OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: bz on 24 Aug 2005 19:21 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ulrpg1tja9tjh5b4desq56n0bhqs16usta(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:03:31 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:of7ng1pt0580h8mi08hn1uj1e8l3i30253@ >>4ax.com: >> >>> My graphs will probably remain upside down though.....brightness >>increasing >>> downwards. >>> >> >>Please put in a switch that lets us invert them so they can be properly >>compared to magnitude graphs. > > OK. I can do that ...with a fair bit of effort. I accept 'upside down' > is a nuisance. Thanks. .... if (invert) then transformed value = max value (1- current value) or something similar should do it. >>Also, as previously requested, a distance limit stopping point so we >>don't have to keep guessing at when to hit the button to get a precise >>distance. > > You can set the 'starting distance' with a combo box. Just plugin the > distance you want and click the 'brightness curve' button. The program > accepts that figure and will give you the appropriate curves. I will download your latest and give it a try. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Paul B. Andersen on 25 Aug 2005 04:30 Androcles wrote: > | Henri Wilson wrote: > | > Paul haven't understood my experiment at all. > | > You are babbling. But Henri never wrote that. > Paul B. Andersen wrote; > | I was in Greece this summer. > | I didn't understand a word. > | They were babbling. But Paul never wrote that. Androcles is dishonest through and through. But we knew that, of course. http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dishonesty.html Paul
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 25 Aug 2005 06:35 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dejvj7$sqb$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... | Androcles wrote: | > | Henri Wilson wrote: | > | > Paul haven't understood my experiment at all. | > | > You are babbling. | | But Henri never wrote that. | | > Paul B. Andersen wrote; | > | I was in Greece this summer. | > | I didn't understand a word. | > | They were babbling. | | But Paul never wrote that. | | Androcles is dishonest through and through. | | But we knew that, of course. | http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dishonesty.html | | Paul As we all can see, Andersen has pasted the above very uncarefully. As if I would use a semicolon where a colon is appropriate! LOL. Yes, it is rather BLATANTLY OBVIOUS who is being dishonest. Androcles
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Aug 2005 19:54 On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:21:53 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:ulrpg1tja9tjh5b4desq56n0bhqs16usta(a)4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:03:31 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:of7ng1pt0580h8mi08hn1uj1e8l3i30253@ >>>4ax.com: >>> >>>> My graphs will probably remain upside down though.....brightness >>>increasing >>>> downwards. >>>> >>> >>>Please put in a switch that lets us invert them so they can be properly >>>compared to magnitude graphs. >> >> OK. I can do that ...with a fair bit of effort. I accept 'upside down' >> is a nuisance. > >Thanks. .... if (invert) then transformed value = max value (1- current >value) >or something similar should do it. > >>>Also, as previously requested, a distance limit stopping point so we >>>don't have to keep guessing at when to hit the button to get a precise >>>distance. >> >> You can set the 'starting distance' with a combo box. Just plugin the >> distance you want and click the 'brightness curve' button. The program >> accepts that figure and will give you the appropriate curves. > >I will download your latest and give it a try. It will be better in a few days. I will invert everything. I have run into a few problems whilst trying to providee relative magnitude figures. Even though I have streamlined it considerably, the bloody program is still so big now I can't fathom how I ever wrote it. 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.
From: George Dishman on 26 Aug 2005 10:41
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:of7ng1pt0580h8mi08hn1uj1e8l3i30253(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:37:05 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: <snip - no disagreements> >>> I've just written a program to try to work out how an emission line >>> would >>> appear doppler shift according to the huff puff principle. >>> Light from the middle, would have te maximum shift but light from the >>> edges >>> would have none....because the expansion would be normal to LOS. >>> It turns out that there is a sinusoidal distribution of radial velocity >>> with >>> maximum at 45 degrees. >>> This means that a spectral line would appear broadened from zero to >>> maximum >>> with maximum intensity at 1/root2 from the max. >> >>Remember there will also be thermal broadening >>and that the lines are from a range of depths >>and hence temperature. > > I know. > It all adds up to the plain fact that 'huff puff' theories about cepheids > that > rely on radial velocity data will be pretty vague at best. Not necessarliy, you can still fit a curve and get the central shift quite accurately but it would make it difficult to decide between c or c+v based on broadening which is what I thought you were suggesting. >>>>No, it is correspondence of both shapes, both >>>>amplitudes and the phase, otherwise you have >>>>too many adjustable parameters for the result >>>>to have any meaning. You should have all that >>>>information produced by your model anyway, just >>>>add the scales so everyone can see. >>> >>> It will take time but I can do it. >> >>Great. That will allow a serious discussion. > > OK. ,,,but the relative magnitudes are markedly dependent on distance and > radial velocity anyway....and both of these are generally uncertain. As long as they have published limits, the results can be compared. The way forward is for you to write and debug your program and perhaps get Androcles or others whom you trust to check it gives the correct c+v predictions. Then you can go looking for examples to test. George |