Physicists vs. relativity sceptics

[Jerry]

Jeery cited
 http://www.aavso.org/vsots_betalyr--
I quoted from it,
"Stated another way, when viewed in the ultraviolet beta-Lyrae doesn't look
like an eclipsing binary at all."
So why isn't the UV eclipsed if the visible light is?

The standard analysis for the wavelength dependence of eclipsing
binaries was outlined for you by Paul Andersen in the following
post:
http://tinyurl.com/644rppd
However, the above analysis doesn't work for Beta Lyrae because
the standard analysis assumes the light curve to be the sum of
two reasonably spherical emitting sources of different
temperature.

A major breakthrough in our understanding came from Huang's 1967
proposal that the primary star is less massive than the secondary
and is surrounded by a thick accretion disk:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1963ApJ...138..342H

Huang's analysis was expanded upon by multiple workers:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1965ApJ...141..145B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1981ApJ...251..246W

An ever-increasing number of light curves taken in multiple
wavelength bands with equipment of increasing accuracy and
coverage (e.g. satellite ultraviolet observations) has shown that
models where the UV light is assumed to be emitted exclusively
from the face of the accretion disk are unacceptable.
Some large fraction of the UV light stems from another source.
Hubeny et al. (1991) propose this fraction comes from a small
unocculted segment of the accreting star itself:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1991AJ....102.1156H

Modern interferometric telescopes, such as the CHARA array, has
confirmed many of the basic aspects of this model, although its
current operation at near-infrared wavelengths means that its
ability to visualize the accretion disk is rather limited.

Jerry

[Jerry]

Jeery cited
http://www.aavso.org/vsots_betalyr--
I quoted from it,
"Stated another way, when viewed in the ultraviolet beta-Lyrae doesn't look
like an eclipsing binary at all."
So why isn't the UV eclipsed if the visible light is?

The standard analysis for the wavelength dependence of eclipsing
binaries was outlined for you by Paul Andersen in the following
post:
http://tinyurl.com/644rppd
However, the above analysis doesn't work for Beta Lyrae because
the standard analysis assumes the light curve to be the sum of
two reasonably spherical emitting sources of different
temperature.

A major breakthrough in our understanding came from Huang's 1967
proposal that the primary star is less massive than the secondary
and is surrounded by a thick accretion disk:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1963ApJ...138..342H

Huang's analysis was expanded upon by multiple workers:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1965ApJ...141..145B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1981ApJ...251..246W

An ever-increasing number of light curves taken in multiple
wavelength bands with equipment of increasing accuracy and
coverage (e.g. satellite ultraviolet observations) has shown that
models where the UV light is assumed to be emitted exclusively
from the face of the accretion disk are unacceptable.
Some large fraction of the UV light stems from another source.
Hubeny et al. (1991) propose this fraction comes from a small
unocculted segment of the accreting star itself:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1991AJ....102.1156H

Modern interferometric telescopes, such as the CHARA array, has
confirmed many of the basic aspects of this model, although its
current operation at near-infrared wavelengths means that its
ability to visualize the accretion disk is rather limited.

Jerry

[Jerry]

Jeery cited
http://www.aavso.org/vsots_betalyr--
I quoted from it,
"Stated another way, when viewed in the ultraviolet beta-Lyrae doesn't look
like an eclipsing binary at all."
So why isn't the UV eclipsed if the visible light is?

The standard analysis for the wavelength dependence of eclipsing
binaries was outlined for you by Paul Andersen in the following
post:
http://tinyurl.com/644rppd
However, the above analysis doesn't work for Beta Lyrae because
the standard analysis assumes the light curve to be the sum of
two reasonably spherical emitting sources of different
temperature.

A major breakthrough in our understanding came from Huang's 1963
proposal that the primary star is less massive than the secondary
and is surrounded by a thick accretion disk:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1963ApJ...138..342H

Huang's analysis was expanded upon by multiple workers:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1965ApJ...141..145B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1981ApJ...251..246W

An ever-increasing number of light curves taken in multiple
wavelength bands with equipment of increasing accuracy and
coverage (e.g. satellite ultraviolet observations) has shown that
models where the UV light is assumed to be emitted exclusively
from the face of the accretion disk are unacceptable.
Some large fraction of the UV light stems from another source.
Hubeny et al. (1991) propose this fraction comes from a small
unocculted segment of the accreting star itself:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1991AJ....102.1156H

Modern interferometric telescopes, such as the CHARA array, have
confirmed many of the basic aspects of this model, although its
current operation at near-infrared wavelengths means that its
ability to visualize the accretion disk is rather limited.

Jerry