Most 'Variable Stars' are not Varying at all..

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 05:00:41 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 12, 12:19*am, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:08:00 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:35 pm, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
They are ordinary stars that have a large orbiting planet.

Exactly correct, whereas a binary star such as having a brown dwarf or
a very large 16x Mj planet should make a good starshade as it orbits
through our line of sight. *Basically most stars have planets, at
least to start with.

and the planets cause the stars to wobble around a barycentre in a fairly small
orbit.
That is enough to cause photon bunching as their emitted light travels across
space.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

Sounds good to me. Imagine what a star would wobble if it had a
neutron binary partner, or even two identical stars in lock-step with
one another (especially when viewed on edge).

Our sun moves around a small orbit due to Jupiter. The period is long but it
would still appear to vary in brightness to a distant observer. Movement due to
Saturn and the other planets would show up as small perturbations
..
For a whole star to vary on it's own seems highly unlikely, if not
impossible.

A large question mark concerns short period variables. I find it hard to
believe that a planet could orbit a star in half a day.

Bath offers a good explanation, time compression, by which the periods of any
distant event can be greatly magnified or diminished.

An apparent period of 12 hours could easily originate from a star that has a
real period of twelve days or more.

"Henry Wilson DSc" Hw@.. wrote in message
news | On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:49:24 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" Hw@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:15:32 -0000, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
|
| | | Even if the orbit were perfectly circular (which in most cases it
is
| not)
| | | the function would give an initial velocity of c+v.sin(t/period
modulo
| | 2pi),
| | | you need to convert t/period to a pure number for dimensional
analysis
| | | and then convert to radians to become the argument of the function
| sin()
| | | (or cos(), depending on your arbitrary choice of axes).
| | |
| | | t/T IS already a pure number. The 2pi turns it into a phase angle,
in
| | | radians....also a pure number...I usually leave out the 2pi because
it
| is
| | | understood.
| |
| | What you call T is the period, P.
| | When I wrote Doolin'sStar I used T for the APPARENT time interval.
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
| | You are not helping by changing the definition of variables.
| |
| | Let's not argue about trivialities, chief. When you adjust your time
axis
| for
| | arrival time of each sample 'bunch' your program will produce the same
| curves
| | that mine does.
|
| Yes, but now that we agree on the principles involved it is time to step
| back, look around and tidy up the mess left behind. That's what you are
| writing about, so let's cross the 't's and dot the 'i's and leave a neat
and
| tidy theory without any loose ends.
|
|
| | | So T must be the
| | | period (symbol P) and t must lie between 0 and 2pi.
| | |
| | | We know the correct equation is c + v(cos(2pi.t/T), where v is the
| radial
| | | velocity. That means it already includes cos(pitch)
| |
| | *I* know that v is your sqrt(vellx^2 + velly^2), see sheet 2 of
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lsonMethod.xls
| | because Wilson's Wobbly Worbits are Wedge-on and v does not
| | include cos(pitch).
| |
| | Cos pitch is included in my velocity value. that should be obvious.
|
| Obvious to you but it isn't obvious to others. The orbital velocity isn't
| even close to the radial velocity, yet you want to call both of them v.
|
| You don't get it.
|
| I first generate an ellipse, starting at the periastron. I plot 40000
points
| around the orbit spaced equally in time.

You don't get it.
Your ellipse isn't improved by having more points, it gets worse.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lsonMethod.xls
If I put 200,000 points into B2 on Sheet 2 there is only one vertex.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it because you don't understand mathematics.
Not only that, but you start at apoapsis, not periapsis.
If I put 50 points into B2 on Sheet 2 there is an increase in velocity.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
If I change the eccentricity in E2 it changes the velocity completely.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
I don't need you to tell me what you are doing, I've seen your program.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You are worse than Phuckwit Duck.

On 2011-03-12, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) Hw@ wrote:

It was TOR when I was taught. Tau is something else.

You can go from alpha to omega without finding a tor. There's no Greek
letter tor.

Bud

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:14:54 -0600, William Hamblen
wrote:

On 2011-03-12, Hw@..(Henry Wilson DSc) Hw@ wrote:

It was TOR when I was taught. Tau is something else.

You can go from alpha to omega without finding a tor. There's no Greek
letter tor.

Well it must be Egyptian or Aztec.

Bud

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:35:55 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" Hw@.. wrote in message
news | On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:49:24 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:

| for
| | arrival time of each sample 'bunch' your program will produce the same
| curves
| | that mine does.
|
| Yes, but now that we agree on the principles involved it is time to step
| back, look around and tidy up the mess left behind. That's what you are
| writing about, so let's cross the 't's and dot the 'i's and leave a neat
and
| tidy theory without any loose ends.
|
|
| | | So T must be the
| | | period (symbol P) and t must lie between 0 and 2pi.
| | |
| | | We know the correct equation is c + v(cos(2pi.t/T), where v is the
| radial
| | | velocity. That means it already includes cos(pitch)
| |
| | *I* know that v is your sqrt(vellx^2 + velly^2), see sheet 2 of
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lsonMethod.xls
| | because Wilson's Wobbly Worbits are Wedge-on and v does not
| | include cos(pitch).
| |
| | Cos pitch is included in my velocity value. that should be obvious.
|
| Obvious to you but it isn't obvious to others. The orbital velocity isn't
| even close to the radial velocity, yet you want to call both of them v.
|
| You don't get it.
|
| I first generate an ellipse, starting at the periastron. I plot 40000
points
| around the orbit spaced equally in time.

You don't get it.
Your ellipse isn't improved by having more points, it gets worse.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lsonMethod.xls
If I put 200,000 points into B2 on Sheet 2 there is only one vertex.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it because you don't understand mathematics.
Not only that, but you start at apoapsis, not periapsis.
If I put 50 points into B2 on Sheet 2 there is an increase in velocity.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
If I change the eccentricity in E2 it changes the velocity completely.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
I don't need you to tell me what you are doing, I've seen your program.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You don't get it.
You are worse than Phuckwit Duck.

Gawd, Big Cheif Talking Bull is drunk again.

"Henry Wilson DSc" Hw@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:35:55 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" Hw@.. wrote in message
| news | | On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:49:24 -0000, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
|
| | for
| | | arrival time of each sample 'bunch' your program will produce the
same
| | curves
| | | that mine does.
| |
| | Yes, but now that we agree on the principles involved it is time to
step
| | back, look around and tidy up the mess left behind. That's what you
are
| | writing about, so let's cross the 't's and dot the 'i's and leave a
neat
| and
| | tidy theory without any loose ends.
| |
| |
| | | | So T must be the
| | | | period (symbol P) and t must lie between 0 and 2pi.
| | | |
| | | | We know the correct equation is c + v(cos(2pi.t/T), where v is
the
| | radial
| | | | velocity. That means it already includes cos(pitch)
| | |
| | | *I* know that v is your sqrt(vellx^2 + velly^2), see sheet 2 of
| | | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lsonMethod.xls
| | | because Wilson's Wobbly Worbits are Wedge-on and v does not
| | | include cos(pitch).
| | |
| | | Cos pitch is included in my velocity value. that should be obvious.
| |
| | Obvious to you but it isn't obvious to others. The orbital velocity
isn't
| | even close to the radial velocity, yet you want to call both of them
v.
| |
| | You don't get it.
| |
| | I first generate an ellipse, starting at the periastron. I plot 40000
| points
| | around the orbit spaced equally in time.
|
| You don't get it.
| Your ellipse isn't improved by having more points, it gets worse.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lsonMethod.xls
| If I put 200,000 points into B2 on Sheet 2 there is only one vertex.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it because you don't understand mathematics.
| Not only that, but you start at apoapsis, not periapsis.
| If I put 50 points into B2 on Sheet 2 there is an increase in velocity.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| If I change the eccentricity in E2 it changes the velocity completely.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| I don't need you to tell me what you are doing, I've seen your program.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You don't get it.
| You are worse than Phuckwit Duck.
|
| Gawd, Big Cheif Talking Bull is drunk again.


http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotwein
I did wonder if the German word for "red", of which you are
extraordinarily fond, coupled with your natural ozzie upside-
downness, was the cause of "tor" for tau, which rhymes with paw,
pore or pour.