Some pulsating variables and eclipsing binaries
"Anthony Ayiomamitis" wrote in message ...
Τη **μπτη, 13 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012 1:08:52 π.μ. UTC+3, ο χρήστης Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway *γραψε:
"Anthony Ayiomamitis" wrote in message
...
Τη
Τετάρτη, 12 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012 3:33:37 μ.μ. UTC+3, ο χρήστης Lord Androcles,
Zeroth Earl of Medway *γραψε:
"Anthony Ayiomamitis"
wrote in message
...
Τη
Τετάρτη, 12 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012 2:44:16 π.μ. UTC+3, ο
χρήστης Lord Androcles,
Zeroth Earl of Medway *γραψε:
"Anthony Ayiomamitis"
wrote in message
...
Τη
Τετάρτη, 12
Σεπτεμβρίου 2012 12:53:40 π.μ. UTC+3,
ο χρήστης Lord Androcles,
Zeroth Earl of Medway *γραψε:
"Anthony
Ayiomamitis"
wrote in message
...
Dear
group ...
and Oriel,
Anthony.
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photomet...R-20120824.htm
“A variable
star,
as its name
suggests, is a star whose magnitude varies
intrinsically”
No
it doesn’t.
A
variable star appears to vary because light from the approaching side
of
its orbit
catches up with light from the
receding side of its orbit.
The
intrinsic
magnitude
is constant. Contrary to popular myth and magic
there
is no aether
and light’s velocity is c+v relative
to Earth. Your
outlandish
claim is not based on science and
mathematics but on
bigotry
and ignorance.
A
bent stick in water is, as its name suggests, a
stick whose
bend varies
intrinsically.
You don’t need to say
“intrinsically”,
nor
do you have any knowledge of it being intrinsic.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
--
Lord Androcles,
Zeroth Earl of
Medway
Androcles,
If
your logic was correct, would not the light
curve then be
perfectly
symmetrical?
================================================== =======
Good
thought, Anthony,
but no. Orbits are usually
elliptical and their
orientation
to
the observer is (to date) only guessed at.
The
only perfectly
symmetrical light curves I have seen or produced are those
involving
eclipsing binaries and for obvious reasons. Ex.
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photomet...3-20120904.htm
.
==========================================
Bent sticks in water are
“obviously” bent because we can see
they are.
No reasons are
“obvious”, Anthony.
They have
to be carefully
computed.
How do you
explain this
assymetry
(amogst MANY others):
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photomet...R-20120824.htm
?
===================================
So–called
“eclipsing
binaries” have the major axis
of the ellipse
aligned with the line-of-sight. They
are not
binaries at all, except
in the sense that
they have planets.
The source of
light, the primary,
orbits a common centre it shares with the
planet,
and
therefore it
MUST move. Algol playing
peek-a-boo behind
a “dark
companion”
is nonsensical, a dark star as big as Algol itself
but emits no
light
of its own? Inconceivable.
Amongst many others the asymmetry doesn’t have
the
major axis
of the ellipse aligned
with the
line-of-sight.
Changing b-Persei to
d-Cephei and back again without changing distance.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rnicus/A2C.gif
Angle of inclination to the celestial plane,
eccentricity, Major Axis,
Period and Yaw to the line of sight all
change:
Carefully computed, not hand drawn.
--
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway
Whenever a star is suspected to be variable, spectroscopy does
ensue in
order to check whether the cycle of the variability is correlated to
the orbit. There are examples where this has been shown to be the case and, to
this end, the variability is artificial for the reason you cite
earlier.
=================================================
You
have never seen the orbit of a star and neither has anyone
else (with the
possible exception of Sol orbiting the barycentre it
shares with
Jupiter, or Sirius A with Sirius B). Perhaps you are
referring to the orbit of
the Earth.
--
Lord
Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
However,
your citation suggests that this is the case
for all pulsating variables and
this is something which is not true.
======================
As I
stated earlier, your
outlandish claim is not based on science and mathematics
but on bigotry
and ignorance.
--
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway
Stars
have their outer "surface" expand and contract with the dominating
theory
suggesting ionization is at play where a hot core leads to
ionization and
expansion; the expansion leads to cooling (of the outer
layers) and where
ionization now stops; thus leading to contraction and
a reheating which
activates ionization again etc.
================================
So you are
claiming the surface expands at 30 km/sec for two days, then collapses at 20
km/sec for three days.
- Lord
Androcles,
Zeroth Earl of Medway
It
is my understanding, right or wrong, that the
incessant expansion and
contraction of (variables) stars is basically a
given fact. If ionization is
really at play or not is something which
is to be proven.
================================
I suggest you commence
proving.
It is my understanding,
right or wrong, that water
saturates the wood, softening it, the part above the
surface tries to
float and the part below the surface sags and tries to sink,
thus
bending the stick at the surface, which is basically a given fact. If
saturation is really at play or not is something which is to be proven. On the
other hand it could be light that bends, but that notion is
preposterous. The
dominant theory is light travels in perfectly
straight lines at exactly
299792458 m/s in nothing at all, and of
course it is a fact that dominant
theories dominate.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth
Earl of Medway
Your
earlier suggestion does have a basis but only
for "variable" stars whose cycle
has been correlated to their orbit.
==========================
What
orbit?
--
Lord Androcles,
Zeroth Earl of Medway
However,
this is not an all-inclusive conclusion. For example, how do you explain the
Blazhko effect where every 85-86 days RR Lyr goes through a complete
cycle
related to the amplitude of its maxima?
==============================
I
explain it by there
being more than one planet involved. An outer planet has a
period of
85-86 days, the inner planet a much shorter period.
-
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Ditto
for other pulsators which show a steady and constant anomaly in
the ascending
branch of the light-curve (and delta Scuti's which show a
similar anomaly in the
descending branch - ex.
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photomet...5-20120103.htm ). Also,
here is a nice weird pulsator and for which I fail to see how your
earlier
suggestion can be used to explain its behaviour:
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photomet...4-20120609.htm .
==============================
It
is
your failure to see that I am trying to help you with.
- Lord
Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway
Finally,
let's go to BL Cam:
http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photomet...L-20111128.htm
... the
amplitude of the maximum here also varies and I fail to see how your
earlier comment can explain this observation. As an aside, in a few months I
will spend a complete evening on BL Cam so as to get 10-12 such cycles
and where
the variability in the amplitude of the maximum will really
show up
nicely.
Anthony.
================================
Regrettably,
as long as you continue to believe in
dominant theories about the speed
of light being constant in empty space you
will never gain any insight
into the true nature of astronomical bodies. Stars
that huff and puff,
stars that play peek-a-boo behind a dark companion, stars
that blow
themselves to smithereens twice in three months then settle back to
normal only to blow up twice again 200 years later, stars that fire off flares
brighter than the star itself, all can be explained by the speed of
light being
constant wrt the source and c+v with respect to the
observer.
Faster
light arrives sooner, slower light
arrives later, making the true sinusoidal
velocity curve look like
this:
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...d79cd3696b1291
with
it's impossible acceleration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
The razor
asserts that
one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity
can be traded for
greater explanatory power.
--
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
Strange as it may sound,
this is one of the many beauties which I find about astronomy. From observation,
however limited or extended, there is an attempt to quantify, describe, and
"solve" something much greater.
Hopefully during our lifetime we will
have definitive proof as to what really is going on with these pulsators, be it
ionization, planets or whatever else.
Anthony.
=================================
We know our own system has planets. We do not observe the
sun pulsating.
I’m not particularly interested in astronomy as such, to
me a star is a
distant point of light that
moves in a ideal laboratory, a perfect
vacuum.
Theories don’t interest me either. What I conclude is the
velocity of light
can only be c wrt to its source and c+v wrt the observer.
That opens up
the possibility of accelerating signals between planets
and reducing the
(circa) 15 minute delay between Earth and Mars for such
exploration as
conducted by Curiosity and indeed the probe near Saturn,
Cassini, which
takes well over an hour. What we cannot do is invent the
technology for
high speed interplanetary communication unless we believe
it possible,
for there will never
be any finance for it otherwise.
I take into account Kepler’s second law for elliptical
orbits, then the
eccentricity and attitude of the orbit, then the distance,
and then let the
computer calculate the time of arrival of the light from
all around the
orbit. From that I calculate the rate of arrival and then
plot that
logarithmically to produce the luminosity curve. The
spreadsheet
is available and includes exemplary samples of common
luminosity
curves, all you need is Open Office which is free from http://ninite.com/
and my spreadsheet, http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
Note (1): You MUST place 0 in cell Q2 to create your own
curves.
Note (2): To move the charts out of the way, uncheck
Tools/Protect/Sheet.
Note (3): Luminosity and Ellipse calculations are on
separate sheets
Note (4): There are NO units of time or distance in the
spreadsheet. Angles
are in degrees.
Suggestion.
Enter 0.3 (K2), 55 (L2) , 70 (M2), 600 (N2), 95 (O2) , 0
(Q2) in cells K2 – Q2 to begin.
Now change cell N2 to 500 and note the change in the
curve.
By tweaking these numbers you should be able to
reproduce
any curve you have witnessed, except those caused by
multiple
planets.
Good luck and clear skies,
--
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Thanks for the spreadsheet and which I will play with during this forthcoming rainy weekend.
Are there any articles online which address this alternate view of pulsating stars for my perusal?
Anthony.
Yes, there are.
Vladimir Sekerin in Russia did the same work I did, back when we could not
communicate through the cold war. He sketched by hand, I used a computer.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
His Figure 2 is my
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
His figure 3 c) is the light curve of V1493 Aql 1999, and thus a prediction.
http://var2.astro.cz/EN/meduza/light...%20Aql&shv=Aql
Unfortunately Sekerin gives undue emphasis to Walther Ritz, the emission
theory of light belongs to Isaac Newton.
The original Windows program was written in 1993, my DOS version
of 1987 is now lost.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rnicus/LCV.htm
Then there is this
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
and this
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm
and this
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm
(with one of yours included)
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
|