Androcles' constant

Examine this simple distance/time graph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Photons are emitted at regular intervals (dt) at the bottom
and travel through space with the velocity c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)
to arrive at the top with a separation of dT, where yaw is 0 to 2pi
and pitch is the fixed angle of inclination of the star's orbit.
By inspection it is clear that the rate of photon arrival is
inversely proportional to dT, so luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.

On 30 Jan, 00:04, "Androcles" wrote:
Examine this simple distance/time graph.
*http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Photons are emitted at regular intervals (dt) at the bottom
and travel through space with the velocity c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)
to arrive at the top with a separation of dT, where yaw is 0 to 2pi
and pitch is the fixed angle of inclination of the star's orbit.
By inspection it is clear that the rate of photon arrival is
inversely proportional to dT, so luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.

You know the title to this thread is unfortunate, because there cannot
be a more risible word in physics than the word "constant" - (the
worst of which, incidentally, is the so-called "cosmological constant"
which is made to sound even funnier because of the alliteration).

What is it you're actually trying to describe/explain anyway?

Androcles wrote:
Examine this simple distance/time graph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

I'd be much more interested in seeing Androcles correct more often! A
much rarer event.

"Jim Newman" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
Examine this simple distance/time graph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Photons are emitted at regular intervals (dt) at the bottom
and travel through space with the velocity c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)
to arrive at the top with a separation of dT, where yaw is 0 to 2pi
and pitch is the fixed angle of inclination of the star's orbit.
By inspection it is clear that the rate of photon arrival is
inversely proportional to dT, so luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.

I'd be much more interested in seeing Androcles correct more often! A much
rarer event.

I'd be much more interested in seeing snipping lid
keep the same name for more than day, but at least he acknowledges my
correctness.

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:04:20 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

Examine this simple distance/time graph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Photons are emitted at regular intervals (dt) at the bottom
and travel through space with the velocity c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)
to arrive at the top with a separation of dT, where yaw is 0 to 2pi
and pitch is the fixed angle of inclination of the star's orbit.
By inspection it is clear that the rate of photon arrival is
inversely proportional to dT, so luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.

I realise you are looking for an argument by publishing this nonsense.

You have LOST THE PLOT!

Henry Wilson...

........provider of free physics lessons

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:04:20 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:

Examine this simple distance/time graph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Photons are emitted at regular intervals (dt) at the bottom
and travel through space with the velocity c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)
to arrive at the top with a separation of dT, where yaw is 0 to 2pi
and pitch is the fixed angle of inclination of the star's orbit.
By inspection it is clear that the rate of photon arrival is
inversely proportional to dT, so luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.

I realise you are looking for an argument by publishing this nonsense.

You have LOST THE PLOT!

Not I. It is in fact what I used in the Excel version, any nonsense is all
in your drink.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

You are jealous because you don't have a constant named for you.
Omicron is MINE!
Bwhahahahahaha!

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:54:13 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:04:20 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:

Examine this simple distance/time graph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Photons are emitted at regular intervals (dt) at the bottom
and travel through space with the velocity c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)
to arrive at the top with a separation of dT, where yaw is 0 to 2pi
and pitch is the fixed angle of inclination of the star's orbit.
By inspection it is clear that the rate of photon arrival is
inversely proportional to dT, so luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.

I realise you are looking for an argument by publishing this nonsense.

You have LOST THE PLOT!

Not I. It is in fact what I used in the Excel version, any nonsense is all
in your drink.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

You are jealous because you don't have a constant named for you.
Omicron is MINE!
Bwhahahahahaha!

I have three planets....Wilsonias 1, 2 and 3

Now seriously, what were you trying to say in your OM?

Henry Wilson...

........provider of free physics lessons

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:54:13 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:04:20 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:

Examine this simple distance/time graph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Photons are emitted at regular intervals (dt) at the bottom
and travel through space with the velocity c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)
to arrive at the top with a separation of dT, where yaw is 0 to 2pi
and pitch is the fixed angle of inclination of the star's orbit.
By inspection it is clear that the rate of photon arrival is
inversely proportional to dT, so luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.

I realise you are looking for an argument by publishing this nonsense.

You have LOST THE PLOT!

Not I. It is in fact what I used in the Excel version, any nonsense is all
in your drink.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

You are jealous because you don't have a constant named for you.
Omicron is MINE!
Bwhahahahahaha!

I have three planets....Wilsonias 1, 2 and 3

You can have all the planets you like except Androcles, Cassandra and Wendy.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wendy/Wendy.htm
I have a luminosity constant omicron as well, that's all.

Now seriously, what were you trying to say in your OM?

Photons bunch together when bright or spread apart when dim.
Therefore a lot of them arrive in a very short time when the star
appears bright, few arrive over a longer time when the star appears
dim.
So there is an inverse relationship between the time between
photons arriving and the apparent brightness, and a direct
relationship if more are sent each second.
Hence luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.
You still need to apply the logarithm to display it as magnitude,
but that's only because our eyes are logarithmic.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:10:26 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:54:13 -0000, "Androcles"



Examine this simple distance/time graph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Photons are emitted at regular intervals (dt) at the bottom
and travel through space with the velocity c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)
to arrive at the top with a separation of dT, where yaw is 0 to 2pi
and pitch is the fixed angle of inclination of the star's orbit.
By inspection it is clear that the rate of photon arrival is
inversely proportional to dT, so luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.

I realise you are looking for an argument by publishing this nonsense.

You have LOST THE PLOT!

Not I. It is in fact what I used in the Excel version, any nonsense is all
in your drink.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

You are jealous because you don't have a constant named for you.
Omicron is MINE!
Bwhahahahahaha!

I have three planets....Wilsonias 1, 2 and 3

You can have all the planets you like except Androcles, Cassandra and Wendy.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wendy/Wendy.htm
I have a luminosity constant omicron as well, that's all.

I think Algol is a genuine eclipsing star. The BaTh curves have a slight
downward curvature between the two major 'dips', as in
http://www.scisite.info/ucep.jpg

Now seriously, what were you trying to say in your OM?

Photons bunch together when bright or spread apart when dim.

This is another way of looking at ADoppler. If you consider the whole photon
stream as resembling a wave, the 'wavelength' bunches together in the same way
as th photons. Therefore the wavelength curve should resemble the brightness
curve...which is what is observed in many instances. See this:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/f...00275.000.html

written before Einstein stuffed up the world. (Top of page and previous page)

Therefore a lot of them arrive in a very short time when the star
appears bright, few arrive over a longer time when the star appears
dim.
So there is an inverse relationship between the time between
photons arriving and the apparent brightness, and a direct
relationship if more are sent each second.
Hence luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.

Presumably, the star's luminosity is constant....and so is the rate at which
photons are sent.

You still need to apply the logarithm to display it as magnitude,
but that's only because our eyes are logarithmic.



Henry Wilson...

........provider of free physics lessons

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:10:26 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:54:13 -0000, "Androcles"



Examine this simple distance/time graph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Photons are emitted at regular intervals (dt) at the bottom
and travel through space with the velocity c+v.cos(yaw).cos(pitch)
to arrive at the top with a separation of dT, where yaw is 0 to 2pi
and pitch is the fixed angle of inclination of the star's orbit.
By inspection it is clear that the rate of photon arrival is
inversely proportional to dT, so luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.

I realise you are looking for an argument by publishing this nonsense.

You have LOST THE PLOT!

Not I. It is in fact what I used in the Excel version, any nonsense is
all
in your drink.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

You are jealous because you don't have a constant named for you.
Omicron is MINE!
Bwhahahahahaha!

I have three planets....Wilsonias 1, 2 and 3

You can have all the planets you like except Androcles, Cassandra and
Wendy.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wendy/Wendy.htm
I have a luminosity constant omicron as well, that's all.

I think Algol is a genuine eclipsing star.

If you saw someone in a red suit you are daft enough to ask him
if the elves were busy making toys and has Rudolph got over his
cold yet?
Here's why Santa CANNOT come down chimneys:
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...3/65018019.JPG

The BaTh curves have a slight
downward curvature between the two major 'dips', as in
http://www.scisite.info/ucep.jpg

As in my 1992 version of Copernicus.exe under "Samples", which
you've managed to duplicate after many years of struggling.

Here's why Algol CANNOT be eclipsing:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...golEclipse.JPG
In 1850, the French astronomer E. A. Roche (1820 - 1883) stated "no
satellite can exist closer to a planet than 2.44x its radius or 1.44x from
its surface."

If a satellite or comet that is held together solely by its gravitational
force (no tensile strength) passes within the planet's Roche limit, it will
break apart. Our two stars have no tensile strength, they are gases. The
surface to surface separation is 2.56 radii.



Now seriously, what were you trying to say in your OM?

Photons bunch together when bright or spread apart when dim.

This is another way of looking at ADoppler. If you consider the whole
photon
stream as resembling a wave, the 'wavelength' bunches together in the same
way
as th photons. Therefore the wavelength curve should resemble the
brightness
curve...which is what is observed in many instances. See this:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/f...00275.000.html

written before Einstein stuffed up the world. (Top of page and previous
page)

Those curves are the correct shape but misleading, they are not actually
in phase even though they've been drawn as if they are. Ask yourself this.
As seen from Earth, which part of the star's orbit has the greatest c+v
velocity? Think carefully, don't knee-jerk.

Now that you are thinking in terms of waves, W Sag has more than one
planet.
This demo has fixed end points, but it easily demonstrates why:
http://tinyurl.com/cugpd
Turn on the 3rd, 4th and 5th harmonics only, 1st and 2nd OFF.
As the wave moves, at one point you should see the curve of W Sag.

Perhaps now you'll understand why I'm picky about end-points, they
need to connect together and allowed to float up and down.
If you bodge and take shortcuts it'll come back and bite you in the arse.



Therefore a lot of them arrive in a very short time when the star
appears bright, few arrive over a longer time when the star appearsdim.
So there is an inverse relationship between the time between
photons arriving and the apparent brightness, and a direct
relationship if more are sent each second.
Hence luminosity = omicron * dt/dT.
Presumably, the star's luminosity is constant....and so is the rate at
which
photons are sent.

Correct, but they don't arrive at a constant rate.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

That is why V 1493 Aql is important. It's 1999 belch (or one like it)
was predicted, by me in 1987, twelve years before it happened. I
was working on SN 1987 at the time and my program was DOS.
I scrapped it because I didn't think I could reproduce Algol,
but I was WRONG and I did that in 1992 in Windows, with the
program you have now, Copernicus.exe - 18 years old and still
going strong.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...s/image021.jpg

And it was an 18-year-old kid that stuffed up Einstein... John Goodricke,
dead at age 22.
"This night looked at Beta-Persei (Algol) and was much amazed to find its
brightness altered. It now appears to be fourth magnitude... I observed it
diligently for about an hour upwards...hardly believing that it changed its
brightness, because I had never heard of any star varying so quick in its
brightness. I thought it might be perhaps owing to an optical illusion,
a defect in my eyes or bad air, but the sequel will show that its change
is true and that it was not mistaken."
(John Goodricke, journal entry November 12, 1782)

Goodricke invented the binary. That's how errors propagate.