New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
: On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:00:12 GMT, "Androcles"
: wrote:
:
: You may recall that I asked:
: Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
: for beta Persei I can compute with?
:
: And you got both.


I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it is
one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion
anyway.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm


You then complained:
: You'll need to do better calculations than that if you want to support a
: crackpot theory (Algol is most certainly eclipsing- something trivially
: verified by comparing the optical light curve with the spectroscopic
: radial velocity curve).

Ok, so let's have the data and I'll do better calculations.


:
: The spectroscopic radial velocity curve would be rather nice to have.
:
: Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for
: (supposedly) all three stars, nicely resolved?
:
: That isn't what you asked for originally.


Yes it is, I said
"Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
for beta Persei I can compute with?"
"Accurate" does not mean average, it means the radial velocity curve
for all THREE stars you wildly claim to be present in the system, one
of which is dark. That sound just like a crackpot theory to me.
Is it really so difficult to provide the data to support your crackpot
theory?




: I don't have the short term
: spectroscopic data you are looking for. I'd suggest starting with the
: source of the radial velocity data, the General Catalogue of Stellar
: Radial Velocities. It should at least provide references to the source
: material.


Ok, so you don't have it. Thanks for 4 km/s, but it isn't good enough
to support Goodricke's crackpot theory of a double star.
You'll need to do better calculations than that if you want to support a
crackpot theory (Algol is most certainly NOT eclipsing- something trivially
verified by comparing the optical light curve with the spectroscopic
radial velocity curve -- WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE -- and expect
me to take on trust as if I were a gullible crackpot.)



:
: The thing is, when I asked for data I got a huge overload of irrelevant
: material and was told (by YOU) the radial velocity was 4 km/s. Is not
that
: from spectroscopic observation, then?
:
: The radial velocity was determined spectroscopically. The high time
: resolution data would show the motion of the respective components,
: superimposed on the global motion of the entire system.
:

Yes, well, I know all about "should", but I want to see the data.

You'll need to provide better data than that if you want to support a
crackpot theory.

:
: Excellent observation, well done. So "proper motion" is motion
: relative to
: a) the universal frame?
: b) Algol's frame?
: c) the galactic frame?
: d) other?
:
: "Proper motion" is the apparent 2D motion of the object with respect to
: our viewpoint.
: It is normally given in angular units per time for RA and
: declination. "Radial motion" is the actual velocity of an object with
: respect to our viewpoint, normally given in km/s or redshift. With these
: values, and knowing its distance, you can convert the motion of the
: object into any frame of reference you like, assuming you can relate
: that frame to our own. That could easily be the galactic frame. In this
: case, since we are talking about the motion of the entire Algol system,
: "Algol's frame" is meaningless. There is no "universal frame", of
: course.

I didn't ask for a lecture, sonny, I asked for data.
Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for
(supposedly) all three stars, nicely resolved?


:
: : Many multiple stars orbit within their Roche limit. Rigid bodies break
: : up under those conditions, but stars don't.
:
: Wonderful news, but I didn't ask for that.
: So fluids don't break up, but solids do... fascinating, I didn't know
that.
:
: Well you should.

Why should I? Because you say so? You'll have to do better than that
if you want to support a crackpot theory of fluids not breaking up
but solids do.


: A solid body inside the Roche limit of another body is
: disrupted by tidal forces. It breaks up very literally, although that
: doesn't mean it doesn't largely hang together.

Ok, so Saturn's rings and the asteroid belt don't largely hang together.
What is this, the cosmic comedy show?
You'll have to do better than that if you want to support a crackpot theory
of fluids not breaking up but solids do.

: A fluid body, however, is
: distorted.

So you claim. Where is your evidence?



It may transfer mass, but it certainly doesn't "break up"
: anything like a solid body does.
:
You'll have to do better than that if you want to support a crackpot theory
of fluids not breaking up but solids do.



:
: : Stars transfer material,
: : leading to all sorts of interesting things: cataclysmic variables,
: : radically different evolutionary ages, and more.
:
: You've photographed this, have you?
: It's rather strange, but all anyone else has seen is artist's impressions
: of crackpot theories.
:
: I have.


Ok, whoopee! Glad to hear it.
I'm so pleased to hear Cloudbait Observatory can out-perform
HST, Keck or other telescopes.
Can we see your pictures of Algol resolved into three stars, please,
or are you keeping them in your private collection?


: So have thousands of others. It's what you see in all sorts of
: data across many EM bands- photometric and spectroscopic. It's widely
: accepted, and it isn't my job, or any other scientist's, to justify.


All I want to see are the three stars resolved that you claim are there.
I'd like the velocity curve of each, too, and a photograph of mass
pouring off of one onto the other to support your crackport theories.




: It's the responsibility of somebody such as yourself to argue why your
: theory explains all these things better, and if your webpage is any
: example, you have no explanation at all. You suggest that the velocity
: of light depends on the velocity of the source, which is utter nonsense,
: going against huge amounts of experimental evidence. That sort of
: thinking is the very definition of crackpot science.

All I've asked for is data you cannot provide, MMX and Sagnac is
laboratory proof that the velocity of light is source dependent.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Your sort of narrow minded thinking is the very definition of crackpottery
that has been with us since Ptolemy made the Earth the centre of the
universe,
Algol being a double is utter nonsense.

Claimin to have resolved three stars photographically not only marks
you as a liar, but your crackpot theory that fluids do not break up
whereas solids do marks you as a supreme lunatic, not just a crackpot.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it is
one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion
anyway.

I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation. This distance you
compute is meaningless. You don't appear to understand what the radial
velocity is. Perhaps you are asking for the orbital velocity of Beta
Persei B? That is entirely different from the radial velocity, which is
the velocity of the entire star system relative to the Sun.

Although your calculation is meaningless, there's no dispute that the
Roche lobes of the stars overlap. That is the case for many binaries,
and is some cases the mass flow between the components has been observed
directly (there are many systems like beta Persei, which is in fact the
prototypical such system).


: Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for
: (supposedly) all three stars, nicely resolved?
:
: That isn't what you asked for originally.

Yes it is, I said
"Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
for beta Persei I can compute with?"
"Accurate" does not mean average, it means the radial velocity curve
for all THREE stars you wildly claim to be present in the system, one
of which is dark.

No, that is not what "radial velocity" means. If you wanted the high
resolution spectroscopic curves for each component, that's what you
should have asked for. 4 km/s isn't the average, it is the speed that
the Algol system is moving away from us. If you don't even know standard
terminology, you are going to have a rough time getting the data you
want.

The spectroscopic data is certainly available, and I pointed you in the
direction to start. SAA is hardly the place to secure primary data!


: You've photographed this, have you?
: It's rather strange, but all anyone else has seen is artist's impressions
: of crackpot theories.
:
: I have.

Ok, whoopee! Glad to hear it.
I'm so pleased to hear Cloudbait Observatory can out-perform
HST, Keck or other telescopes.
Can we see your pictures of Algol resolved into three stars, please,
or are you keeping them in your private collection?

Who said anything about individually resolved stars? You asked for
images showing the binary components. That is obvious photometrically.
In fact, it is obvious visually. You are apparently the only person in
the world who can't interpret this obvious evidence in a reasonable way.
You would prefer to change GR rather than accept a trivial case of
binary stars. Of course, there are plenty of other beta Persei variables
that are far enough apart to resolve visually.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it
is one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper
motion anyway.

I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation. This distance you
compute is meaningless. You don't appear to understand what the radial
velocity is. Perhaps you are asking for the orbital velocity of Beta
Persei B? That is entirely different from the radial velocity, which is
the velocity of the entire star system relative to the Sun.

Chris,

Androcles is a relativity denial kook who infests sci.physics.relativity.
You are wasting your time. He's a clueless idiot.

Klazmon

On 22 Jun 2007 14:35:52 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
wrote:

Chris,

Androcles is a relativity denial kook who infests sci.physics.relativity.
You are wasting your time. He's a clueless idiot.

Klazmon

Thanks. I kind of reached that conclusion independently g. At least a
few people with an interest in _real_ astronomy now know where to go to
get some useful information about stars, so I don't count the time as
wasted. That's one nice thing about SAA: sometimes good information gets
covered, even if the original poster is blind to it.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
: On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
: wrote:
:
: I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
: Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
: 1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it
is
: one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion
: anyway.
:
: I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.


Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding might
improve.


: This distance you
: compute is meaningless.

2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?


: You don't appear to understand what the radial
: velocity is.

As you've said, you fail to understand.
Naturally it would appear to you that I don't understand, but I can assure
you I fully understand. I know the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its
circumference.

The calculation is an estimate of the distance between Goodricke's
crackpot theoretical binaries, based on the data you gave me ( or are
unable to give me).


: Perhaps you are asking for the orbital velocity of Beta
: Persei B?

Is that why you snip my question? It really is quite simple,
I would like the radial velocity curves of all three stars your crackpot
theory
claims to be present at the Algol system.

You seem reluctant to produce data and eager to expound bull****.



: That is entirely different from the radial velocity, which is
: the velocity of the entire star system relative to the Sun.

How simply can I say it?
I would like the radial velocity curves of all three stars your crackpot
theory
claims to be present at the Algol system.

As you've said, you fail to understand. You are, however, quick enough
to proclaim alternative ideas which are simpler as crackpot theories.


: Although your calculation is meaningless, there's no dispute that the
: Roche lobes of the stars overlap.

Well well... and the system remains stable according to your crackpot
theory.


: That is the case for many binaries,

If you have many binaries in your crackpot theory you should find it no
trouble at all to produce the radial velocity curves of them. I just asked
for the data for one of them, the first found. Sirius should have been
the first found, being the nearest, but historically it wasn't. Have you
seen
any mass transfer between Sirius A and Sirius B?


: and is some cases the mass flow between the components has been observed
: directly

Ah, now we are fully into bull**** mode. You crackpots are so full of
it you eyes are brown.



: (there are many systems like beta Persei, which is in fact the
: prototypical such system).
:

Listen up, dingbat.
I know all about your crackpot theories, what I want is the ACTUAL DATA,
not repetition of crap.


:
: : Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for
: : (supposedly) all three stars, nicely resolved?
: :
: : That isn't what you asked for originally.
:
: Yes it is, I said
: "Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
: for beta Persei I can compute with?"
: "Accurate" does not mean average, it means the radial velocity curve
: for all THREE stars you wildly claim to be present in the system, one
: of which is dark.
:
: No, that is not what "radial velocity" means.

Radial velocity means velocity along the line of sight, the ONLY velocity
that can be obtained spectroscopically. That's what I want, for all three
stars in your crackpot theory. Have you got that data or not?



: If you wanted the high
: resolution spectroscopic curves for each component, that's what you
: should have asked for. 4 km/s isn't the average, it is the speed that
: the Algol system is moving away from us.

Listen, dingbat!
"Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
for beta Persei I can compute with?"
Do you see "accurate" in that sentence?

Sheesh... Algol (the shiny one) is moving toward and then away
from us and has a period of 70 hours or so.

HAVE YOU GOT ITS RADIAL VELOCITY CURVE?



"Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
: for beta Persei I can compute with?



If you don't even know standard
: terminology, you are going to have a rough time getting the data you
: want.
:
: The spectroscopic data is certainly available, and I pointed you in the
: direction to start. SAA is hardly the place to secure primary data!


All I want is the radial velocity curve.


:
:
: : You've photographed this, have you?
: : It's rather strange, but all anyone else has seen is artist's
impressions
: : of crackpot theories.
: :
: : I have.
:
: Ok, whoopee! Glad to hear it.
: I'm so pleased to hear Cloudbait Observatory can out-perform
: HST, Keck or other telescopes.
: Can we see your pictures of Algol resolved into three stars, please,
: or are you keeping them in your private collection?
:
: Who said anything about individually resolved stars?

Oh, so you can resolve mass transfer but not the stars themselves.
You are good at sending bull**** meters into the red, aren't you?



: You asked for
: images showing the binary components. That is obvious photometrically.

Is it? PRODUCE ONE IMAGE, THEN!


: In fact, it is obvious visually.

Is it? PRODUCE ONE IMAGE, THEN, and quit bull****ting!



: You are apparently the only person in
: the world who can't interpret this obvious evidence in a reasonable way.
: You would prefer to change GR rather than accept a trivial case of
: binary stars. Of course, there are plenty of other beta Persei variables
: that are far enough apart to resolve visually.

You are one of the many idiots who believe Einstein's crap and
do not understand the the Principle of Relativity. But as you say,
you fail to understand.

Just produce the data and cut the bull****.

Androcles wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
: On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
: wrote:
:
: I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
: Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
: 1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it
is
: one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion
: anyway.
:
: I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.


Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding might
improve.


: This distance you
: compute is meaningless.

2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?

How many years since your degree ?

"NNTP" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
: ...
: : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
: : wrote:
: :
: : I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
: : Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
: : 1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit
it
: is
: : one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper
motion
: : anyway.
: :
: : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
:
:
: Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding might
: improve.
:
:
: : This distance you
: : compute is meaningless.
:
: 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
:
: How many years since your degree ?

Typical troll... I ask for data and get personal questions.

Do you have the empirical data showing the sinusoidal velocity curve of
Algol...
Something like this:
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html

If you do, may I have it please?
If you do not, shut the **** up.

Androcles wrote:
"NNTP" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
: ...
: : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
: : wrote:
: :
: : I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
: : Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
: : 1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit
it
: is
: : one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper
motion
: : anyway.
: :
: : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
:
:
: Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding might
: improve.
:
:
: : This distance you
: : compute is meaningless.
:
: 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
:
: How many years since your degree ?

Typical troll... I ask for data and get personal questions.

You didn't know what to do with the data you were given, so you made a
meaningless hash of using it.

"NNTP" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "NNTP" wrote in message
: ...
: : Androcles wrote:
: : "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
: : ...
: : : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
: : : wrote:
: : :
: : : I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
: : : Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 *
4 =
: : : 1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche
limit
: it
: : is
: : : one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is
proper
: motion
: : : anyway.
: : :
: : : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
: :
: :
: : Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding
might
: : improve.
: :
: :
: : : This distance you
: : : compute is meaningless.
: :
: : 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
: :
: : How many years since your degree ?
:
: Typical troll... I ask for data and get personal questions.
:
: You didn't know what to do with the data you were given, so you made a
: meaningless hash of using it.

**** off, useless flaming troll. Nobody needs a **** like you.
*plonk*

Androcles wrote:
"NNTP" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "NNTP" wrote in message
: ...
: : Androcles wrote:
: : "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
: : ...
: : : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
: : : wrote:
: : :
: : : I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
: : : Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 *
4 =
: : : 1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche
limit
: it
: : is
: : : one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is
proper
: motion
: : : anyway.
: : :
: : : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
: :
: :
: : Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding
might
: : improve.
: :
: :
: : : This distance you
: : : compute is meaningless.
: :
: : 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
: :
: : How many years since your degree ?
:
: Typical troll... I ask for data and get personal questions.
:
: You didn't know what to do with the data you were given, so you made a
: meaningless hash of using it.

**** off, useless flaming troll. Nobody needs a **** like you.
*plonk*

Learn some science, learn some manners. Your ignorance of both is a
disgrace.