|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Some pulsating variables and eclipsing binaries
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:22:55 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway" wrote: HTMLHEAD/HEAD BODY dir=ltr DIV dir=ltr DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: = 14pt" DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #000000; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 4px solid; = BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #000000; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: = Why do you respond in HTML to my question about why you posted in HTML? I suggest that you post in plain text, so your posts can be read in Usenet readers without difficulty. Remember that Usenet is not the web, and if you want others to read your posts, why not make your posts easy to read? If you don't want others to read your posts, why post at all? Go to some web forum and post there instead, there HTML is welcomed since web forums belong to the web. If you insist on posting in HTML, then you've demonstrated that you're a Usenet troll, and you'll then enter my killfile. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Some pulsating variables and eclipsing binaries
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:22:55 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" wrote: HTMLHEAD/HEAD BODY dir=ltr DIV dir=ltr DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: = 14pt" DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #000000; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 4px solid; = BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #000000; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: = Why do you respond in HTML to my question about why you posted in HTML? I suggest that you post in plain text, so your posts can be read in Usenet readers without difficulty. Remember that Usenet is not the web, and if you want others to read your posts, why not make your posts easy to read? If you don't want others to read your posts, why post at all? Go to some web forum and post there instead, there HTML is welcomed since web forums belong to the web. If you insist on posting in HTML, then you've demonstrated that you're a Usenet troll, and you'll then enter my killfile. ===================================== If you insist on bitching and whining and won’t come up to date, then you’ve demonstrated you’ve nothing worth discussing and you’re a usenet troll. You are now in MY killfile for posting off-topic crap in Anthony’s thread. Over and OUT! *plonk* -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Some pulsating variables and eclipsing binaries
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Some pulsating variables and eclipsing binaries
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:36:12 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway" wrote: HTMLHEAD/HEAD BODY dir=ltr DIV dir=ltr Ok! ****PLONK**** |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Some pulsating variables and eclipsing binaries
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Some pulsating variables and eclipsing binaries
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Some pulsating variables and eclipsing binaries
On 13/09/2012 16:25, Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
Τη **μπτη, 13 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012 1:08:52 π.μ. UTC+3, ο χρήστης Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway *γραψε: 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. Please don't encourage trolls and netkooks. Androcles is a well known half baked nutter that lives in a universe of his own where the laws of physics are entirely different to reality. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Some pulsating variables and eclipsing binaries
"Martin Brown" wrote in message ...
On 13/09/2012 16:25, Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote: Τη **μπτη, 13 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012 1:08:52 π.μ. UTC+3, ο χρήστης Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway *γραψε: 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. Please don't encourage trolls and netkooks. Androcles is a well known half baked nutter that lives in a universe of his own where the laws of physics are entirely different to reality. -- Regards, Martin Brown Brown is a well-known brown-nosed faggot who lives in a world of of make-believe time dilation and length contraction. He is so full of **** his eyes are brown and his name is Brown. The moron is the ultimate troll with his head so far up his own arse he can only see his own ****, the normal kind of bigoted usenet troll. You haven’t go the balls to go head-to-head with me, Brown, you snivelling little ******. -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pulsating variables and two exoplanet transits | Anthony Ayiomamitis[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | May 1st 11 07:33 PM |
KZ Hya / GW UMa - High-amplitude short-duration pulsating variables | Anthony Ayiomamitis[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | February 22nd 11 09:56 AM |
pre 2006 catalogued FASTT candidate variables in Nicholson's"uncatalogued" red variables' paper | newvariables | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | July 4th 09 09:41 PM |
Anyone know anything about eclipsing binaries? | Robin Leadbeater | UK Astronomy | 5 | October 5th 05 12:06 PM |
Eclipsing sun | Toma | Amateur Astronomy | 23 | December 2nd 03 04:04 AM |