smaller bright star. Let the rotation of the small star around its own axis
> have a considerably longer period than its orbit period around the larger star,
> ie, it is near tidal lock.
> Let the orbit plane be reasonably close to but not exactly 'edge-on' to a
> distant observer.
>
> Do you agree that the side of the small star which faces the large dull one
> (the daytime side) will be much hotter than the night time one?
>
> Do you agree that as the pair rotate, the observer will alternatively see the
> day and night sides of the smaller star.
>
> Do you agree that, even though the larger star will experience a degree of
> day/night temperature variation, this will have little effect on the observed
> temperature since it is outside the visual range.
>
> If anything, there should, under certain conditions, be a distinct 180 phase
> shift between temperature variation in the visual region and in the infra-red
> since the maximum temperature of the larger star is in that region.
> Mind you, the effect should still occur if the dull star is comparatively
> small.
Still not knowing what we are talking about. :-)
> >Thus this correlation show that Miras are NOT binaries,
> >but pulsating stars. (As pointed out above - and below.)
>
> Oh! I can just see these stars, puffing themselves up like a balloon then
> letting it all out again. Maybe they have lungs!
Quite a good picture, Henry.
And yes, we CAN see them puffing themselves up and
letting it all out again.
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v31n5/aas195/947.htm
Google Mita+interferometry and you will find a lot of
other references for interferometric measurements of the diametres
of Miras and the periodic change of same.
Miras are prime targets for interferometry.
You see, Henry.
There is no question whatsoever if Miras are pulsating stars.
They are. We can see it.
BTW, Henri.
Who do you think you ridiculed with your remark? :-)
> >> Paul, if nothing else, you are an expert at twisting statements so they appear
> >> meaningless.
> >> No you don't have to explain why "the orbital period is not determined
> >> by the temperature of the components of the binary" because that is clearly not
> >> related to anything I have said.
> >>
> >> It should be obvious even to you that, for any orbit involving one hot and one
> >> cool star, the day and night temperature variations of the hotter star will be
> >> observed at a distance to be in synch with the orbit period. The more 'tidal
> >> lock' the more pronounced the variation. The orbit needs a large 'edge-on'
> >> component.
> >
> >You are babbling incoherent nonsense, Henri.
> >Nobody is talking about the _temperature variation_!
> >The correlation is between the effective temperature
> >(which roughly is the temperature at minimum) of the Mira star
> >and the period of the variation.
>
> Well why didn't you say so before?
That's an easy one.
Because I was so naive that I thought you had read
the reference YOU quoted from, and wrongly assumed that
you knew what YOU were talking about when YOU wrote:
"Temperature is correlated with the period, you see Paul."
This is hilarious, Henri. :-)
Why didn't _I_ say so before!
You are killing me! :-)
Read it again:
http://aa.springer.de/papers/7317003/2300761/small.htm
And when you now know what we are talking about
you can read my statements above again.
But thanks anyway for supplying a reference supporting
my point, even if it wasn't voluntarily.
> >> >> They consist of a star rotating around a warm dark mass.
> >> >> Their curves are easily predicted by the ballistic theory.
> >> >
> >> >Yea, right.
> >> >Close your eyes and keep asserting against all evidence.
> >>
> >> Present it then!
> >
> >The correlation between the temperature and the period.
>
> A gather you are trying to say in a most confused and confusing way that hotter
> Miras tend to have longer 'temperature fluctuation' periods.
> Is that right?
No, Henri.
I didn't try to say anything about the nature of the correlation
because I didn't think I had to, since that is what the reference
YOU gave does in a most unconfused and unconfusing way.
And what it says is:
http://aa.springer.de/papers/7317003/2300761/figure5.htm
Hotter Miras tend to have shorter periods.
How the hell is it possible to screw up so thoroughly?
Did someone mention reading comprehension problems?
> So you want me to tell you how the ballistic theory explains this.
>
> ...but how do I know it is true?
You don't.
The referenced paper is of course like all scientific papers
part of the Great Conspiracy, and is as such not to be believed.
> >> >This is too bloody stupid.
> >> >I have had it.
> >>
> >> You need genuine intelligence for this stuff, Paul.
> >> You wont find it in any book.
> >
> >Quite. :-)
> >Your genuine intelligence is thoroughly demonstrated.
.. a thousand times over. :-)
Paul
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
