Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / September 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Speed Of Light Question

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Frank Knowell - 04 Sep 2005 16:34 GMT
Hi,

Alert -- I'm not a physicist.

I've been reading about relativity and need some clarification about
the speed of light (SoL).

As I understand it the SoL (in a vacuum), is about 650 million mph and
that this constant, c, by definition, does not vary. Now let's say I am
travelling away from a light source very fast, at 400 million mph. A
natural supposition would be that the light, which is travelling in the
same direction as me, would be accelerating away from me at 250 million
mph (640 - 400 = 250). But this is not the case, regardless of how fast
I am travelling light will still accelerate away from me at 650 million
mph. Now since c is a constant, if I'm travelling at 400 million mph
and light is still travelling away from me at 650 million mph, light
cannot be travelling at 1050 million mph (650 + 400 = 1050). So what's
changing is the rapidity with which I'm experiencing the passage of
time relative to someone travelling at a different speed. In the case
of my example, someone on Earth would be experiencing time flowing at a
speed much, much, faster than I would be experiencing it travelling at
400 million mph. Have I got all of this right?

If that's all correct what does that say about how quickly the passage
of time is experienced by light? --Assuming light were able to perceive
time. Is time 'stationary' for light? I can't quite wrap my head around
this.

Many thanks and regards,

Frank
Androcles - 04 Sep 2005 16:51 GMT
| Hi,
|
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
| As I understand it the SoL (in a vacuum), is about 650 million mph and
| that this constant, c, by definition, does not vary.

Who's definition? What's the definition of speed, anyway?

| Now let's say I am
| travelling away from a light source very fast, at 400 million mph. A
| natural supposition would be that the light, which is travelling in the
| same direction as me, would be accelerating

Accelerating? Why would it accelerate?

| away from me at 250 million
| mph (640 - 400 = 250).

Yeah... sound's about right.

| But this is not the case,

Yes it is, why shouldn't it be?

| regardless of how fast
| I am travelling light will still accelerate away from me at 650 million
| mph.

Nah, it doesn't accelerate. Acceleration means to get increasingly
faster.

| Now since c is a constant, if I'm travelling at 400 million mph
| and light is still travelling away from me at 650 million mph,

No no, 250, you worked it out, remember?

| light
| cannot be travelling at 1050 million mph (650 + 400 = 1050).

Of course it can, just have the light source approach you at
400. Simple arithmetic as every child at school knows.

| So what's
| changing is the rapidity with which I'm experiencing the passage of
| time relative to someone travelling at a different speed.

Nah, al that changed was that some stupid idiot planted a silly idea
in your head. You were doing ok until you forgot the basics.

In the case
| of my example, someone on Earth would be experiencing time flowing at a
| speed much, much, faster than I would be experiencing it travelling at
| 400 million mph. Have I got all of this right?

You started to, but then you went badly wrong over something
about rapidity and passage of time.
What got you confused was a silly man named Albert, who said
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

I know that's wrong, you see, because I establish by definition
that the "time" required by a turtle to travel  from A to B equals
the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
It's a law of Nature because I SAID SO!

| If that's all correct what does that say about how quickly the passage
| of time is experienced by light? --Assuming light were able to perceive
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
|
| Frank
Don't even  bother, Frank. Einstein was a complete goofball
and so are all the silly people that listen to him.
Androcles.
Autymn D. C. - 06 Sep 2005 05:01 GMT
who's -> whose

And Hawking's wrong: It's time runs imaginarily at faster than light,
not backwards.
Jeff - 04 Sep 2005 17:09 GMT
TIME moves at the speed of LIGHT, or it might be more correct to say
that: LIGHT moves along with the continual MOTION of TIME with SPACE:
"c"; obviously, immediately explaining why a photon, or any object,
clock, etc., traveling at a "c" (speed of LIGHT, or SPEED of TIME
velocity) experiences the passing of no time at all, or an infinite
Time Dilation as mathematically calculated by the Fitzgerald Formula,
since this object would now be "MOVING ALONG WITH" the SAME "NOW POINT"
in TIME, as it moves along with the speed of LIGHT outward into SPACE..

Even Prof. Hawking has stated that: "If you travel faster than light,
time runs backwards".

Wouldn't this mean that by treavling at a velocity greater than "c",
you had "outrun" the this outward motion of time (LIGHT) continually
displacing you (causing your clock to run in the correct direction),
and by moving at a velocity greater than "c", you are now passing this
motion of time displacement and are now "overtaking" it, moving into
the past faster that the time displacing you can move into the
future?...and that is why "your clock runs backwards if you travel
faster than "c"?

For more on this new way of explaining this please go to:

  > www.realityphysics.com <

all comments and opinions welcome.

all the best,

Jeff Lee   CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
Martin Hogbin - 04 Sep 2005 17:13 GMT
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> As I understand it the SoL (in a vacuum), is about 650 million mph and
> that this constant, c, by definition, does not vary.

Yes, before the definition of the metre was changed there was lots of
experimental evidence to support the constancy of the speed of light.

> Now let's say I am
> travelling away from a light source very fast, at 400 million mph. A
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I am travelling light will still accelerate away from me at 650 million
> mph.

Not 'accelerate', that means to get faster, but yes.

> Now since c is a constant, if I'm travelling at 400 million mph
> and light is still travelling away from me at 650 million mph, light
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> speed much, much, faster than I would be experiencing it travelling at
> 400 million mph. Have I got all of this right?

Not bad.  Someone on Earth would measure your clocks to be
running slow with respect to theirs.  Oddly, you would measure
their clocks to be running slowly with respect to yours.

Someone on Earth would also say that your rulers had shrunk
(along the direction of relative motion) but you would measure
theirs to have shrunk.

This all sounds very weird but it all works out in the end.

> If that's all correct what does that say about how quickly the passage
> of time is experienced by light? --Assuming light were able to perceive
> time. Is time 'stationary' for light? I can't quite wrap my head around
> this.

Short answer - yes.  Longer and more correct answer -  light
cannot experience time and a frame moving at the speed of light
is not a valid frame in which to take measurements.

Beware, there are many crackpots on this group who
also cannot get their heads round relativity but instead of
learning about it properly they put up their own crackpot
theories.  They are not usually too hard to spot.

On the other hand there are several  regular physicists
who will be pleased to help you learn about the subject.

Martin Hogbin
Bill Hobba - 05 Sep 2005 00:06 GMT
>> Hi,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
> Martin Hogbin

Note to the original poster - you can trust what Martin says.  However the
other responders Jeff and Androcles are another matter.  Best ignore them
for the present.

Thanks
Bill
kenseto - 05 Sep 2005 01:51 GMT
> Hi,
>
> Alert -- I'm not a physicist.
>
> I've been reading about relativity and need some clarification about
> the speed of light (SoL).

The speed of light is by definition a constant ratio of: (1 light-second/1
second) as measured by all observers. This constant ratio can be explained
as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.

Ken Seto

> As I understand it the SoL (in a vacuum), is about 650 million mph and
> that this constant, c, by definition, does not vary. Now let's say I am
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Frank
Henri Wilson - 05 Sep 2005 03:01 GMT
>Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
>Frank

Light initially travels at c wrt its source.

It travels at c+v wrt any other object moving at -v relative to the source.

The explanations you will get from relativists like Hogbin and Hobba are based
on circular logic.
"If light's speed is assumed to be always c then ...such and such will
naturally follow".  

Unfortunately for them, there is no proof. ONE -WAY light speed from a moving
source has never been measured.

Variable star data now provides concrete evidence that all starlight in the
universe is NOT adjusted by the fairies to travel to little Earth at exactly c.

Einsteinian relativity is nonsense from start to finish...but like any religion
it has attracted a large number of dedicated followers who are prepared to die,
(cyberwise) to preserve their belief system. They have amassed a large number
of completely unconvincing experiments which they claim supports their
ideology.

Incidentally, Seto is an aetherist... so you will get another explanation from
him.  At least HIS would make sense if an aether existed...but it doesn't.

Androcles is basically OK... except that he wont accept that the speed of light
can change slightly as it travels across millions of LYs of not quite empty
space.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 05 Sep 2005 08:08 GMT
| Androcles is basically OK... except that he wont accept that the speed of light
| can change slightly as it travels across millions of LYs of not quite empty
| space.
|
| HW.

Henri Wilson ignores empirical data.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9807233
We have discovered 20 dwarf Cepheids (DC) in the Carina dSph galaxy from
the analysis of individual CCD images obtained for a deep photometric
study of the system. These short-period pulsating variable stars are by
far the most distant (~100 kpc) and faintest (V ~ 23.0) DCs known.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1980CoKon..74....1M&amp;
db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format
=

The period changes of the dwarf cepheids CY Aqr, EH Lib and DY Peg are
discussed and O-C diagrams of these stars are constructed. EH Librae has
a slightly stable, constant period. The period of CY Aquarii changed
suddenly in 1952 (deltaP = -1.81 x 10E-7 day = 0.016 sec). Before the
abrupt change its period showed small fluctuations, such fluctuations
have also been shown since that time. The period of DY Pegasi has become
shorter during the past 45 years. At present no distinction can be made
between the continuous change (at the rate Beta = -7.6 x 10E-13 days
cycleE-1 = -0.03 sec centuryE-1) or the abrupt change of period (deltaP
= -6.5 x 10E-8 day) in 1961.

Why Henri Wilson wants to make up stories is a mystery, but it places
him
in same category as Hans Christian Andersen, Paul Andersen, Albert
Einstein and similar famous fiction writers, but well below Joanna
Rowlings' 'Harry Potter' standard.
Androcles
Henri Wilson - 07 Sep 2005 03:32 GMT
>| Androcles is basically OK... except that he wont accept that the speed
>of light
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>study of the system. These short-period pulsating variable stars are by
>far the most distant (~100 kpc) and faintest (V ~ 23.0) DCs known.

These are only 100 kparsecs away.
I never claimed that light speed changes significantly in such a short
distance.

>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1980CoKon..74....1M&amp;
db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format
=
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>cycleE-1 = -0.03 sec centuryE-1) or the abrupt change of period (deltaP
>= -6.5 x 10E-8 day) in 1961.

That's all very interesting, A, but what are you trying to say?

I would say that an abrupt change in period was caused by the capture of some
object, maybe a meteor or a small planet. A continuous change is caused by the
fact that the star is moving in a very large orbit around a large centre of
mass. Its period is literally 'doppler shifted' wrt us.

>Why Henri Wilson wants to make up stories is a mystery, but it places
>him
>in same category as Hans Christian Andersen, Paul Andersen, Albert
>Einstein and similar famous fiction writers, but well below Joanna
>Rowlings' 'Harry Potter' standard.

Please never compare me with Andersen.

The above reference says nothing about light speed varying as it crosses
millions of LYs of space. Why shouldn't it?

>Androcles

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 07 Sep 2005 10:12 GMT
| >| Androcles is basically OK... except that he wont accept that the speed
| >of light
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
| I never claimed that light speed changes significantly in such a short
| distance.

1Parsec = 3.26 light years
1kP = 3260 light years
100 kP = 326,000 light years

This Henri Wilson calls a "short distance" and was considering an
extinction length of <100 ly.
Nobody is quite sure what Henri Wison does mean, including Henri Wilson.

>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1980CoKon..74....1M&amp;
db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format
=
| >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
|
| That's all very interesting, A, but what are you trying to say?

I'm saying that I know what a dwarf cepheid is and you do not.
I'm saying the clues are in those spikes I told you about.
I'm saying that your model sucks and you need to do it properly.
I'm saying that you like to invent Nature to hide your own shortcomings.
I'm saying you are not a scientist.

| I would say that an abrupt change in period was caused by the capture of some
| object, maybe a meteor or a small planet.

A typical Henri Wilson invention of Nature to go with h-aether, Wilson
Cool Heavies, half-spirals that are called ellipses and an idiotic
belief that I could be jealous of lunacy, along with a claim that Henri
Wilson's theory is the same as mine, which he calls BaT and I refuse to
be associated with.
As a result of Henri Wilson's lunacy, poor simple-minded bean-counting
Ghost has mistakenly assumed that when I say "ordinary star with a
planet"
I mean an eclipsing binary, one partner of which is a galaxy-eating
black hole.
If it wasn't difficult enough trying to overcome the lunacy of the
relativists
I have to waste time overcoming the lunacy of a renegade ally and loose
cannon as well.

| A continuous change is caused by the
| fact that the star is moving in a very large orbit around a large centre of
| mass. Its period is literally 'doppler shifted' wrt us.

BULLSHIT!

Dwarf cepheids are among the furthest variables we see.

| >Why Henri Wilson wants to make up stories is a mystery, but it places
| >him
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
|
| Please never compare me with Andersen.

Why not? You are both bullshitters.

| The above reference says nothing about light speed varying as it crosses
| millions of LYs of space. Why shouldn't it?

Of course it doesn't. Why should it?
H, we have fast light followed by slow light, then fast light, slow
light, fast
light, slow light, fast light, slow light...
Plot it on a distance/time graph.

  /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /| second pass
 / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |
/  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  |
/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |
  /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|  first pass
 / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |
/  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  |
/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |

Slow light= "/"
Fast light= "|"

Now plot with extinction included.
  /  / / /  / /  / /  / /  /  / / /  / /  / /  / / NO MORE PASS
 /  / / /  / /  / /  / /  /  / / /  / /  / /  / /
/  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  |
/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |
  /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|   /|  first pass
 / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |  / |
/  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  | /  |
/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |
No more dwarf cepheids.

Dwarf cepheids are at the second or third pass.
You've got the program, move 'em away and quit
making up stories.

Androcles

| >Androcles
|
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
| Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Henri Wilson - 08 Sep 2005 00:09 GMT
>| On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:08:48 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>extinction length of <100 ly.
>Nobody is quite sure what Henri Wison does mean, including Henri Wilson.

I don't see any inconsistentcy.

What happens to light within 50 LYs of a large star and what happens as it
crosses 10000 LYs of almost completely empty space could be very different.

You must use your imagination, A.

> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1980CoKon..74....1M&amp;
db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format
=
>| >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>I'm saying that I know what a dwarf cepheid is and you do not.
>I'm saying the clues are in those spikes I told you about.

Computer error. They occur at exactly where the major and minor axes meet the
circumference..

>I'm saying that your model sucks and you need to do it properly.

Professional jealousy again....

>I'm saying that you like to invent Nature to hide your own shortcomings.
>I'm saying you are not a scientist.

I was once...and I haven't changed much...

>| I would say that an abrupt change in period was caused by the capture
>of some
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>I have to waste time overcoming the lunacy of a renegade ally and loose
>cannon as well.

Well Ghost does get a little confused sometimes... but at least he tries.

>| A continuous change is caused by the
>| fact that the star is moving in a very large orbit around a large
>centre of
>| mass. Its period is literally 'doppler shifted' wrt us.
>
>BULLSHIT!

This is Sekerin time compression.
It is virtually the same effect that caauses the earth's 'equation of time'.

To a distant observer, the moon's period around the earth would be doppler
shifted +/- due to the ellipticity of the orbit.

>Dwarf cepheids are among the furthest variables we see.

Why do you think I'm disagreeing with you?

I think short period cepheids are stars with a small WCH orbiting them. The
brightness variation is caused by the star's wobble around the barycentre.

>| >Why Henri Wilson wants to make up stories is a mystery, but it places
>| >him
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Why not? You are both bullshitters.

The fact that you haven't yet understood that the period of a binary pair that
is itself in large orbit will appear cyclicly doppler shifted doesn't make me a
bullshitter.


>| The above reference says nothing about light speed varying as it
>crosses
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |/   |
>No more dwarf cepheids.

My program animates this.
It also includes a 'light unification factor' option.
All that happens is that any brightness variation appears to stabilize at a
certain distance from the source.

>Dwarf cepheids are at the second or third pass.
>You've got the program, move 'em away and quit
>making up stories.
>
>Androcles

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 08 Sep 2005 01:04 GMT
| >| On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:08:48 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
| >wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
| Computer error. They occur at exactly where the major and minor axes meet the
| circumference..

Not in my computer, I use E= M-e.sin(E).
The spikes I see are real, I can see them approached in the
Distance/time graph and in the spectrum.
But then, you never were a software engineer.

| >I'm saying that your model sucks and you need to do it properly.
|
| Professional jealousy again....
LOL!

| >I'm saying that you like to invent Nature to hide your own shortcomings.
| >I'm saying you are not a scientist.
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
|
| Why do you think I'm disagreeing with you?

"These are only 100 kparsecs away.
I never claimed that light speed changes significantly in such a short
distance."--Henri Wilson.
"What happens to light within 50 LYs of a large star and what happens as
it
crosses 10000 LYs of almost completely empty space could be very
different."-- Henri Wilson

Do you know what the 'k' in 'kparsecs' stands for?
It stands for 1000.
100 kparsecs is 326,000 LY, a little more than 50.

| I think short period cepheids are stars with a small WCH orbiting them.
Phuckwit.
Clueless phuckwit.

The
| brightness variation is caused by the star's wobble around the barycentre.

That part is correct.

| >| >Why Henri Wilson wants to make up stories is a mystery, but it places
| >| >him
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
| is itself in large orbit will appear cyclicly doppler shifted doesn't make me a
| bullshitter.

Wilson:
h-aether- bullshit
WCH- bullshit
a half-spiral is a half-ellipse- bullshit
100 kparsecs is a short distance- Sydney harbour bridge can reach Pluto.
That is using imagination!

Andersen:
the temperature of a star is found from its spectral class.
--Plus too many to mention.
Fair comparison.
You should get in on the thread "Spectrum" I started.

| >| The above reference says nothing about light speed varying as it
| >crosses
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
| All that happens is that any brightness variation appears to stabilize at a
| certain distance from the source.

We do not WANT a brightness variation to stabilize, dwarf
cepheids have a variable periodicity. You have the tool you built
yourself, now you want to blunt it to get what you think you ought
to see. That's phuckwittery.

Androcles.

| >Dwarf cepheids are at the second or third pass.
| >You've got the program, move 'em away and quit
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
| Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Henri Wilson - 11 Sep 2005 05:34 GMT
>| On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:12:23 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:

>| >Dwarf cepheids are among the furthest variables we see.
>|
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>Phuckwit.
>Clueless phuckwit.

I said it 'could be' affected differently. There is nothing inconsistent with
what I am claiming.
My main claim is that light speed might change significantly over VERY LARGE
distances, like 300 million LYs.

If it changed much over 50000 LYS we probably wouldn't see the heavens very
clearly at all.

>The
>| brightness variation is caused by the star's wobble around the
>barycentre.
>
>That part is correct.

>| The fact that you haven't yet understood that the period of a binary
>pair that
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>WCH- bullshit
>a half-spiral is a half-ellipse- bullshit

I have no half spirals. I have beautiful ellipses.

You have no idea how to integrate simple motion. You used finite intervals and
you didnt take into account the fact that there is no gravitational field
inside closed spherical shell.
Your 'force' didn't go to zero at the center of the star.

No wonder you get odd blips on your brightness curves!!!!!

>100 kparsecs is a short distance- Sydney harbour bridge can reach Pluto.
>That is using imagination!

OK I accept I left out a 'k' in the above.

>Andersen:
>the temperature of a star is found from its spectral class.
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>yourself, now you want to blunt it to get what you think you ought
>to see. That's phuckwittery.

I told you why it is not unusual to observe variability in brightness curve
periodicity.
If the wobbling star is also orbiting a larger mass centre, its 'wobble
frequency' will appear differently doppler shifted as it approaches and departs
from us.
What's so strange about that?

>Androcles.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 11 Sep 2005 10:09 GMT
| >| On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:12:23 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
| >wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
| If it changed much over 50000 LYS we probably wouldn't see the heavens very
| clearly at all.

Do you really think a bucket of water from Sydney Harbour is
enough to flood New Orleans?
Lay off the cheap Aussie wine, it's giving you delusions.

| >The
| >| brightness variation is caused by the star's wobble around the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
|
| I have no half spirals. I have beautiful ellipses.

As the actress said to the bishop.

| You have no idea how to integrate simple motion.

I do but don't need to. Kepler's equation derives the ellipse from a
circle.

| You used finite intervals

of time, as required, and I can make them as small as I like.
I did put an artificial limit of  Period/1000000 into the program
which I now regret.

and
| you didnt take into account the fact that there is no gravitational field
| inside closed spherical shell.

Oh yes I did, I certainly took it  into account, I deliberately ignored
it
as irrelevant, inside or outside.
You didn't take into account that Wilson Cool Heavy's are eaten by
bright green flying elephants  which fly back to their black hole nests
and regurgitate them to feed the hatchlings.

| Your 'force' didn't go to zero at the center of the star.

Force isn't needed in my program at all, and is not considered.
It is ignored completely.

| No wonder you get odd blips on your brightness curves!!!!!

Ask a five-year-old with his bucket and spade where the sand goes
when he digs a hole, he'll understand the blips.
The sand from the hole piles up at the edge, as does the light
from Algol's V-dip, it has to go somewhere. If the five-year-old
throws all the sand on one side of his hole, he'll have a mound
beside the hole that looks like d-Ceph in cross-section.

d-Ceph:
      __
     /  \
    /    \
-----------------------
  /        \ hole /
__/ mound    \____/

Algol:

           /\  __
    /\/\/\/  \/  \
-----------------------------
  /                \      /
 /        blip      \hole/
/                    \  /
                      \/

A scientist would examine those blips in detail. A science-fiction
writer like you or Einstein would ignore them, pretend they were
not there.

| >100 kparsecs is a short distance- Sydney harbour bridge can reach Pluto.
| >That is using imagination!
|
| OK I accept I left out a 'k' in the above.

Yep... are you going to leave out dwarf cepheids and RR-Lyraes well?
H. Listen up!
We've got ONE model, and many types of variables to account for.
Recurrent novae (long period)
Cepheids (regular, short period)
Eclipsing binary (really cepheids with major axis along line-of-sight)
RR-Lyrae (random variable)
dwarf cepheids (sudden change and random period)
flare stars (random)
We have our own solar system as a model as well.
That's it. We do not need wild guess (it's my theory, look how clever I
am)
WCHs or h-aether to account for ANY of them.
They ALL fit my program, and should fit yours as well.

| >Andersen:
| >the temperature of a star is found from its spectral class.
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
| from us.
| What's so strange about that?

You are considering modeling three bodies.
I don't object to that, I object to Wilson Cool Heavies and h-aether.
It is clear that Ghost thinks you have a star orbiting a Wilson Cool
Heavy, and it is clear to me that's the way you think as well, or
you would not have invented them.
There are no WCHs or h-aether, they are not needed and do not exist.
By all means model a three-body system, make any of them glow,
but don't make giants black or you'll have black holes everywhere
and that is science fiction.
You didn't invent the WCH, black holes were invented first.
Now we've got cranks looking for them.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 13 Sep 2005 03:20 GMT
>| On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:04:05 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:

>| >crosses 10000 LYs of almost completely empty space could be very
>| >different."-- Henri Wilson
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>Do you really think a bucket of water from Sydney Harbour is
>enough to flood New Orleans?

No but a few molecules in space are enough to slow light down sufficietly to
cause the cosmic redshift. If you want to believe in an expanding universe, go
ahead.

>Lay off the cheap Aussie wine, it's giving you delusions.

.....and the gout, right now....

>| >The
>| >| brightness variation is caused by the star's wobble around the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>As the actress said to the bishop.

:)

>| You have no idea how to integrate simple motion.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>I did put an artificial limit of  Period/1000000 into the program
>which I now regret.

Below the critical distance, you don't need any more divisions than the
computer pixels can handle.
I am using only 500 now. ...and 20000 points over each orbit.

>and
>| you didnt take into account the fact that there is no gravitational
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>bright green flying elephants  which fly back to their black hole nests
>and regurgitate them to feed the hatchlings.

I'll bet you there are more WCHs in the universe than ABGFEs.

>| Your 'force' didn't go to zero at the center of the star.
>
>Force isn't needed in my program at all, and is not considered.
>It is ignored completely.

I was refereing to the program you wrote to prove my ellipses weren't ellipses.

>| No wonder you get odd blips on your brightness curves!!!!!
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>throws all the sand on one side of his hole, he'll have a mound
>beside the hole that looks like d-Ceph in cross-section.

your blips are computer errors.
You are dividing by something near zero.

>d-Ceph:
>       __
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>writer like you or Einstein would ignore them, pretend they were
>not there.

I have. They occur at exactly the intersections of the major axis and minor
axis with the circumference.

>| OK I accept I left out a 'k' in the above.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>am)
>WCHs or h-aether to account for ANY of them.

The planet "Androcles" is a WCH.

>They ALL fit my program, and should fit yours as well.

I have just revamped my whole program so I can import any curve and try to
model it by adjusting parameters.

No great problems so far except that the claimed radial velocities, distances
and magnitude variations are often way out. I suspect much of the observed data
is wrong.
I need more curves and more reliable data so I can compare them with BaT
predictions..

>| >We do not WANT a brightness variation to stabilize, dwarf
>| >cepheids have a variable periodicity. You have the tool you built
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>You are considering modeling three bodies.
>I don't object to that, I object to Wilson Cool Heavies and h-aether.

WCHs are multifaceted and include 'large planets'.

H-aether plays no part in generating thee brightness curves..

>It is clear that Ghost thinks you have a star orbiting a Wilson Cool
>Heavy, and it is clear to me that's the way you think as well, or
>you would not have invented them.

No A, both the Star and the WCH orbit the barycentre.
The WCH can be anything from a red dwarf, a neutron star or a planet like
Jupiter.

>There are no WCHs or h-aether, they are not needed and do not exist.
>By all means model a three-body system, make any of them glow,
>but don't make giants black or you'll have black holes everywhere
>and that is science fiction.
>You didn't invent the WCH, black holes were invented first.
>Now we've got cranks looking for them.

There could easily be mass centres which are so heavy that the escape velocity
is >c.

>Androcles.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 13 Sep 2005 14:00 GMT
| >| On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:04:05 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
| >wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
| cause the cosmic redshift. If you want to believe in an expanding universe, go
| ahead.

Each photon gets a larger the further it travels. Your fairy dust
has nothing do with  it.

| >Lay off the cheap Aussie wine, it's giving you delusions.
|
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
| Below the critical distance, you don't need any more divisions than the
| computer pixels can handle.

Not true. The devil is in the details.
This is a chaotic orbit, its is 3D but I can't show you that.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/graphics/beffect/LORENZ.gif
"The butterfly effect has been most commonly associated with the
Weather system as this is where the  discovery of "non-linear"
phenomenon began when Edward Lorenz found anomalies in computer models
of the weather.But Henri Poincaré had already made inroads into this
area. Mapping the results in "phase space" produced a two-lobe map
called the Lorenz Attractor. The word attractor meaning that events
tended to be attracted towards the two lobes,and events outside of the
lobes are such things like snow in the desert. "

| I am using only 500 now. ...and 20000 points over each orbit.
|
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
|
| I'll bet you there are more WCHs in the universe than ABGFEs.

Zero is not more than zero.

| >| Your 'force' didn't go to zero at the center of the star.
| >
| >Force isn't needed in my program at all, and is not considered.
| >It is ignored completely.
|
| I was refereing to the program you wrote to prove my ellipses weren't ellipses.

You ellipses are half spirals that look like the ace of hearts.

| >| No wonder you get odd blips on your brightness curves!!!!!
| >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
| your blips are computer errors.
| You are dividing by something near zero.

Nope.
They are digital, that's true, I can't help that, but they are real.

| >d-Ceph:
| >       __
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
| I have. They occur at exactly the intersections of the major axis and minor
| axis with the circumference.

I dont use the axes in my model, and in any event that would mean
the blip would be a the bottom of the 'V'.

| >| OK I accept I left out a 'k' in the above.
| >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
|
| The planet "Androcles" is a WCH.

LOL! Planets are called WCHs.
What do you call stars, Wilson Warm Heavies?

| >They ALL fit my program, and should fit yours as well.
|
| I have just revamped my whole program so I can import any curve and try to
| model it by adjusting parameters.

| No great problems so far except that the claimed radial velocities, distances
| and magnitude variations are often way out. I suspect much of the observed data
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
|
| H-aether plays no part in generating thee brightness curves..

Right, no fairy dust needed.

Androcles

| >It is clear that Ghost thinks you have a star orbiting a Wilson Cool
| >Heavy, and it is clear to me that's the way you think as well, or
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
| Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Henri Wilson - 14 Sep 2005 23:06 GMT
>| Below the critical distance, you don't need any more divisions than
>the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>tended to be attracted towards the two lobes,and events outside of the
>lobes are such things like snow in the desert. "

Below the critical distance (that at which the 'fast light' from an orbit
starts to pass 'slow light') there is nothing chaotic about this problem.

All we are calculating is the way in which photons with different speeds 'bunch
together' or separate as they travel through space.

>| >| No wonder you get odd blips on your brightness curves!!!!!
>| >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Nope.
>They are digital, that's true, I can't help that, but they are real.

They are not real. There is nothing that would cause them.

>| >d-Ceph:
>| >       __
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>I dont use the axes in my model, and in any event that would mean
>the blip would be a the bottom of the 'V'.

I have spent some more time on this.
I will send a .jpg that shows the exact phase relationship between brightness
curve and peripheral velocity.
Horizontal axis is 'time' not angle.

>I
>| >am)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>LOL! Planets are called WCHs.
>What do you call stars, Wilson Warm Heavies?

cool, warm, hot, getting hotter...

>| No great problems so far except that the claimed radial velocities,
>distances
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>| Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
>| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 15 Sep 2005 00:24 GMT
| >| Below the critical distance, you don't need any more divisions than
| >the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
| All we are calculating is the way in which photons with different speeds 'bunch
| together' or separate as they travel through space.

It's your orbit that is chaotic. By that I mean that a slight change in
initial conditions produces an enormous change after a few thousand
iterations.
An example:
2*2 = 4
4*2 = 8
8*2 =16
16*2 = 32

Now a small change in initial conditions:
2.1*2.1 = 4.41
4.41 * 2.1 = 9.261
9.261 * 2.1 = 19.4481
19.4481 *2.1  = 40.84101

This is why you had so much trouble playing with constants and why
I used Kepler's equation like everyone else.

| >| >| No wonder you get odd blips on your brightness curves!!!!!
| >| >
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
| curve and peripheral velocity.
| Horizontal axis is 'time' not angle.

I have it and sent it back with some details for the spectrum.
You know the velocity because you generated it, but an astronomer
has to calculate it from the spectrum so you need to match what
he sees.

| >I
| >| >am)
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
|
| cool, warm, hot, getting hotter...

I think I prefer planet, gas giant, brown dwarf... :-)
I don't like dwarf cepheid, though, since it isn't small,
but I guess we'll have to live with it.

Androcles

| >| No great problems so far except that the claimed radial velocities,
| >distances
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
| Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Autymn D. C. - 15 Sep 2005 02:49 GMT
Get the shitheaded Androcles to stop cascading.
Henri Wilson - 16 Sep 2005 01:51 GMT
>| On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:00:00 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:

>| Below the critical distance (that at which the 'fast light' from an
>orbit
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>This is why you had so much trouble playing with constants and why
>I used Kepler's equation like everyone else.

Look, A, Kepler used the fact that a star moves according to Newton's F=GMm/r^2
to show that it orbit is an ellipse.

My method assumes Kepler was corect and uses Newton's equation directly. It is
not chaotic.
It produces quite accurate ellipses. Like I said in the email, I have
deliberately fiddled with the my orbit shapes to see the effects on brightness
curves. It turns out that the ellipse can be quite a long way out and still
produce an almost correct curve.
Using 20000 or 60000 points in my ellipse generation program produces no
observable changes in brightness curve shapes.
 

>| >| >| No wonder you get odd blips on your brightness curves!!!!!
>| >| >
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>has to calculate it from the spectrum so you need to match what
>he sees.

Your two 'blips' correspond to where the minor axis meets the circumference.

>| >LOL! Planets are called WCHs.
>| >What do you call stars, Wilson Warm Heavies?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>I don't like dwarf cepheid, though, since it isn't small,
>but I guess we'll have to live with it.

There must be all kinds of objects out there that we know little about.
I'm quite convinced from the characteristic 'dip' in brightness curves that
grouips of satellites or asteroids commonly aggregate at Lagrange points.

I would like more information about radial velocities as estimated using
spectral doppler shifts.
Something doesn't add up.

>Androcles
>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>| Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
>| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 16 Sep 2005 07:26 GMT
| >| On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:00:00 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
| >wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
| Look, A, Kepler used the fact that a star moves according to Newton's F=GMm/r^2
| to show that it orbit is an ellipse.

He didn't, actually. What he did was to observe the orbits of the
planets
and then drew an ellipse and divided it up into triangles all with apex
pointed at the focus, and he found that each triangle's area
corresponded to the time.
Newton took over and confirmed he was right. He had to really, because
Kepler's idea wasn't a theory, it was a discovery.

That's the fundamental difference between real science and theoretical
science.
In real science, first you make an observation and then explain it with
mathematics. In phuckwit science, first you make a prediction and then
you go
looking for the bright green flying elephants eggs in the black holes.

John Goodricke was an 18-year-old phuckwit with a toy telescope who
"discovered"
Algol was an eclipsing binary. You and I know differently, because I
taught you how to model it correctly. Newton would have crucified
Goodricke and eaten Einstein and Hawking for breakfast.
Hawking has now backed down, BTW. I always knew that dingbat was a
phuckwit since I met him at Sussex U. Sorry about his ailment but pity
for the disabled doesn't help physics.

| My method assumes Kepler was corect and uses Newton's equation directly. It is
| not chaotic.

Of course Kepler was correct, but your METHOD is not. You method is
chaotic,
and your knowledge of history is pathetic. Your method cannot produce
a completed ellipse, which is why you use arrays and two halves. You
accumulate
the error. It won't matter how you try to justify yourself, gout isn't
an excuse for bad method.

| It produces quite accurate ellipses. Like I said in the email, I have
| deliberately fiddled with the my orbit shapes to see the effects on brightness
| curves. It turns out that the ellipse can be quite a long way out and still
| produce an almost correct curve.

I know. I've been there. Being almost correct gets you no brownie
points,
refusing to listen to reason gets you no brownie points either.

This is one of your so-called "quite accurate" ellipses:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02_files/image022.gif
"This illustration depicts a much more severe case than could exist for
any planet in our solar system, because the perihelion of the orbit is
only 200m where m is the gravitational radius (in geometrical units) of
the central object"

"Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here."
http://mathforum.org/geometry/wwweuclid/proclus.htm

Ignorance is educable. Stupidity is not.

| Using 20000 or 60000 points in my ellipse generation program produces no
| observable changes in brightness curve shapes.

Learn to do it correctly or remain willfully ignorant. I've sent you an
excellent
tutorial.
http://www.oc.nps.navy.mil/~garfield/ellipse_app2.pdf

Please yourself, but don't try to teach me Kepler or Newton.

[snip old stuff]

| Your two 'blips' correspond to where the minor axis meets the circumference.

Bollocks. I don't use your "almost correct" method, I do it correctly
and I've found evidence in empirical data.

| >I think I prefer planet, gas giant, brown dwarf... :-)
| >I don't like dwarf cepheid, though, since it isn't small,
| >but I guess we'll have to live with it.
|
| There must be all kinds of objects out there that we know little about.

Of course there are, but calling them all "Wilson" is stupidity.
That will get you a padded cell instead of an accolade.

| I'm quite convinced from the characteristic 'dip' in brightness curves that
| grouips of satellites or asteroids commonly aggregate at Lagrange points.

You are easily convinced, especially after I suggested you look into
Lagrange. Would you like some candy for learning your alphabet?
It's time to take the training wheels off, H, but I'm not letting you
out in the road with your bike just yet.

| I would like more information about radial velocities as estimated using
| spectral doppler shifts.
| Something doesn't add up.

Ok.
frequency_observed  = frequency_emitted * (c+v)/c   (Doppler)
v = wavelength_observed * frequency_emitted - c

You know the wavelength emitted from direct observation of the
spectrum of light in the lab.
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/spectroscope/amici.html

Andersen has a website in Canada with some rather pathetic
"research" ... I didn't keep a note of it though.

[snip no futher comment]
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 17 Sep 2005 00:04 GMT
>| >This is why you had so much trouble playing with constants and why
>| >I used Kepler's equation like everyone else.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Newton took over and confirmed he was right. He had to really, because
>Kepler's idea wasn't a theory, it was a discovery.

OK...I'll believe you....

>That's the fundamental difference between real science and theoretical
>science.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>phuckwit since I met him at Sussex U. Sorry about his ailment but pity
>for the disabled doesn't help physics.

I will certainly agree on that.

>| My method assumes Kepler was corect and uses Newton's equation
>directly. It is
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>the error. It won't matter how you try to justify yourself, gout isn't
>an excuse for bad method.

I use two halves to get around the computer problem of dividing by tan(0)
It isn't hard to make a mirror image when I have all the required parameter for
10000+ points around the half orbit..

>| It produces quite accurate ellipses. Like I said in the email, I have
>| deliberately fiddled with the my orbit shapes to see the effects on
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>points,
>refusing to listen to reason gets you no brownie points either.

No orbits are pure ellipses. Our Earth is affected by Jupiter etc.

>This is one of your so-called "quite accurate" ellipses:
>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02_files/image022.gif
>"This illustration depicts a much more severe case than could exist for
>any planet in our solar system, because the perihelion of the orbit is
>only 200m where m is the gravitational radius (in geometrical units) of
>the central object"

irrelevant..but interesting.

>"Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here."
>http://mathforum.org/geometry/wwweuclid/proclus.htm
>
>Ignorance is educable. Stupidity is not.

You don't seem to understand the very principle that we are both using.
If you ran my program you would see how the light pulses bunch together or move
apart as they move from the source.
Exact precision of the ellipse is not important at all.
.....but mine are very precise anyway.

>| Using 20000 or 60000 points in my ellipse generation program produces
>no
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>tutorial.
> http://www.oc.nps.navy.mil/~garfield/ellipse_app2.pdf

I was aware of all that.

>Please yourself, but don't try to teach me Kepler or Newton.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Bollocks. I don't use your "almost correct" method, I do it correctly
>and I've found evidence in empirical data.

You are dividing by zero at the points where cos=1

>| >I think I prefer planet, gas giant, brown dwarf... :-)
>| >I don't like dwarf cepheid, though, since it isn't small,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Of course there are, but calling them all "Wilson" is stupidity.
>That will get you a padded cell instead of an accolade.

It is very convenient to simply say, "a star is orbiting its barycentre with a
WCH".

In Algol's case, the WCH is the planet "Androcles".

>| I'm quite convinced from the characteristic 'dip' in brightness curves
>that
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>It's time to take the training wheels off, H, but I'm not letting you
>out in the road with your bike just yet.

To produce curves like S Cas, with that characteristic dip, the required phase
lead/lag has to be very close to 60 deg. The orbit period is the same as the
main object. Doesn't that mean something?

>| I would like more information about radial velocities as estimated
>using
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>frequency_observed  = frequency_emitted * (c+v)/c   (Doppler)
>v = wavelength_observed * frequency_emitted - c

Most of the published radial velocities are way too high for the curves we are
producing. That is what doesn't add up.

>You know the wavelength emitted from direct observation of the
>spectrum of light in the lab.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>[snip no futher comment]

Incidentally, I have found one good reason why IR is observed to vary by less
that visible, for instance in Mira stars.

The IR is coming mainly from well inside the star and therefore has smaller
radial velocities wrt the observer than visible light produced in the outer gas
layers. That can completely account for the difference.

>Androcles.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 17 Sep 2005 01:38 GMT
| >| >This is why you had so much trouble playing with constants and why
| >| >I used Kepler's equation like everyone else.
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
|
| irrelevant..but interesting.

It's not irrelevant. It is most pertinent to what you are doing.
If you were to calculate the areas of the triangles between your point
pairs and the focus you'd see a trend.
I know, because I went that way myself years ago.

| >"Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here."
| >http://mathforum.org/geometry/wwweuclid/proclus.htm
| >
| >Ignorance is educable. Stupidity is not.
|
| You don't seem to understand the very principle that we are both using.

Don't be silly, I developed it years ago. I know exactly what you are
doing.
When you first began you were programming circles.

| If you ran my program you would see how the light pulses bunch together or move
| apart as they move from the source.

They'll do that with a circle, but you won't get a sensible curve.

| Exact precision of the ellipse is not important at all.

That's a silly statement to make. If you don't have equal areas in equal
times,
AND YOU DONT, you'll change the shape of the light curve.

| .....but mine are very precise anyway.

Yours will precisely precess.

| >| Using 20000 or 60000 points in my ellipse generation program produces
| >no
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
|
| You are dividing by zero at the points where cos=1

Bullshit.

Divisions are:
v=delta_x/interval, that can't be zero
Phase =  (EinsteinTime-GalileoTime + time)/Period; That can't be zero.
Doppler =(c_dash-v)/c_dash, that can't be zero;
EinsteinTime = D/c;  That can't be zero.
GalileoTime = D/(c+v); That can't be zero.

You must think I was born yesterday. I've has a career as a software
engineer,
Show my divide by zero.
You can't because you don't know what you are babbling about.

void Orbit()
{
double time;
double Angle,A = 0;
double x,y,z,old_x,delta_x,v,D,EinsteinTime, GalileoTime,Doppler,line,
c_dash, count;
long i,j,k, step, arrive;
char s[80];
double Frequency;

RECT Rect;
HDC hDC;
BOOL flag;

ClearArrays(); // empty out previous data.
CosPitch = cos(pitch);  //precompute to save time
SinPitch = sin(pitch);
CosYaw = cos(yaw);
SinYaw = sin(yaw);
CosRoll = cos(roll);
SinRoll = sin(roll);
SemiMinorAxis = SemiMajorAxis * sqrt(1.0 - eccentricity*eccentricity);
MajorAxis = 2.0*SemiMajorAxis;
interval = Period/iterations;
GetClientRect(hWnd,&Rect);
hDC= GetDC(hWnd);
FillRect(hDC, &Rect, GetStockObject(BLACK_BRUSH));
ReleaseDC(hWnd, hDC);
out_of_range = FALSE;

Angle = 0;
x = SemiMajorAxis;
y = 0;
z = 0;
Rotate(&x,&y,&z);
old_x = x;  // initial value
for(k=0;k<2;k++)
{
step = iterations/ARRAYSIZE;                  // the "distance" between
points saved
for(i = 0,count=0.0;i<iterations; i++, count=i*ARRAYSIZE/iterations) //
set up one period in increments
  {
 time = Period *(double)i/(double)iterations;
 Angle = Kepler((double)i/(double)iterations*2.0*PI); // get one
position of the ellipse
 x = SemiMajorAxis*cos(Angle);       // compute as x and y.
 y = SemiMinorAxis*sin(Angle);
 z = 0;
 Rotate(&x,&y,&z);                // pitch and yaw the ellipse
    delta_x = old_x-x;         // distance source move toward observer
 old_x = x;               // save for next computation
 v=delta_x/interval;         // speed source moves toward observer
       if(!out_of_range)
       if ((v > 3000) || (v< -3000))
        {
        sprintf(s,"Parameters give an improbable velocity of%6.0lf
Km/sec. This may result in a long computation time",v);
        flag = MessageBox(hWnd,s,"   Velocity out of range",
MB_OKCANCEL);
        if(flag == 1)  out_of_range = TRUE;
        else return;
        }
 D = Distance+x;               // Distance to observer
 EinsteinTime = D/c;
 GalileoTime = D/(c+v);               // Time it takes light to reach
observer
    if(Androcles)
     {
     Phase =  (EinsteinTime-GalileoTime + time)/Period;
     }
    else Phase = time/Period;
    arrive = (int)((Phase)*(double)ARRAYSIZE);
 ArrivalTime[(long)count] = arrive+ARRAYSIZE/3;
    while (Phase<0.0) Phase+=1.0;
    while (Phase>=1.0) Phase-=1.0;
    //don't arrive before we leave
    arrive = (int)((Phase)*(double)ARRAYSIZE);
    LightCurveArray[arrive]++;// Drop a "photon" into the indexed
array, not in any order
 if(i%step == 0) // index1 goes from 0 to iterations, count from 0 to
ARRAYSIZE
  {
  EllipseX[(long)count] = x;
  EllipseY[(long)count] = y;
  EllipseZ[(long)count] = z;
  Velocity[(long)count] = v;
  if(MoveSystem(x,y,z)) return; // request to halt processing recieved
  }
       if(k==0)      // only on the first pass
        {
        if(magnify > 1.0)      // artificially make c smaller to
exaggerate Doppler
   {
   c_dash = c/(magnify);   // arbitrary
   if(Androcles) Doppler =(c_dash-v)/c_dash;
         else if(Einstein) Doppler =
sqrt((1.0+v/c_dash)/(1.0-v/c_dash));
         else Doppler = c_dash/(c_dash-v);  //Lorentz aether;
         }
        else
         {
   if(Androcles) Doppler =(c-v)/c;
         else if(Einstein) Doppler = sqrt((1.0+v/c)/(1.0-v/c));
         else Doppler = (c)/(c-v);  //Lorentz aether;
         }

        //now populate the visible Spectrum array from 0-255 with bytes
proportional to Doppler shift
    for(j=0;j<10;j++)
      {
      if(arrive/4>ARRAYSIZE/4-10)
       {

       //line = (246.0 - 10.0)*line/(750.0-400.0)-246.0; //scaled to
pixels,256 to 0
       line = (246.0 - 10.0)*line/(750.0-400.0)-246.0; //scaled to
pixels,256 to 0
       line = 255.0-line;
      }
      else
       {
      Frequency = Doppler * c/series[j]; // series is wavelength
                   line = c/Frequency; // back to wavelength
       line = (246.0 - 10.0)*line/(750.0-400.0)-246.0; //scaled to
pixels,256 to 0
       line = 255.0-line;
       }

         if(line > 0.0 && line <256.0)
          Spectrum[arrive/4][(int)line]= (BYTE)TRUE;
         }
  }// end first pass, k = 0
 } //end for(i... loop
} // end for(k.... loop
Magnitude();
FilterCurve();
}

| >| >I think I prefer planet, gas giant, brown dwarf... :-)
| >| >I don't like dwarf cepheid, though, since it isn't small,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
| It is very convenient to simply say, "a star is orbiting its barycentre with a
| WCH".

That will get you a padded cell, but go ahead, set yourself up.

| In Algol's case, the WCH is the planet "Androcles".

| >| I'm quite convinced from the characteristic 'dip' in brightness curves
| >that
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
| lead/lag has to be very close to 60 deg. The orbit period is the same as the
| main object. Doesn't that mean something?

I've always said it was a ternary system, H, but you've got 48 cycles in
70 years
or 0.686 cycles a year, 532 days. Plenty of time and ROOM for a
Sun-Earth-Moon
triple, which you have not modelled. Doesn't the rest of the curves past
the three you modeled mean something without you jumping to conclusions?

Using Kepler's equation, move the barycentre of the Earth-Moon system
around the Sun, then move the Moon around its own local ellipse. Then
see what kind of curve you'll get from the Sun.

| >| I would like more information about radial velocities as estimated
| >using
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
| Most of the published radial velocities are way too high for the curves we are
| producing. That is what doesn't add up.

They can only come from the spectra.
I'd like to help you, but my ankle won't let me get to a decent library.
Doc is going to operate in 5 weeks, perhaps I'll be less of a grouch
by Christmas. Don't you have anything in Sydney? There must be a
major university there.

| >You know the wavelength emitted from direct observation of the
| >spectrum of light in the lab.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
| radial velocities wrt the observer than visible light produced in the outer gas
| layers. That can completely account for the difference.

Hmmm.... the core of a star is cooler... I think I'll reserve judgment
on that,
mainly because I've never modelled IR anyway. Where did you get IR
spectral velocities?
Androcles
Henri Wilson - 18 Sep 2005 01:53 GMT
>| On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:26:48 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
>pairs and the focus you'd see a trend.
>I know, because I went that way myself years ago.

Here are some of my coordinates for eccentricities 0.25 and 0.6. Try comparing
them with yours. They are for every 400th point so the last will not lie on the
major axis.

ecc = 0.25
X=-185.7          Y=0
X= -182.3060  Y= 039.7550
X= -172.2398  Y= 078.0709
X= -156.1417  Y= 113.6676
X= -134.9016  Y= 145.5420
X= -109.5580  Y= 173.0159
X= -081.1747  Y= 195.7224
X= -050.7517  Y= 213.5537
X= -019.1755  Y= 226.5949
X= 012.8003  Y= 235.0612
X= 044.5535  Y= 239.2468
X= 075.5809  Y= 239.4868
X= 105.4811  Y= 236.1313
X= 133.9377  Y= 229.5289
X= 160.7025  Y= 220.0172
X= 185.5820  Y= 207.9174
X= 208.4264  Y= 193.5321
X= 229.1194  Y= 177.1453
X= 247.5720  Y= 159.0231
X= 263.7157  Y= 139.4154
X= 277.4985  Y= 118.5577
X= 288.8813  Y= 096.6732
X= 297.8354  Y= 073.9747
X= 304.3402  Y= 050.6669
X= 308.3818  Y= 026.9485
X= 309.9524  Y= 003.0136

ecc = 0.6
X= -0.0651      Y= 0
X= -057.8573  Y= 038.5421
X= -039.4971  Y= 070.1879
X= -015.9659  Y= 093.3069
X= 008.9633  Y= 109.2638
X= 033.5297  Y= 119.7800
X= 056.9962  Y= 126.2073
X= 079.0797  Y= 129.5146
X= 099.6956  Y= 130.3911
X= 118.8454  Y= 129.3356
X= 136.5676  Y= 126.7176
X= 152.9139  Y= 122.8175
X= 167.9396  Y= 117.8529
X= 181.6981  Y= 111.9964
X= 194.2387  Y= 105.3874
X= 205.6064  Y= 098.1405
X= 215.8410  Y= 090.3517
X= 224.9776  Y= 082.1024
X= 233.0468  Y= 073.4629
X= 240.0750  Y= 064.4947
X= 246.0848  Y= 055.2525
X= 251.0950  Y= 045.7856
X= 255.1211  Y= 036.1389
X= 258.1755  Y= 026.3544
X= 260.2673  Y= 016.4714
X= 261.4029  Y= 006.5279

>| >"Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here."
>| >http://mathforum.org/geometry/wwweuclid/proclus.htm
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>They'll do that with a circle, but you won't get a sensible curve.

They do it with an ellipse too.
Sensible curves are always produced up to the distance where fast light starts
to overtake other light. You don't need more than about 6000 points to see
that.
Above the critical distance, the curves become pretty meaningless.

>| Exact precision of the ellipse is not important at all.
>
>That's a silly statement to make. If you don't have equal areas in equal
>times,
>AND YOU DONT, you'll change the shape of the light curve.

Only marginally.

My method uses equal energy pulses emitted at equal TIME intervals as the star
moves around the circumference.

I do have equal areas in equal times anyway.

>| .....but mine are very precise anyway.
>
>Yours will precisely precess.

....but too slowly to make any noticeable difference to the output curve.

>| >| Using 20000 or 60000 points in my ellipse generation program
>produces
[quoted text clipped - 173 lines]
>FilterCurve();
>}

Can't see the problem there.

>| >| >I think I prefer planet, gas giant, brown dwarf... :-)
>| >| >I don't like dwarf cepheid, though, since it isn't small,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> That will get you a padded cell, but go ahead, set yourself up.

.....Lyrae stars......
what is YOUR explanation?

>| In Algol's case, the WCH is the planet "Androcles".
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>triple, which you have not modelled. Doesn't the rest of the curves past
>the three you modeled mean something without you jumping to conclusions?

Definitely. I am going to include a third object next.

But the Lagrange point effect shows up at the same phase in every cycle. A
three body system will 'beat' regularly. The 'dip' should move.


>Using Kepler's equation, move the barycentre of the Earth-Moon system
>around the Sun, then move the Moon around its own local ellipse. Then
>see what kind of curve you'll get from the Sun.

Yes. I'll need an object bigger than the moon though.

I suspect it will produce a regular beat like R And or R Cyg

>| >| I would like more information about radial velocities as estimated
>| >using
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>by Christmas. Don't you have anything in Sydney? There must be a
>major university there.

I'm four hours away from Sydney...never want to even vist again....terrible
mess now.
Two hours from Canberra with very good libraries..but it should all be on the
net anyway.

>| >You know the wavelength emitted from direct observation of the
>| >spectrum of light in the lab.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>mainly because I've never modelled IR anyway. Where did you get IR
>spectral velocities?

Reading up about Miras. Don't have the reference...google search "mira stars"
will find it. They typically vary by 2.5 Mags in the visible but only 1 in the
IR.

The outer layers of our sun are much hotter than the interior ... ..so my
theory is feasible.

>Androcles

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 18 Sep 2005 04:58 GMT
| >| On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:26:48 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
| >wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 152 lines]
| X= 260.2673  Y= 016.4714
| X= 261.4029  Y= 006.5279

I don't have time to enter all that data, H.
Basic trig at
http://www.acts.tinet.ie/areaofatriangle_673.html
http://www.mathleague.com/help/geometry/area.htm#areaofatriangle
Check your triangles ALL have the same area.

| >| >"Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here."
| >| >http://mathforum.org/geometry/wwweuclid/proclus.htm
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
| that.
| Above the critical distance, the curves become pretty meaningless.

THAT'S RR LYRA! A pretty meaningless curve! Except I can read the
meaning,
and so can you if you study it. You've got the tool, use it.

*Slightly*over* critical is V1493 Aql.
Double or triple critical distance is a dwarf cepheid.
They won't work if you put your fairy dust in the way.

| >| Exact precision of the ellipse is not important at all.
| >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
|
| I do have equal areas in equal times anyway.

Prove it. Print out the area of each triangle, it's a simple enough
calculation.

| >| .....but mine are very precise anyway.
| >
| >Yours will precisely precess.
|
| ....but too slowly to make any noticeable difference to the output curve.

I'm trying to help you H, why do you fight me?

| >| >| Using 20000 or 60000 points in my ellipse generation program
| >produces
[quoted text clipped - 175 lines]
|
| Can't see the problem there.

Because there isn't one! The blips are real but of very short duration.
An astronomer seeing one has to be lucky, looking at the right time,
and will think it is anomalous and not report it.
His reaction will be:
"Huh? What was that? I must be getting tired, it's not there now."
and it won't be back for 70 hours, either, which is when he'll be
having lunch. Nor will anyone take any notice of an amateur
reporting it either, not even another amateur. Heck, I wouldn't
believe it either if I hadn't seen it on the computer first.
Stars twinkle because of the atmosphere, NOBODY is going to notice
any extra twinkle.

| >| >| >I think I prefer planet, gas giant, brown dwarf... :-)
| >| >| >I don't like dwarf cepheid, though, since it isn't small,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
| .....Lyrae stars......
| what is YOUR explanation?

Beyond critical distance.  No fairy dust.
The place to start looking is the blips on Algol.
That's research.

| >| In Algol's case, the WCH is the planet "Androcles".
| >
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
| But the Lagrange point effect shows up at the same phase in every cycle. A
| three body system will 'beat' regularly. The 'dip' should move.

It DOES move with S Cas!
http://www.britastro.com/vss/gifl/00064.gif
Look at the peak in 1923 and the peak in 1925, the hump moved.
The war years and post war years are not reliable, and there is an
awful lot of red after that. Then there is a loss of interest in the
90's,
with a really shakey observation in 1992.
Remember these are amateurs, H, and some will be better than others.
The guy that observed in the '20s is over a hundred years old today
and unlikely to be alive, but he was as good if not better than today's
observers.
Even I have lost interest in observing, I get great images on the web
without going out in the cold.

| >Using Kepler's equation, move the barycentre of the Earth-Moon system
| >around the Sun, then move the Moon around its own local ellipse. Then
| >see what kind of curve you'll get from the Sun.
|
| Yes. I'll need an object bigger than the moon though.

Have any size you like, as long as its reasonable.

| I suspect it will produce a regular beat like R And or R Cyg

I think you'll get RX And or R Aur.
Then there is 90 years of V Boo to find.
You won't know until you program it.

| >| >| I would like more information about radial velocities as estimated
| >| >using
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
| Two hours from Canberra with very good libraries..but it should all be on the
| net anyway.

Hard to get real data on the net, but I do understand. CMU was 20 miles
from me in Pittsburgh but the traffic and parking made it two hours to
get
there and 2 hours home again. I did use the bus once, but that really
sucks.

| >| >You know the wavelength emitted from direct observation of the
| >| >spectrum of light in the lab.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
| The outer layers of our sun are much hotter than the interior ... ..so my
| theory is feasible.

Yeah, ok... I'm not disputing it, but I do wonder if there is a
difference
in the velocity of IR to visible anyway. You are saying c+v(IR),
c+v(vis),
I've wondered if c(IR) +v, c(visible) +v are different.
I already know that c(radio) is different from c(vis) but I no longer
have the reference. It was found because one moving galaxy has a
different position in the radio image from its optical image.
Heck, I'm not getting into Seyfert galaxies with you while you are still
fumbling with the basics,  that's a different area to research,
I'll let that one go.

| >Androcles
|
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
| Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Henri Wilson - 19 Sep 2005 00:40 GMT
>| Here are some of my coordinates for eccentricities 0.25 and 0.6. Try
>comparing
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>http://www.mathleague.com/help/geometry/area.htm#areaofatriangle
>Check your triangles ALL have the same area.

My ellipses are as good as Kepler's,

>| They do it with an ellipse too.
>| Sensible curves are always produced up to the distance where fast
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>*Slightly*over* critical is V1493 Aql

That one could be.

>Double or triple critical distance is a dwarf cepheid.
>They won't work if you put your fairy dust in the way.

If you inculdes Ghost's molecular speeds though....


>| My method uses equal energy pulses emitted at equal TIME intervals as
>the star
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Prove it. Print out the area of each triangle, it's a simple enough
>calculation.

Kepler proved it.
Kepler did what my program does.

>| >| .....but mine are very precise anyway.
>| >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>I'm trying to help you H, why do you fight me?

Because A, you are worrying about something that doesn't matter.
I told you, I have deliberately generated 'wrong' ellipses to see the effect on
predicted lightcurves. Even considerable errors make little difference to the
basic shapes.
With my method, I can easily change the shape from an ellipse to something
close to it.

>| Can't see the problem there.
>
>Because there isn't one! The blips are real but of very short duration.
>An astronomer seeing one has to be lucky, looking at the right time,
>and will think it is anomalous and not report it.

Blips occur whenever a group of pulses arrives at the observer in a very short
interval of time.
I suppose it is possible that this might happen in Algol's case.
I will increase my point number to see if I get anything similar. However,
molecular source speeds will probably nullify the effect in real situations.

Incidentally, I have established that the maximum amount of pulse concentration
occurs with an eccentricity of about 0.486 and the perihelion nearest observer.
In that instance, nearly all the pulses from half an orbit will arrive in a
very short time at one particular observer distance.. That would
be observed as an extremely bright flash....maybe an SN.

You imagine half the light from a star's orbit arriving in a couple of weeks or
even days.

>His reaction will be:
>"Huh? What was that? I must be getting tired, it's not there now."
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Stars twinkle because of the atmosphere, NOBODY is going to notice
>any extra twinkle.

I'll have a closer look.

>| >| It is very convenient to simply say, "a star is orbiting its
>| >barycentre with a
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>The place to start looking is the blips on Algol.
>That's research.

molecular source speeds will nullify them.

>| Definitely. I am going to include a third object next.
>|
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>It DOES move with S Cas!
>http://www.britastro.com/vss/gifl/00064.gif

I wouldn't say it is moving here....just observational error..although whatever
is at the lagrange point could be oscillating around te 60 degree pjase. that
would explain the small deviations.

Not so for R Cyg. Here the dip definitely moves in a regular manner.
This might be indicative of a star with one large orbiting planet and a smaller
one at about 6/7th the period. There is probably at least one other planet
involved.

I am going to analyse this situation, which is genuinely chaotic. We on Earth
are lucky that all the other planets are relatively small and a long way from
us. Otherwise we could suddenly find ourselves flung into space.
.
What I have to do is generate velocity coordinates of the central star for a
about ten orbits of the planets starting with random phase relationships
between the two. Then I can generate predicted brightness curves at certain
distances.
I think I can do it.

>Look at the peak in 1923 and the peak in 1925, the hump moved.
>The war years and post war years are not reliable, and there is an
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>and unlikely to be alive, but he was as good if not better than today's
>observers.

Yes. All these curves are pretty vague. They are based on a number of different
observations and are affected by weather conditions.

>Even I have lost interest in observing, I get great images on the web
>without going out in the cold.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Have any size you like, as long as its reasonable.

Actually, the barycentre of the E-M system should remain in a fixed orbit
around the sun so the sun will not wobble due to the moon's rotation around
Earth..

>| I suspect it will produce a regular beat like R And or R Cyg
>
>I think you'll get RX And or R Aur.
>Then there is 90 years of V Boo to find.
>You won't know until you program it.

V Boo is a really good example. There are possibly three planets involved and
the whole thing has moved towards us and well away from the critical distance
in 80 years.
.
>| >They can only come from the spectra.
>| >I'd like to help you, but my ankle won't let me get to a decent
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>there and 2 hours home again. I did use the bus once, but that really
>sucks.

The biggest problem these days is TIME.
I have about twenty different projects going at present...each very slowly...

>| Reading up about Miras. Don't have the reference...google search "mira
>stars"
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>c+v(vis),
>I've wondered if c(IR) +v, c(visible) +v are different.

Could be. Particularly if it has to pass through hot outer gas layers.

>I already know that c(radio) is different from c(vis) but I no longer
>have the reference. It was found because one moving galaxy has a
>different position in the radio image from its optical image.
>Heck, I'm not getting into Seyfert galaxies with you while you are still
>fumbling with the basics,  that's a different area to research,
>I'll let that one go.

One can't specialize in everything A.

>| >Androcles

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 19 Sep 2005 16:07 GMT
| >| Here are some of my coordinates for eccentricities 0.25 and 0.6. Try
| >comparing
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
|
| My ellipses are as good as Kepler's,

Yawn...

| >| They do it with an ellipse too.
| >| Sensible curves are always produced up to the distance where fast
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
|
| If you inculdes Ghost's molecular speeds though....

Jeez.... what for?

| >| My method uses equal energy pulses emitted at equal TIME intervals as
| >the star
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
| Kepler proved it.
| Kepler did what my program does.

No he didn't, he observed orbits, he never created one.
Didn't they teach you to check your work in school?
Must be a quirk of being upside down...

| >| >| .....but mine are very precise anyway.
| >| >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
|
| Because A, you are worrying about something that doesn't matter.

If it doesn't matter, why not do it properly?

| I told you, I have deliberately generated 'wrong' ellipses to see the effect on
| predicted lightcurves. Even considerable errors make little difference to the
| basic shapes.

It doesn't matter that you don't know what a dwarf cepheid is, a
recurrent nova is, RR Lyra is.... Ok, so long as you are happy, never
mind physics.

| With my method, I can easily change the shape from an ellipse to something
| close to it.

Yawn...

| >| Can't see the problem there.
| >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
| Blips occur whenever a group of pulses arrives at the observer in a very short
| interval of time.

That's right.  And there are negative going blips too. Most of them are
within
the error bars of the observer, but not all. Nor do I see any
justification of
changing the size of the error bars.

| I suppose it is possible that this might happen in Algol's case.
| I will increase my point number to see if I get anything similar. However,
| molecular source speeds will probably nullify the effect in real situations.

You have a plot of velocity, but the curve has been smoothed. Take the
smoothing out and exaggerate the spikes, you should get the same result.

| Incidentally, I have established that the maximum amount of pulse concentration
| occurs with an eccentricity of about 0.486 and the perihelion nearest observer.

I'll see if I get that.
Distance 562 parsecs (1832 LY)
Period  3 days
Eccentricity 0.486
Semi Major Axis 0.015 AU
Yaw 180
Pitch 85

Very narrow spike.

| In that instance, nearly all the pulses from half an orbit will arrive in a
| very short time at one particular observer distance.. That would
| be observed as an extremely bright flash....maybe an SN.

I've got 90% of the orbit, it's a flare.

| You imagine half the light from a star's orbit arriving in a couple of weeks or
| even days.

Nope, I can do better. Three days.
How about
Distance 5.62 parsecs (18.32 LY)
Period  0.03 days
Eccentricity 0.486
Semi Major Axis 0.00015 AU
Yaw 180
Pitch 85

Same spike. Recurs every hour and 12 minutes.

Remember I told you about Henrietta Swan Leavitt having been almost
right?
Distance, Period and Semi-Major-Axis form a similar triangle.
If we knew 2 of them we'd know the third.
That's Androcles' Law for cepheids.

Maybe it was Ghost I told, I forget.

| >His reaction will be:
| >"Huh? What was that? I must be getting tired, it's not there now."
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
|
| I'll have a closer look.

Run MY program with the data I've given you above as well.
Then reset the pitch to zero for a dwarf cepheid with a sudden change.

| >| >| It is very convenient to simply say, "a star is orbiting its
| >| >barycentre with a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
|
| molecular source speeds will nullify them.

Yeah, sure. You've decided without programming.  Michelson
thought he'd get a fringe shift, too, so he got Morley to help him.
You call yourself a scientist? You are a PHUCKWIT!

| >| Definitely. I am going to include a third object next.
| >|
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
|
| I wouldn't say it is moving here...

Come back when you are a scientist, ok? I'm tired of talking to
phuckwits.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 20 Sep 2005 00:37 GMT
>| On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:58:23 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:

>| >I don't have time to enter all that data, H.
>| >Basic trig at
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Yawn...

Actually, after fiddling with my three body program, I have realize how
unstable any such system is. The Earth' orbit is being constantly distorted by
the motions of the other planets.
If the masses were much larger, we would have a truly chaotic system. The Earth
could easily collide with another planet, fall into hte sun or fly off into
space.
Maybe it will happen one day.

>| >| Above the critical distance, the curves become pretty meaningless.
>| >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>|
>Jeez.... what for?

Because they spread out the brightness peaks.
I would prefer to believe that all light from any star experiences some degree
of speed unification as it passes through the surrounding gases .

>| >| I do have equal areas in equal times anyway.
>| >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Didn't they teach you to check your work in school?
>Must be a quirk of being upside down...

It doesn't have to be accurate. ...but mine is anyway.

>| >I'm trying to help you H, why do you fight me?
>|
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>recurrent nova is, RR Lyra is.... Ok, so long as you are happy, never
>mind physics.

I DO know what these are.....
I also know that the current explanations are highly suspect and that the BaT
provides alternatives.
..but I'll bet you cannot match Lyrae stars without a WCH.

>| With my method, I can easily change the shape from an ellipse to
>something
>| close to it.
>|
>Yawn...

It makes little or no difference to brightness curves.

>| >Because there isn't one! The blips are real but of very short
>duration.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>You have a plot of velocity, but the curve has been smoothed. Take the
>smoothing out and exaggerate the spikes, you should get the same result.

The spikes are not on the velocity curve. That is definitely smooth.

>| Incidentally, I have established that the maximum amount of pulse
>concentration
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Very narrow spike.

I was generalizing.
It doesn't matter about the pitch.... and distance, orbit size and period are
interrelated.
Any star that has the above yaw and eccentricity will most likely become
extremely bright for a short period at some particular distance (range of
distances).

I'll warrant that most distant 'SN' are nothing but stars with these
properties.


>| In that instance, nearly all the pulses from half an orbit will arrive
>in a
>| very short time at one particular observer distance.. That would
>| be observed as an extremely bright flash....maybe an SN.
>
>I've got 90% of the orbit, it's a flare.

That's it.

>| You imagine half the light from a star's orbit arriving in a couple of
>weeks or
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>Maybe it was Ghost I told, I forget.

You told me. It is right.

>| >His reaction will be:
>| >"Huh? What was that? I must be getting tired, it's not there now."
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Run MY program with the data I've given you above as well.
>Then reset the pitch to zero for a dwarf cepheid with a sudden change.

I think your definition of pitch is different from my 'roll'.

>| >Beyond critical distance.  No fairy dust.
>| >The place to start looking is the blips on Algol.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>thought he'd get a fringe shift, too, so he got Morley to help him.
>You call yourself a scientist? You are a PHUCKWIT!

A, I HAVE programmed molecular speeds to see their effects on brightness
curves. As might be expected, they reduce the size of the peaks, often quite
considerably.
Feel free to see the approximate effects of 900m/sec average molecular speeds
at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

>| >| Definitely. I am going to include a third object next.
>| >|
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Come back when you are a scientist, ok? I'm tired of talking to
>phuckwits.

It remains about the same phase...just wobbles a little. But how reliable are
the curves anyway?

>Androcles.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Androcles - 20 Sep 2005 04:15 GMT
| >| On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:58:23 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
| >wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
| Actually, after fiddling with my three body program, I have realize how
| unstable any such system is.

Thank you.
I never attempted a three body system for that very reason, a