A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old July 15th 13, 11:11 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:20:08 -0700, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:



Incorrect statement,


OK it was an exaggeration. A 2 hour period is about the critical figure.
Below
that, the orbit would be inside the sun.

Here are the sums:

Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km
Mass of Sun = 2E30kg
4pi^2=~40

The orbit radius equation:
mw^2r = GMm/r^2
r^3= GM/w^2 = GM
w^2=2pif = 2pi/T
r^3 = GMT^2/4pi^2

For Sun, GM = 2E30 x 6.67E-11 = 13.3E19

For an orbit period of half a day. (43200 seconds)
T^2 = 18.7E8
GMT^2 = 249E27
r^3 = 6.2E27
r = 1.84E9m = 1.84E6 km.
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km

For an orbit period of three hours. (10800 seconds)
T^2 = 1.16E8
GMT^2 = 15.4E27
r^3 = 385E24
r = 7.3E8 m = 7.3E5 km.
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km

For an orbit period of 1.5 hours. (5400 seconds)
T^2 = 2.916E7
GMT^2 = 390E25
r^3 = 97.5E24
r = 4.6E8m = 4.6E5 km.
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km

easily proven incorrect by a real physical example: W
Ursae Majoris. This is a prototype of the W UMa eclipsing binaries, pairs
of stars with a common envelope which may be almost in contact or actually
in contact. They are definitely not inside one another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_Ursae_Majoris

The larger component has more mass than the Sun, 1.19 Msun, and the period
is 0.3336 days.


The discussion was about a small object like a planet orbiting our sun, not
a
binary pair.

As for supposed contact binaries, BaTh says they don't exist.
There are other explanations.

Henry Wilson DSc.


Henry Wilson DSc.
==========================================
That's all very well, but the corona reaches out two to three times the
radius
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgur.../TSE1999/image



I'd go beyond the corona if I were you.


Well, it is prettty clear that nothing can orbit a star with a period as short
as even one day. It would melt no mater what it was made of.

Then again, our own sun has an eleven year sunspot cycle, we have no
idea what the period would be on a different sized star. Besides, all of
this only refers to magnitude changes of order 1 for cepheids and algols,
nothing like the 6 magnitude change of V 1493 Aql that held up for two
months, dropping and then regaining magnitude.

It sure is funny when some bozo writes "unusually shaped variable star light
curves such as have never been seen" in wackypedia, then draws V1493 Aql's
light curve in animation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory


I felt sick reading it. Total crap. I suspect Tom Roberts wrote that article.

One thing that did come out of it was a reference to Hans Thirring who
invesigated what I have called ADoppler...and which you laugh at.
Quote:
Hans Thirring argued in 1926, that an atom which is accelerated during the
emission process by thermal collisions in the sun, is emitting light rays
having different velocities at their start- and endpoints. So one end of the
light ray would overtake the preceding parts, and consequently the distance
between the ends would be elongated up to 500 km until they reach Earth, so
that the mere existence of sharp spectral lines in the sun's radiation,
disproves the ballistic model.[15]
end of quote.

I have looked into this. My theory says that the ends of individual photons
aren't free to move relatively forever. But like a lump of rubber, photon can
be stretched more than it can be compressed. This is one of the main reasons
for the cosmic redshift.



Henry Wilson DSc.
  #92  
Old July 15th 13, 03:51 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Odd Bodkin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On 7/12/2013 3:50 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
OK, maybe what you're trying to tell me is that you consider it a noble
gesture to convince people that they shouldn't be sure of anything. So
when scientists say this or that is a law, you have a special calling to
say, "But it could be wrong," or "But it could be something completely
different." Maybe you've taken the stance that you aren't convinced of
anything that scientists say, because no thinking person should be
convinced of anything. Would you say that is an accurate representation
of your approach?

Henry Wilson DSc.


I'm just checking to see if you had any thoughts on my question here.

--
- Odd Bodkin, maker of fine toys, tools, tables
  #93  
Old July 15th 13, 03:51 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Odd Bodkin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On 7/12/2013 3:50 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Scientists don't hold beliefs.

You really think so? Do you think that scientists believe that atoms exist?


You think that's the problem, that thinking people believe things when
they shouldn't believe anything?

People who hold firm beliefs are not thinking people.


Firm is a relative term. I firmly believe that the sun came up this
morning. Now, I could still be convinced, I suppose, that I was wrong
about that, and that the sun went out years ago, and that benevolent
beings from Andromeda have been maintaining the illusion for us so that
we don't all go running around screaming. But lacking evidence for that,
I don't think there's much harm in believing pretty firmly that the sun
did come up. Do you not hold a firm belief that the sun came up?


Did you have any thoughts on these questions?

--
- Odd Bodkin, maker of fine toys, tools, tables
  #94  
Old July 15th 13, 08:01 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:34:52 -0700, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:




Incorrect statement,


OK it was an exaggeration. A 2 hour period is about the critical figure.
Below
that, the orbit would be inside the sun.

Here are the sums:

Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km
Mass of Sun = 2E30kg
4pi^2=~40

The orbit radius equation:
mw^2r = GMm/r^2
r^3= GM/w^2 = GM
w^2=2pif = 2pi/T
r^3 = GMT^2/4pi^2

For Sun, GM = 2E30 x 6.67E-11 = 13.3E19

For an orbit period of half a day. (43200 seconds)
T^2 = 18.7E8
GMT^2 = 249E27
r^3 = 6.2E27
r = 1.84E9m = 1.84E6 km.
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km

For an orbit period of three hours. (10800 seconds)
T^2 = 1.16E8
GMT^2 = 15.4E27
r^3 = 385E24
r = 7.3E8 m = 7.3E5 km.
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km

For an orbit period of 1.5 hours. (5400 seconds)
T^2 = 2.916E7
GMT^2 = 390E25
r^3 = 97.5E24
r = 4.6E8m = 4.6E5 km.
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km

easily proven incorrect by a real physical example: W
Ursae Majoris. This is a prototype of the W UMa eclipsing binaries, pairs
of stars with a common envelope which may be almost in contact or actually
in contact. They are definitely not inside one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_Ursae_Majoris
The larger component has more mass than the Sun, 1.19 Msun, and the period
is 0.3336 days.

The discussion was about a small object like a planet orbiting our sun, not a binary pair.
As for supposed contact binaries, BaTh says they don't exist.
There are other explanations.
Henry Wilson DSc.

Henry Wilson DSc.
==========================================
That's all very well, but the corona reaches out two to three times the
radius
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgur.../TSE1999/image
I'd go beyond the corona if I were you.


Well, it is prettty clear that nothing can orbit a star with a period as
short as even one day. It would melt no mater what it was made of.
==============================================
Maybe that's why it takes three days for Androcles to orbit Algol and
Cassandra five days to orbit d-Ceph.
Wonder why I didn’t think of that 20 years ago... oh wait... I did.


Wonder why you didn't think 20 years ago....oh wait...you still don't..

For an orbit period of five days. (4.32E5 seconds)
T^2 = 18.7E10
GMT^2 = 249E29
r^3 =0.62E30
r = 8.5E9 m = 8.5E6 km
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km
r = 12.2Rs

For an orbit period of 2.5 days. (2.16e5 seconds)
T^2 = 4.7e10
GMT^2 = 62E29
r^3 = 155E27
r = 5.5e9 m = 5.5e6 km
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km
r = 7.9 Rs

Also, most stars are a lot larger and heavier than our sun.
K, M or S types can be considerably smaller in size and heat radiation...so
maybe planets could orbit those in a few days.

Not much has changed since then. What light curve with half a day
period have you been looking at?


Many Kepler mission curves feature very short period fluctuations, often less
than half a day.
Why don't you take a look yourself. Are you completely incapable of doing
anything sensible?
http://www.planethunters.org/
click on 'talk'


Then again, our own sun has an eleven year sunspot cycle, we have no
idea what the period would be on a different sized star. Besides, all of
this only refers to magnitude changes of order 1 for cepheids and algols,
nothing like the 6 magnitude change of V 1493 Aql that held up for two
months, dropping and then regaining magnitude.

It sure is funny when some bozo writes "unusually shaped variable star
light
curves such as have never been seen" in wackypedia, then draws V1493 Aql's
light curve in animation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory




One thing that did come out of it was a reference to Hans Thirring who
invesigated what I have called ADoppler...and which you laugh at.
Quote:
Hans Thirring argued in 1926, that an atom which is accelerated during the
emission process by thermal collisions in the sun, is emitting light rays
having different velocities at their start- and endpoints. So one end of the
light ray would overtake the preceding parts, and consequently the distance
between the ends would be elongated up to 500 km until they reach Earth, so
that the mere existence of sharp spectral lines in the sun's radiation,
disproves the ballistic model.[15]
end of quote.

I have looked into this. My theory says that the ends of individual photons
aren't free to move relatively forever. But like a lump of rubber, photon
can
be stretched more than it can be compressed. This is one of the main reasons
for the cosmic redshift.

Henry Wilson DSc.
==============================
Thirring is quite right, a spread of photon velocities means there are no
sharp
spectral lines in the sun's radiation, and we don't see sharp lines in the
solar
spectrum.
http://www.threehillsobservatory.co....ail_LHIRES.png
These lines are not sharp, the intensity (or lack of) has a bell curve in
keeping with the spread of velocities of the molecules.
Perhaps if you looked at the data you'd realise Thirring's assumption about
the sharpness is crap but his deduction is correct.

Why you would call ordinary Doppler some other name is of course laughable
and why I laugh at it.


Thirrings comment was not about ordinary Doppler. You didn't understand what
he said.
It was about what I call ADoppler....where the ends of a light ray emitted by
an accelerating source move at different speeds. The faster end eventually
catches the slower end.

Stretched photons... hilarious.


Thirring considered a finite light ray. What's the difference between that and
a finite single photon?

You are hell bent on turning photons into waves, aren't you?


yep !

We'll have Wilson stretched cricket balls next because the spin bowler
gave them a frequency in RPM and a velocity in fps.
But can he win the ASHES?


The first test was a moral victory to us. Your snivelling cheat, Broad, made
25 illegal runs after that bribed umpire gave him not out...and Watson should
not have been judged OUT.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway


Henry Wilson DSc.
  #95  
Old July 15th 13, 08:21 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:51:50 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

On 7/12/2013 3:50 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Scientists don't hold beliefs.

You really think so? Do you think that scientists believe that atoms exist?


You think that's the problem, that thinking people believe things when
they shouldn't believe anything?

People who hold firm beliefs are not thinking people.

Firm is a relative term. I firmly believe that the sun came up this
morning. Now, I could still be convinced, I suppose, that I was wrong
about that, and that the sun went out years ago, and that benevolent
beings from Andromeda have been maintaining the illusion for us so that
we don't all go running around screaming. But lacking evidence for that,
I don't think there's much harm in believing pretty firmly that the sun
did come up. Do you not hold a firm belief that the sun came up?


Did you have any thoughts on these questions?


Yes.

The fact that the sun rose does not involve any human beliefs.
It was predictable within known definitions. That's how science works.
'Truths' can be established within certain axioms....but Science will always
recognize that those axioms might change.
No beliefs are involved.

"Thunder and lightning are the work of Thor", is a belief.....(zero evidence)

"Thunder and lightning are a result of electrical charge build up in cloud
layers", is a scientific fact.....an accepted TRUTH based on current
observations and definitions.

We don't BELIEVE those definitions. We use them with full knowledge that they
might be wrong. Science's very aim is to keep on pushing its definitions
further and further up the ladder of acceptibility.
The ultimate test of a Law or definition is its ability to predict
consistently.


Henry Wilson DSc.
  #96  
Old July 16th 13, 01:34 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_13_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default Questions For Noisy Big Bangers.



"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
...

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:20:08 -0700, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:



Incorrect statement,


OK it was an exaggeration. A 2 hour period is about the critical figure.
Below
that, the orbit would be inside the sun.

Here are the sums:

Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km
Mass of Sun = 2E30kg
4pi^2=~40

The orbit radius equation:
mw^2r = GMm/r^2
r^3= GM/w^2 = GM
w^2=2pif = 2pi/T
r^3 = GMT^2/4pi^2

For Sun, GM = 2E30 x 6.67E-11 = 13.3E19

For an orbit period of half a day. (43200 seconds)
T^2 = 18.7E8
GMT^2 = 249E27
r^3 = 6.2E27
r = 1.84E9m = 1.84E6 km.
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km

For an orbit period of three hours. (10800 seconds)
T^2 = 1.16E8
GMT^2 = 15.4E27
r^3 = 385E24
r = 7.3E8 m = 7.3E5 km.
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km

For an orbit period of 1.5 hours. (5400 seconds)
T^2 = 2.916E7
GMT^2 = 390E25
r^3 = 97.5E24
r = 4.6E8m = 4.6E5 km.
Radius of Sun = 6.95E5 km

easily proven incorrect by a real physical example: W
Ursae Majoris. This is a prototype of the W UMa eclipsing binaries, pairs
of stars with a common envelope which may be almost in contact or actually
in contact. They are definitely not inside one another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_Ursae_Majoris

The larger component has more mass than the Sun, 1.19 Msun, and the period
is 0.3336 days.


The discussion was about a small object like a planet orbiting our sun, not
a
binary pair.

As for supposed contact binaries, BaTh says they don't exist.
There are other explanations.

Henry Wilson DSc.


Henry Wilson DSc.
==========================================
That's all very well, but the corona reaches out two to three times the
radius
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgur.../TSE1999/image



I'd go beyond the corona if I were you.


Well, it is prettty clear that nothing can orbit a star with a period as
short
as even one day. It would melt no mater what it was made of.

==============================================
Maybe that's why it takes three days for Androcles to orbit Algol and
Cassandra five days to orbit d-Ceph.
Wonder why I didn’t think of that 20 years ago... oh wait... I did.
Not much has changed since then. What light curve with half a day
period have you been looking at?


Then again, our own sun has an eleven year sunspot cycle, we have no
idea what the period would be on a different sized star. Besides, all of
this only refers to magnitude changes of order 1 for cepheids and algols,
nothing like the 6 magnitude change of V 1493 Aql that held up for two
months, dropping and then regaining magnitude.

It sure is funny when some bozo writes "unusually shaped variable star
light
curves such as have never been seen" in wackypedia, then draws V1493 Aql's
light curve in animation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory


I felt sick reading it. Total crap. I suspect Tom Roberts wrote that
article.

===========================================
It is clear bigotry and denial of data from the Holey Church of Relativity.
Nova Herculis 1934 had a similar light curve (which I will admit I knew
about in 1985 when I was researching to write Copernicus.exe, so
V 1493 Aql in 1999 came as no surprise to me).


One thing that did come out of it was a reference to Hans Thirring who
invesigated what I have called ADoppler...and which you laugh at.
Quote:
Hans Thirring argued in 1926, that an atom which is accelerated during the
emission process by thermal collisions in the sun, is emitting light rays
having different velocities at their start- and endpoints. So one end of the
light ray would overtake the preceding parts, and consequently the distance
between the ends would be elongated up to 500 km until they reach Earth, so
that the mere existence of sharp spectral lines in the sun's radiation,
disproves the ballistic model.[15]
end of quote.

I have looked into this. My theory says that the ends of individual photons
aren't free to move relatively forever. But like a lump of rubber, photon
can
be stretched more than it can be compressed. This is one of the main reasons
for the cosmic redshift.

Henry Wilson DSc.
==============================
Thirring is quite right, a spread of photon velocities means there are no
sharp
spectral lines in the sun's radiation, and we don't see sharp lines in the
solar
spectrum.
http://www.threehillsobservatory.co....ail_LHIRES.png
These lines are not sharp, the intensity (or lack of) has a bell curve in
keeping with the spread of velocities of the molecules.
Perhaps if you looked at the data you'd realise Thirring's assumption about
the sharpness is crap but his deduction is correct.

Why you would call ordinary Doppler some other name is of course laughable
and why I laugh at it.

Stretched photons... hilarious.
You are hell bent on turning photons into waves, aren't you?
We'll have Wilson stretched cricket balls next because the spin bowler
gave them a frequency in RPM and a velocity in fps.
But can he win the ASHES?

-- 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
Big bangers oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 24 March 7th 12 11:47 PM
Free the Big Bangers ! Jeffâ–²Relf[_31_] Astronomy Misc 1 November 26th 08 11:47 AM
Big Bangers Prove How Stupid They Are Mad Scientist Misc 61 August 16th 04 02:03 PM
Earth Too Noisy for S.E.T.I.? Nomen Nescio Space Shuttle 1 November 27th 03 04:41 AM
Noisy WU Gary G. Taylor SETI 2 October 26th 03 06:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:45 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.