A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Some pulsating variables and eclipsing binaries



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 12th 12, 06:29 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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  
Old September 12th 12, 06:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default 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  
Old September 12th 12, 08:56 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Anthony Ayiomamitis[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 337
Default 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  
Old September 12th 12, 09:56 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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  
Old September 12th 12, 10:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default 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  
Old September 13th 12, 04:25 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Anthony Ayiomamitis[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 337
Default 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  
Old September 13th 12, 05:17 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default 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  
Old September 14th 12, 09:42 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,707
Default 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  
Old September 14th 12, 02:50 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.