| |
Main
Date: 19 Jun 2007 16:26:21
From: Magnificent Universe
Subject: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Early this year, an astronomer in England reported he had used the spins of
stars to determine that the Orion Nebula is much closer to Earth than had
been thought. Now astronomers in California have confirmed this result by
measuring the parallax to a young star in this famous stellar nursery.
Both studies find that the Orion Nebula is about 1,300 light-years from
Earth--over 200 light-years closer than previously thought.
For the full story, including a full-color image of the Orion Nebula, please
see http://KenCroswell.com/OrionNebulaDistance2.html .
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 18:32:16
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Magnificent Universe wrote:
> Both studies find that the Orion Nebula is about 1,300 light-years from
> Earth--over 200 light-years closer than previously thought.
At such a distance 200 ly is pretty much within the observational error.
Regardless, I sure wouldn't call a little more than 10% "much closer"
unless I was into writing hyperbolic press releases. I for one will
never understand why some feel astronomy needs all that hyperbole. I
mean, isn't the reality of it all exciting enough?
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 18:05:47
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Greg Crinklaw:
> At such a distance 200 ly is pretty much within the observational error.
> Regardless, I sure wouldn't call a little more than 10% "much closer"
> unless I was into writing hyperbolic press releases. I for one will
> never understand why some feel astronomy needs all that hyperbole. I
> mean, isn't the reality of it all exciting enough?
Not to mention that when one is talking about the size of the Universe,
exaggeration is neither necessary nor possible!
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 23:00:57
From: Naru
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> Magnificent Universe wrote:
> > Both studies find that the Orion Nebula is about 1,300 light-years from
> > Earth--over 200 light-years closer than previously thought.
>
> At such a distance 200 ly is pretty much within the observational error.
> Regardless, I sure wouldn't call a little more than 10% "much closer"
> unless I was into writing hyperbolic press releases. I for one will
> never understand why some feel astronomy needs all that hyperbole. I
> mean, isn't the reality of it all exciting enough?
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
>
Not of you are politicians and realtors looking to put up roadsigns
and tax ans steal!
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 23:54:01
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Naru wrote:
> Not of you are politicians and realtors looking to put up roadsigns
> and tax ans steal!
Been hitting the bottle again, have yeah?
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 10:15:43
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:588f7$4678c0ef$4212a552$1097@TULAROSA.NET...
: Naru wrote:
: > Not of you are politicians and realtors looking to put up roadsigns
: > and tax ans steal!
:
: Been hitting the bottle again, have yeah?
That or the crack pipe, Greg.
Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
for beta Persei I can compute with?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2007 13:46:59
From: Flea
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Androcles wrote:
> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:588f7$4678c0ef$4212a552$1097@TULAROSA.NET...
> : Naru wrote:
> : > Not of you are politicians and realtors looking to put up roadsigns
> : > and tax ans steal!
> :
> : Been hitting the bottle again, have yeah?
>
> That or the crack pipe, Greg.
> Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
> for beta Persei I can compute with?
>
>
http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be/Orbits4onesystem.cgi?157
Make yourself useful with this. Do let us know what you come up with!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 00:58:44
From: NNTP
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Androcles wrote:
> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:588f7$4678c0ef$4212a552$1097@TULAROSA.NET...
> : Naru wrote:
> : > Not of you are politicians and realtors looking to put up roadsigns
> : > and tax ans steal!
> :
> : Been hitting the bottle again, have yeah?
>
> That or the crack pipe, Greg.
> Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
> for beta Persei I can compute with?
>
>
I'm fascinated that you appear to think that you would need "radial
velocity OR parallax distance" (my emphasis) to do some computation.
What sort of calculation do you think you can make where you only need
one of these values?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 18:16:45
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com > wrote in message
news:5dtt9vF36n61pU1@mid.individual.net...
: Androcles wrote:
: > "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:588f7$4678c0ef$4212a552$1097@TULAROSA.NET...
: > : Naru wrote:
: > : > Not of you are politicians and realtors looking to put up roadsigns
: > : > and tax ans steal!
: > :
: > : Been hitting the bottle again, have yeah?
: >
: > That or the crack pipe, Greg.
: > Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
: > for beta Persei I can compute with?
: >
: >
:
: I'm fascinated that you appear to think
Oh really? How flattering! Thank you; although appearances are often
decepetive, perhaps my appearance of thinking is the result of my actually
doing it?
: that you would need "radial
: velocity OR parallax distance" (my emphasis) to do some computation.
: What sort of calculation do you think you can make where you only need
: one of these values?
Quite simple ones, really, such as
time = distance/velocity
from
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif
That Einstein bloke almost got it right before he went off half-cocked
trying to build a time machine.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 09:17:46
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Androcles wrote:
> Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
> for beta Persei I can compute with?
http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-fid
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 20:07:10
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:5ba$4679450f$4212a552$9452@TULAROSA.NET...
: Androcles wrote:
: > Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
: > for beta Persei I can compute with?
:
: http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-fid
Thanks for the data overload.
Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
for beta Persei I can compute with?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 15:04:32
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Androcles wrote:
> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5ba$4679450f$4212a552$9452@TULAROSA.NET...
> : Androcles wrote:
> : > Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
> : > for beta Persei I can compute with?
> :
> : http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-fid
>
>
> Thanks for the data overload.
Jerk.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 18:06:44
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:433c8$46799655$4212a552$5050@TULAROSA.NET...
: Androcles wrote:
: > "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:5ba$4679450f$4212a552$9452@TULAROSA.NET...
: > : Androcles wrote:
: > : > Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
: > : > for beta Persei I can compute with?
: > :
: > : http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-fid
: >
: >
: > Thanks for the data overload.
:
: Jerk.
Ignorant abusive flaming cunt.
*plonk*
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 14:28:08
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Androcles wrote:
> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:433c8$46799655$4212a552$5050@TULAROSA.NET...
> : Androcles wrote:
> : > "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> : > news:5ba$4679450f$4212a552$9452@TULAROSA.NET...
> : > : Androcles wrote:
> : > : > Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
> : > : > for beta Persei I can compute with?
> : > :
> : > : http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-fid
> : >
> : >
> : > Thanks for the data overload.
> :
> : Jerk.
> Ignorant abusive flaming cunt.
> *plonk*
Gee, don't be in such a hurry to thank me!
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 20:36:53
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:07:10 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics > wrote:
>Thanks for the data overload.
>
>Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
>for beta Persei I can compute with?
I guess you never took to heart the difference between giving a man a
fish and teaching him to fish <g >.
There shouldn't be much data overload. Go to the specified link,
http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-fid , and enter "beta persei" in
the "Identifier" box. The page that comes up has exactly what you asked
for listed under "Basic data". The radial velocity is 4.0±0.9 km/s (from
the General Catalog of Stellar Radial Velocities). The parallax is
54.14±0.90 mas (from Hipparcos).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 09:27:26
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:i83j73h92rrg4t26jtbatlsnrljg4b612k@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:07:10 GMT, "Androcles"
: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics > wrote:
:
: >Thanks for the data overload.
: >
: >Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
: >for beta Persei I can compute with?
:
: I guess you never took to heart the difference between giving a man a
: fish and teaching him to fish <g >.
:
: There shouldn't be much data overload. Go to the specified link,
: http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-fid , and enter "beta persei" in
: the "Identifier" box. The page that comes up has exactly what you asked
: for listed under "Basic data". The radial velocity is 4.0±0.9 km/s (from
: the General Catalog of Stellar Radial Velocities). The parallax is
: 54.14±0.90 mas (from Hipparcos).
Thank you, that was all I wanted.
Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
1008000 km,
Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it is one star and
not an
eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion anyway.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Guessing isn't science, however proficient at it you may be. Have you done
much fishing of your own or do you just read books about it? <g >
Androcles
: _________________________________________________
:
: Chris L Peterson
: Cloudbait Observatory
: http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 14:26:10
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:27:26 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics > wrote:
>Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
>1008000 km,
>Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it is one star and
>not an
>eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion anyway.
>http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
You'll need to do better calculations than that if you want to support a
crackpot theory (Algol is most certainly eclipsing- something trivially
verified by comparing the optical light curve with the spectroscopic
radial velocity curve).
All three stars in the Algol system have the same velocity through
space, and that velocity has no impact on the dynamics of the multiple
star orbits (anymore than the Sun's motion has an effect on Solar System
dynamics).
And BTW, 4 km/s _is_ the radial velocity of the system with respect to
the Sun, not the proper motion (which is also given in the Simbad data,
if you want to work out the actual velocity vector with respect to the
Sun).
Many multiple stars orbit within their Roche limit. Rigid bodies break
up under those conditions, but stars don't. Stars transfer material,
leading to all sorts of interesting things: cataclysmic variables,
radically different evolutionary ages, and more.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 19:00:12
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:mo0l73d4msqfhll967irra66jgoqf5s3m7@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:27:26 GMT, "Androcles"
: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics > wrote:
:
: >Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
: >1008000 km,
: >Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it is one star
and
: >not an
: >eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion anyway.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
:
: You'll need to do better calculations than that if you want to support a
: crackpot theory (Algol is most certainly eclipsing- something trivially
: verified by comparing the optical light curve with the spectroscopic
: radial velocity curve).
You may recall that I asked:
Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
for beta Persei I can compute with?
The spectroscopic radial velocity curve would be rather nice to have.
Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for
(supposedly) all three stars, nicely resolved?
The thing is, when I asked for data I got a huge overload of irrelevant
material and was told (by YOU) the radial velocity was 4 km/s. Is not that
from spectroscopic observation, then?
:
: All three stars in the Algol system have the same velocity through
: space, and that velocity has no impact on the dynamics of the multiple
: star orbits (anymore than the Sun's motion has an effect on Solar System
: dynamics).
:
: And BTW, 4 km/s _is_ the radial velocity of the system with respect to
: the Sun, not the proper motion (which is also given in the Simbad data,
: if you want to work out the actual velocity vector with respect to the
: Sun).
Excellent observation, well done. So "proper motion" is motion
relative to
a) the universal frame?
b) Algol's frame?
c) the galactic frame?
d) other?
: Many multiple stars orbit within their Roche limit. Rigid bodies break
: up under those conditions, but stars don't.
Wonderful news, but I didn't ask for that.
So fluids don't break up, but solids do... fascinating, I didn't know that.
Funnily enough, I still don't. And you are the first to introduce the term
"crackpot theory" into the discussion... intriguing.
: Stars transfer material,
: leading to all sorts of interesting things: cataclysmic variables,
: radically different evolutionary ages, and more.
You've photographed this, have you?
It's rather strange, but all anyone else has seen is artist's impressions
of crackpot theories.
Anyway, I'm not really interested in crackpot theories, all I asked
for was data.
Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for all
three (supposed) stars, nicely resolved?
Empirical data is far more fascinating than crackpot theories, you see...
at least to me. You are welcome to the crackpot theories.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 19:47:10
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:00:12 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics > wrote:
>You may recall that I asked:
>Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
>for beta Persei I can compute with?
And you got both.
>The spectroscopic radial velocity curve would be rather nice to have.
>
>Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for
>(supposedly) all three stars, nicely resolved?
That isn't what you asked for originally. I don't have the short term
spectroscopic data you are looking for. I'd suggest starting with the
source of the radial velocity data, the General Catalogue of Stellar
Radial Velocities. It should at least provide references to the source
material.
>The thing is, when I asked for data I got a huge overload of irrelevant
>material and was told (by YOU) the radial velocity was 4 km/s. Is not that
>from spectroscopic observation, then?
The radial velocity was determined spectroscopically. The high time
resolution data would show the motion of the respective components,
superimposed on the global motion of the entire system.
>Excellent observation, well done. So "proper motion" is motion
>relative to
>a) the universal frame?
>b) Algol's frame?
>c) the galactic frame?
>d) other?
"Proper motion" is the apparent 2D motion of the object with respect to
our viewpoint. It is normally given in angular units per time for RA and
declination. "Radial motion" is the actual velocity of an object with
respect to our viewpoint, normally given in km/s or redshift. With these
values, and knowing its distance, you can convert the motion of the
object into any frame of reference you like, assuming you can relate
that frame to our own. That could easily be the galactic frame. In this
case, since we are talking about the motion of the entire Algol system,
"Algol's frame" is meaningless. There is no "universal frame", of
course.
>: Many multiple stars orbit within their Roche limit. Rigid bodies break
>: up under those conditions, but stars don't.
>
>Wonderful news, but I didn't ask for that.
>So fluids don't break up, but solids do... fascinating, I didn't know that.
Well you should. A solid body inside the Roche limit of another body is
disrupted by tidal forces. It breaks up very literally, although that
doesn't mean it doesn't largely hang together. A fluid body, however, is
distorted. It may transfer mass, but it certainly doesn't "break up"
anything like a solid body does.
>: Stars transfer material,
>: leading to all sorts of interesting things: cataclysmic variables,
>: radically different evolutionary ages, and more.
>
>You've photographed this, have you?
>It's rather strange, but all anyone else has seen is artist's impressions
>of crackpot theories.
I have. So have thousands of others. It's what you see in all sorts of
data across many EM bands- photometric and spectroscopic. It's widely
accepted, and it isn't my job, or any other scientist's, to justify.
It's the responsibility of somebody such as yourself to argue why your
theory explains all these things better, and if your webpage is any
example, you have no explanation at all. You suggest that the velocity
of light depends on the velocity of the source, which is utter nonsense,
going against huge amounts of experimental evidence. That sort of
thinking is the very definition of crackpot science.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:lsjl739efpahu2v919si7shmllojndujfe@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:00:12 GMT, "Androcles"
: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics > wrote:
:
: >You may recall that I asked:
: >Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
: >for beta Persei I can compute with?
:
: And you got both.
I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it is
one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion
anyway.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
You then complained:
: You'll need to do better calculations than that if you want to support a
: crackpot theory (Algol is most certainly eclipsing- something trivially
: verified by comparing the optical light curve with the spectroscopic
: radial velocity curve).
Ok, so let's have the data and I'll do better calculations.
:
: >The spectroscopic radial velocity curve would be rather nice to have.
: >
: >Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for
: >(supposedly) all three stars, nicely resolved?
:
: That isn't what you asked for originally.
Yes it is, I said
"Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
for beta Persei I can compute with?"
"Accurate" does not mean average, it means the radial velocity curve
for all THREE stars you wildly claim to be present in the system, one
of which is dark. That sound just like a crackpot theory to me.
Is it really so difficult to provide the data to support your crackpot
theory?
: I don't have the short term
: spectroscopic data you are looking for. I'd suggest starting with the
: source of the radial velocity data, the General Catalogue of Stellar
: Radial Velocities. It should at least provide references to the source
: material.
Ok, so you don't have it. Thanks for 4 km/s, but it isn't good enough
to support Goodricke's crackpot theory of a double star.
You'll need to do better calculations than that if you want to support a
crackpot theory (Algol is most certainly NOT eclipsing- something trivially
verified by comparing the optical light curve with the spectroscopic
radial velocity curve -- WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE -- and expect
me to take on trust as if I were a gullible crackpot.)
:
: >The thing is, when I asked for data I got a huge overload of irrelevant
: >material and was told (by YOU) the radial velocity was 4 km/s. Is not
that
: >from spectroscopic observation, then?
:
: The radial velocity was determined spectroscopically. The high time
: resolution data would show the motion of the respective components,
: superimposed on the global motion of the entire system.
:
Yes, well, I know all about "should", but I want to see the data.
You'll need to provide better data than that if you want to support a
crackpot theory.
:
: >Excellent observation, well done. So "proper motion" is motion
: >relative to
: >a) the universal frame?
: >b) Algol's frame?
: >c) the galactic frame?
: >d) other?
:
: "Proper motion" is the apparent 2D motion of the object with respect to
: our viewpoint.
: It is normally given in angular units per time for RA and
: declination. "Radial motion" is the actual velocity of an object with
: respect to our viewpoint, normally given in km/s or redshift. With these
: values, and knowing its distance, you can convert the motion of the
: object into any frame of reference you like, assuming you can relate
: that frame to our own. That could easily be the galactic frame. In this
: case, since we are talking about the motion of the entire Algol system,
: "Algol's frame" is meaningless. There is no "universal frame", of
: course.
I didn't ask for a lecture, sonny, I asked for data.
Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for
(supposedly) all three stars, nicely resolved?
:
: >: Many multiple stars orbit within their Roche limit. Rigid bodies break
: >: up under those conditions, but stars don't.
: >
: >Wonderful news, but I didn't ask for that.
: >So fluids don't break up, but solids do... fascinating, I didn't know
that.
:
: Well you should.
Why should I? Because you say so? You'll have to do better than that
if you want to support a crackpot theory of fluids not breaking up
but solids do.
: A solid body inside the Roche limit of another body is
: disrupted by tidal forces. It breaks up very literally, although that
: doesn't mean it doesn't largely hang together.
Ok, so Saturn's rings and the asteroid belt don't largely hang together.
What is this, the cosmic comedy show?
You'll have to do better than that if you want to support a crackpot theory
of fluids not breaking up but solids do.
: A fluid body, however, is
: distorted.
So you claim. Where is your evidence?
It may transfer mass, but it certainly doesn't "break up"
: anything like a solid body does.
:
You'll have to do better than that if you want to support a crackpot theory
of fluids not breaking up but solids do.
:
: >: Stars transfer material,
: >: leading to all sorts of interesting things: cataclysmic variables,
: >: radically different evolutionary ages, and more.
: >
: >You've photographed this, have you?
: >It's rather strange, but all anyone else has seen is artist's impressions
: >of crackpot theories.
:
: I have.
Ok, whoopee! Glad to hear it.
I'm so pleased to hear Cloudbait Observatory can out-perform
HST, Keck or other telescopes.
Can we see your pictures of Algol resolved into three stars, please,
or are you keeping them in your private collection?
: So have thousands of others. It's what you see in all sorts of
: data across many EM bands- photometric and spectroscopic. It's widely
: accepted, and it isn't my job, or any other scientist's, to justify.
All I want to see are the three stars resolved that you claim are there.
I'd like the velocity curve of each, too, and a photograph of mass
pouring off of one onto the other to support your crackport theories.
: It's the responsibility of somebody such as yourself to argue why your
: theory explains all these things better, and if your webpage is any
: example, you have no explanation at all. You suggest that the velocity
: of light depends on the velocity of the source, which is utter nonsense,
: going against huge amounts of experimental evidence. That sort of
: thinking is the very definition of crackpot science.
All I've asked for is data you cannot provide, MMX and Sagnac is
laboratory proof that the velocity of light is source dependent.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Your sort of narrow minded thinking is the very definition of crackpottery
that has been with us since Ptolemy made the Earth the centre of the
universe,
Algol being a double is utter nonsense.
Claimin to have resolved three stars photographically not only marks
you as a liar, but your crackpot theory that fluids do not break up
whereas solids do marks you as a supreme lunatic, not just a crackpot.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2007 21:38:30
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics > wrote:
>I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
>Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
>1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it is
>one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion
>anyway.
I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation. This distance you
compute is meaningless. You don't appear to understand what the radial
velocity is. Perhaps you are asking for the orbital velocity of Beta
Persei B? That is entirely different from the radial velocity, which is
the velocity of the entire star system relative to the Sun.
Although your calculation is meaningless, there's no dispute that the
Roche lobes of the stars overlap. That is the case for many binaries,
and is some cases the mass flow between the components has been observed
directly (there are many systems like beta Persei, which is in fact the
prototypical such system).
>: >Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for
>: >(supposedly) all three stars, nicely resolved?
>:
>: That isn't what you asked for originally.
>
>Yes it is, I said
>"Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
>for beta Persei I can compute with?"
>"Accurate" does not mean average, it means the radial velocity curve
>for all THREE stars you wildly claim to be present in the system, one
>of which is dark.
No, that is not what "radial velocity" means. If you wanted the high
resolution spectroscopic curves for each component, that's what you
should have asked for. 4 km/s isn't the average, it is the speed that
the Algol system is moving away from us. If you don't even know standard
terminology, you are going to have a rough time getting the data you
want.
The spectroscopic data is certainly available, and I pointed you in the
direction to start. SAA is hardly the place to secure primary data!
>: >You've photographed this, have you?
>: >It's rather strange, but all anyone else has seen is artist's impressions
>: >of crackpot theories.
>:
>: I have.
>
>Ok, whoopee! Glad to hear it.
>I'm so pleased to hear Cloudbait Observatory can out-perform
>HST, Keck or other telescopes.
>Can we see your pictures of Algol resolved into three stars, please,
>or are you keeping them in your private collection?
Who said anything about individually resolved stars? You asked for
images showing the binary components. That is obvious photometrically.
In fact, it is obvious visually. You are apparently the only person in
the world who can't interpret this obvious evidence in a reasonable way.
You would prefer to change GR rather than accept a trivial case of
binary stars. Of course, there are plenty of other beta Persei variables
that are far enough apart to resolve visually.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 10:42:40
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:inql73d8q2nfu215jfc9g0pqd4jp08jjvi@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics > wrote:
:
: >I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
: >Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
: >1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it
is
: >one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion
: >anyway.
:
: I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding might
improve.
: This distance you
: compute is meaningless.
2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
: You don't appear to understand what the radial
: velocity is.
As you've said, you fail to understand.
Naturally it would appear to you that I don't understand, but I can assure
you I fully understand. I know the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its
circumference.
The calculation is an estimate of the distance between Goodricke's
crackpot theoretical binaries, based on the data you gave me ( or are
unable to give me).
: Perhaps you are asking for the orbital velocity of Beta
: Persei B?
Is that why you snip my question? It really is quite simple,
I would like the radial velocity curves of all three stars your crackpot
theory
claims to be present at the Algol system.
You seem reluctant to produce data and eager to expound bullshit.
: That is entirely different from the radial velocity, which is
: the velocity of the entire star system relative to the Sun.
How simply can I say it?
I would like the radial velocity curves of all three stars your crackpot
theory
claims to be present at the Algol system.
As you've said, you fail to understand. You are, however, quick enough
to proclaim alternative ideas which are simpler as crackpot theories.
: Although your calculation is meaningless, there's no dispute that the
: Roche lobes of the stars overlap.
Well well... and the system remains stable according to your crackpot
theory.
: That is the case for many binaries,
If you have many binaries in your crackpot theory you should find it no
trouble at all to produce the radial velocity curves of them. I just asked
for the data for one of them, the first found. Sirius should have been
the first found, being the nearest, but historically it wasn't. Have you
seen
any mass transfer between Sirius A and Sirius B?
: and is some cases the mass flow between the components has been observed
: directly
Ah, now we are fully into bullshit mode. You crackpots are so full of
it you eyes are brown.
: (there are many systems like beta Persei, which is in fact the
: prototypical such system).
:
Listen up, dingbat.
I know all about your crackpot theories, what I want is the ACTUAL DATA,
not repetition of crap.
:
: >: >Do you happen to have the spectroscopic radial velocity curves for
: >: >(supposedly) all three stars, nicely resolved?
: >:
: >: That isn't what you asked for originally.
: >
: >Yes it is, I said
: >"Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
: >for beta Persei I can compute with?"
: >"Accurate" does not mean average, it means the radial velocity curve
: >for all THREE stars you wildly claim to be present in the system, one
: >of which is dark.
:
: No, that is not what "radial velocity" means.
Radial velocity means velocity along the line of sight, the ONLY velocity
that can be obtained spectroscopically. That's what I want, for all three
stars in your crackpot theory. Have you got that data or not?
: If you wanted the high
: resolution spectroscopic curves for each component, that's what you
: should have asked for. 4 km/s isn't the average, it is the speed that
: the Algol system is moving away from us.
Listen, dingbat!
"Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
for beta Persei I can compute with?"
Do you see "accurate" in that sentence?
Sheesh... Algol (the shiny one) is moving toward and then away
from us and has a period of 70 hours or so.
HAVE YOU GOT ITS RADIAL VELOCITY CURVE?
"Does anyone have an accurate radial velocity or parallax distance
: >for beta Persei I can compute with?
If you don't even know standard
: terminology, you are going to have a rough time getting the data you
: want.
:
: The spectroscopic data is certainly available, and I pointed you in the
: direction to start. SAA is hardly the place to secure primary data!
All I want is the radial velocity curve.
:
:
: >: >You've photographed this, have you?
: >: >It's rather strange, but all anyone else has seen is artist's
impressions
: >: >of crackpot theories.
: >:
: >: I have.
: >
: >Ok, whoopee! Glad to hear it.
: >I'm so pleased to hear Cloudbait Observatory can out-perform
: >HST, Keck or other telescopes.
: >Can we see your pictures of Algol resolved into three stars, please,
: >or are you keeping them in your private collection?
:
: Who said anything about individually resolved stars?
Oh, so you can resolve mass transfer but not the stars themselves.
You are good at sending bullshit meters into the red, aren't you?
: You asked for
: images showing the binary components. That is obvious photometrically.
Is it? PRODUCE ONE IMAGE, THEN!
: In fact, it is obvious visually.
Is it? PRODUCE ONE IMAGE, THEN, and quit bullshitting!
: You are apparently the only person in
: the world who can't interpret this obvious evidence in a reasonable way.
: You would prefer to change GR rather than accept a trivial case of
: binary stars. Of course, there are plenty of other beta Persei variables
: that are far enough apart to resolve visually.
You are one of the many idiots who believe Einstein's crap and
do not understand the the Principle of Relativity. But as you say,
you fail to understand.
Just produce the data and cut the bullshit.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 02:00:23
From: NNTP
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Androcles wrote:
> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:inql73d8q2nfu215jfc9g0pqd4jp08jjvi@4ax.com...
> : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
> : <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> :
> : >I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
> : >Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
> : >1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it
> is
> : >one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper motion
> : >anyway.
> :
> : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
>
>
> Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding might
> improve.
>
>
> : This distance you
> : compute is meaningless.
>
> 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
How many years since your degree ?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 08:57:30
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com > wrote in message
news:5e39l8F35ovatU1@mid.individual.net...
: Androcles wrote:
: > "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
: > news:inql73d8q2nfu215jfc9g0pqd4jp08jjvi@4ax.com...
: > : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
: > : <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > :
: > : >I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
: > : >Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
: > : >1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit
it
: > is
: > : >one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper
motion
: > : >anyway.
: > :
: > : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
: >
: >
: > Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding might
: > improve.
: >
: >
: > : This distance you
: > : compute is meaningless.
: >
: > 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
:
: How many years since your degree ?
Typical troll... I ask for data and get personal questions.
Do you have the empirical data showing the sinusoidal velocity curve of
Algol...
Something like this:
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html
If you do, may I have it please?
If you do not, shut the fuck up.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 11:25:18
From: NNTP
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Androcles wrote:
> "NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com> wrote in message
> news:5e39l8F35ovatU1@mid.individual.net...
> : Androcles wrote:
> : > "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> : > news:inql73d8q2nfu215jfc9g0pqd4jp08jjvi@4ax.com...
> : > : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
> : > : <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : >I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
> : > : >Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
> : > : >1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit
> it
> : > is
> : > : >one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper
> motion
> : > : >anyway.
> : > :
> : > : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
> : >
> : >
> : > Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding might
> : > improve.
> : >
> : >
> : > : This distance you
> : > : compute is meaningless.
> : >
> : > 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
> :
> : How many years since your degree ?
>
> Typical troll... I ask for data and get personal questions.
You didn't know what to do with the data you were given, so you made a
meaningless hash of using it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2007 17:22:52
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com > wrote in message
news:5e4aogF36nffhU1@mid.individual.net...
: Androcles wrote:
: > "NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com> wrote in message
: > news:5e39l8F35ovatU1@mid.individual.net...
: > : Androcles wrote:
: > : > "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
: > : > news:inql73d8q2nfu215jfc9g0pqd4jp08jjvi@4ax.com...
: > : > : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
: > : > : <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : >I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
: > : > : >Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 *
4 =
: > : > : >1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche
limit
: > it
: > : > is
: > : > : >one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is
proper
: > motion
: > : > : >anyway.
: > : > :
: > : > : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding
might
: > : > improve.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > : This distance you
: > : > : compute is meaningless.
: > : >
: > : > 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
: > :
: > : How many years since your degree ?
: >
: > Typical troll... I ask for data and get personal questions.
:
: You didn't know what to do with the data you were given, so you made a
: meaningless hash of using it.
Fuck off, useless flaming troll. Nobody needs a cunt like you.
*plonk*
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2007 01:32:53
From: NNTP
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Androcles wrote:
> "NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com> wrote in message
> news:5e4aogF36nffhU1@mid.individual.net...
> : Androcles wrote:
> : > "NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com> wrote in message
> : > news:5e39l8F35ovatU1@mid.individual.net...
> : > : Androcles wrote:
> : > : > "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> : > : > news:inql73d8q2nfu215jfc9g0pqd4jp08jjvi@4ax.com...
> : > : > : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
> : > : > : <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> : > : > :
> : > : > : >I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
> : > : > : >Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 *
> 4 =
> : > : > : >1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche
> limit
> : > it
> : > : > is
> : > : > : >one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is
> proper
> : > motion
> : > : > : >anyway.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > : > Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your understanding
> might
> : > : > improve.
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > : > : This distance you
> : > : > : compute is meaningless.
> : > : >
> : > : > 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
> : > :
> : > : How many years since your degree ?
> : >
> : > Typical troll... I ask for data and get personal questions.
> :
> : You didn't know what to do with the data you were given, so you made a
> : meaningless hash of using it.
>
> Fuck off, useless flaming troll. Nobody needs a cunt like you.
> *plonk*
Learn some science, learn some manners. Your ignorance of both is a
disgrace.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2007 01:37:06
From: Androcles
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"NNTP" <NNTP@unspammmed.com > wrote in message
news:5e5sdoF35feknU1@mid.individual.net...
: Androcles wrote:
: > "NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com> wrote in message
: > news:5e4aogF36nffhU1@mid.individual.net...
: > : Androcles wrote:
: > : > "NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:5e39l8F35ovatU1@mid.individual.net...
: > : > : Androcles wrote:
: > : > : > "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
: > : > : > news:inql73d8q2nfu215jfc9g0pqd4jp08jjvi@4ax.com...
: > : > : > : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
: > : > : > : <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : >I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
: > : > : > : >Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 *
3600 *
: > 4 =
: > : > : > : >1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own
Roche
: > limit
: > : > it
: > : > : > is
: > : > : > : >one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is
: > proper
: > : > motion
: > : > : > : >anyway.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your
understanding
: > might
: > : > : > improve.
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : This distance you
: > : > : > : compute is meaningless.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
: > : > :
: > : > : How many years since your degree ?
: > : >
: > : > Typical troll... I ask for data and get personal questions.
: > :
: > : You didn't know what to do with the data you were given, so you made a
: > : meaningless hash of using it.
: >
: > Fuck off, useless flaming troll. Nobody needs a cunt like you.
: > *plonk*
:
: Learn some science,
Fuck off, spamming cunt.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2007 16:49:29
From: chosp
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics > wrote in message
news:6Vjfi.192810$4a.122580@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "NNTP" <NNTP@unspammmed.com> wrote in message
> news:5e5sdoF35feknU1@mid.individual.net...
> : > : You didn't know what to do with the data you were given, so you made
> a
> : > : meaningless hash of using it.
> : >
> : > Fuck off, useless flaming troll. Nobody needs a cunt like you.
> : > *plonk*
> :
> : Learn some science,
>
> Fuck off, spamming cunt.
Learn what *plonk* means.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Jun 2007 19:09:24
From: NNTP
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
chosp wrote:
> "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> news:6Vjfi.192810$4a.122580@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>>"NNTP" <NNTP@unspammmed.com> wrote in message
>>news:5e5sdoF35feknU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>>: > : You didn't know what to do with the data you were given, so you made
>>a
>>: > : meaningless hash of using it.
>>: >
>>: > Fuck off, useless flaming troll. Nobody needs a cunt like you.
>>: > *plonk*
>>:
>>: Learn some science,
>>
>>Fuck off, spamming cunt.
>
>
> Learn what *plonk* means.
>
>
It's not his fault - I keep on changing my details to defeat his
killfile so that I can be as annoying to him as he is to the rest of us.
It's a guilty pleasure!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2007 02:08:24
From: NNTP
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
NNTP wrote:
> Androcles wrote:
>
>> "NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com> wrote in message
>> news:5e4aogF36nffhU1@mid.individual.net...
>> : Androcles wrote:
>> : > "NNTP" <NNTP@unspammed.com> wrote in message
>> : > news:5e39l8F35ovatU1@mid.individual.net...
>> : > : Androcles wrote:
>> : > : > "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>> : > : > news:inql73d8q2nfu215jfc9g0pqd4jp08jjvi@4ax.com...
>> : > : > : On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
>> : > : > : <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>> : > : > :
>> : > : > : >I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
>> : > : > : >Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 *
>> 3600 * 4 =
>> : > : > : >1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own
>> Roche limit
>> : > it
>> : > : > is
>> : > : > : >one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is
>> proper
>> : > motion
>> : > : > : >anyway.
>> : > : > :
>> : > : > : I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation.
>> : > : >
>> : > : >
>> : > : > Perhaps if you learned to read instead of snip your
>> understanding might
>> : > : > improve.
>> : > : >
>> : > : >
>> : > : > : This distance you
>> : > : > : compute is meaningless.
>> : > : >
>> : > : > 2pi.r is meaningless.... got it. Failed grade school, did you?
>> : > :
>> : > : How many years since your degree ?
>> : >
>> : > Typical troll... I ask for data and get personal questions.
>> :
>> : You didn't know what to do with the data you were given, so you made a
>> : meaningless hash of using it.
>>
>> Fuck off, useless flaming troll. Nobody needs a cunt like you.
>> *plonk*
>
>
> Learn some science, learn some manners. Your ignorance of both is a
> disgrace.
And just to show we're here to help with the former
http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be/Orbits4onesystem.cgi?157
radial velocity curve at the bottom of the page.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 14:35:52
From: Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in
news:inql73d8q2nfu215jfc9g0pqd4jp08jjvi@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:02 GMT, "Androcles"
> <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>>I got 4 km/s (from you) and computed
>>Period ~70 hours, velocity 4km/s, distance travelled 70 * 3600 * 4 =
>>1008000 km, Major axis ~160,000 km, so far inside its own Roche limit it
>>is one star and not an eclipsing binary at all. The 4 km/s is proper
>>motion anyway.
>
> I fail to understand the purpose of your calculation. This distance you
> compute is meaningless. You don't appear to understand what the radial
> velocity is. Perhaps you are asking for the orbital velocity of Beta
> Persei B? That is entirely different from the radial velocity, which is
> the velocity of the entire star system relative to the Sun.
Chris,
Androcles is a relativity denial kook who infests sci.physics.relativity.
You are wasting your time. He's a clueless idiot.
Klazmon
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2007 04:01:09
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
On 22 Jun 2007 14:35:52 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt > wrote:
>Chris,
>
>Androcles is a relativity denial kook who infests sci.physics.relativity.
>You are wasting your time. He's a clueless idiot.
>
>Klazmon
Thanks. I kind of reached that conclusion independently <g >. At least a
few people with an interest in _real_ astronomy now know where to go to
get some useful information about stars, so I don't count the time as
wasted. That's one nice thing about SAA: sometimes good information gets
covered, even if the original poster is blind to it.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 22:58:50
From: Joseph Lazio
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
>>>>> "GC" == Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> writes:
GC > Magnificent Universe wrote:
>> Both studies find that the Orion Nebula is about 1,300 light-years
>> from Earth--over 200 light-years closer than previously thought.
GC > At such a distance 200 ly is pretty much within the observational
GC > error. Regardless, I sure wouldn't call a little more than 10%
GC > "much closer" unless I was into writing hyperbolic press releases.
GC > I for one will never understand why some feel astronomy needs all
GC > that hyperbole. I mean, isn't the reality of it all exciting
GC > enough?
I believe that one of the papers being described is Sandstrom et
al. (astro-ph/0706.2351). From the abstract:
Based on the parallax, we measure a distance of 389 +24/-21 parsecs
to the source. Our measurement places the Orion Nebula Cluster
considerably closer than the canonical distance of 480 +/- 80
parsecs determined by Genzel et al. (1981).
So the estimated observational error on the new parallax distance is
about 70 light years.
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:46:27
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Joseph Lazio wrote:
>>>>>> "GC" == Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> GC> Magnificent Universe wrote:
>>> Both studies find that the Orion Nebula is about 1,300 light-years
>>> from Earth--over 200 light-years closer than previously thought.
>
> GC> At such a distance 200 ly is pretty much within the observational
> GC> error. Regardless, I sure wouldn't call a little more than 10%
> GC> "much closer" unless I was into writing hyperbolic press releases.
> GC> I for one will never understand why some feel astronomy needs all
> GC> that hyperbole. I mean, isn't the reality of it all exciting
> GC> enough?
>
> I believe that one of the papers being described is Sandstrom et
> al. (astro-ph/0706.2351). From the abstract:
>
> Based on the parallax, we measure a distance of 389 +24/-21 parsecs
> to the source. Our measurement places the Orion Nebula Cluster
> considerably closer than the canonical distance of 480 +/- 80
> parsecs determined by Genzel et al. (1981).
And did you catch the part where 480 - 389 is 91? ;-)
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 20:55:03
From: Joseph Lazio
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
>>>>> "GC" == Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> writes:
GC > Joseph Lazio wrote:
>>>>>>> "GC" == Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> writes:
GC > Magnificent Universe wrote:
>>>> Both studies find that the Orion Nebula is about 1,300
>>>> light-years from Earth--over 200 light-years closer than
>>>> previously thought.
GC > At such a distance 200 ly is pretty much within the observational
GC > error. Regardless, I sure wouldn't call a little more than 10%
GC > "much closer" unless I was into writing hyperbolic press releases.
>> I believe that one of the papers being described is Sandstrom et
>> al. (astro-ph/0706.2351). From the abstract:
>> Based on the parallax, we measure a distance of 389 +24/-21
>> parsecs to the source. Our measurement places the Orion Nebula
>> Cluster considerably closer than the canonical distance of 480
>> +/- 80 parsecs determined by Genzel et al. (1981).
GC > And did you catch the part where 480 - 389 is 91? ;-)
Meaning that the previously estimated distance is nearly 4x the
uncertainty of the new measurement or was in error by nearly 25%.
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Jun 2007 19:58:57
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: New Distance to the Orion Nebula, Part Two
|
Joseph Lazio wrote:
>>>>>> "GC" == Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> GC> Joseph Lazio wrote:
>>>>>>>> "GC" == Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> writes:
> GC> Magnificent Universe wrote:
>>>>> Both studies find that the Orion Nebula is about 1,300
>>>>> light-years from Earth--over 200 light-years closer than
>>>>> previously thought.
>
> GC> At such a distance 200 ly is pretty much within the observational
> GC> error. Regardless, I sure wouldn't call a little more than 10%
> GC> "much closer" unless I was into writing hyperbolic press releases.
>
>>> I believe that one of the papers being described is Sandstrom et
>>> al. (astro-ph/0706.2351). From the abstract:
>>> Based on the parallax, we measure a distance of 389 +24/-21
>>> parsecs to the source. Our measurement places the Orion Nebula
>>> Cluster considerably closer than the canonical distance of 480
>>> +/- 80 parsecs determined by Genzel et al. (1981).
>
> GC> And did you catch the part where 480 - 389 is 91? ;-)
>
> Meaning that the previously estimated distance is nearly 4x the
> uncertainty of the new measurement or was in error by nearly 25%.
Ah, so you did. I get 20%... (it depends on where you start--whether or
not you consider the "new" values the Gospel truth or just another
measurement.) My point was that in practice the true observational
error is often considerably larger than the statistical uncertainties.
This is due in large part to the presence of systematic errors that are
often uncharacterized (or even unknown). So I'd conclude that 200 light
years is still within the observational error, regardless of the
statistical uncertainties cited.
The "considerably closer" used in the paper is in the context that their
new measurement wasn't a close confirmation of the old one, not in the
hyperbolic sense used by the OP.
Clear skies,
Greg
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
|
