On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:43:52 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in

....
That depends on the geometry. Currently, all your action occurs along a
single, one dimensional line, and you 'scale' things, using trig, to
'emulate' an orbit with tilts in three space, but you make no allowance
for different 'line of sight' paths that the photons would need to
travel.

I know what you are saying and have considered it myself. particularly
in the case of long period orbits where the conditions along the LOS
could be quite different for light emitted, say, one year apart.

give it due consideration.

If it were significant, I doubt if we would get such clear images of very
distant galaxies.

I have thought about this myself...if it happens at all it should
affect stars with a large orbit diameter and long period more than say
'contact binaries'.

Yes, and it would effect those close to us more than those very distant.

Thus it would effect those with high parallax more than those with low
parallax.

Finally, it would effect systems with high proper motion more than those
with low proper motion.

Yes..but I still don't think it's worth worrying about. Mind you, it
could explain some of the erratic behavior often seen in recorded
brightness curves.

I doubt it, I am not talking about brightness curves here, I am talking
about the image of the star jumping back and forth.

I gather you are likening this to what we often see in the atmosphere due to
lensing in temperature gradients. I don't think that would happen in space.
Like I said, we would see everything so clearly.

The faster photons arrive from the direction 'more close to current actual
location in the sky of the star' (which we can't see because the light from
there has not arrived here yet.)

The slower photons come from where the star was when those photons were
emitted.

A star with a high proper motion should look like an airplane at night with
{blinking} red and green lights on the wing tips. The lights being seen as
streaks of different colored light from different locations in the sky.

The photons would NOT merge into a single image any more than the red and
green lights merge into a single white light.

Well you can speculate as much as you like about this bob.
I can't afford to worry about it at this stage.

I also believe that the extinction rate itself decreases with distance
from the source star. That is, most takes place in the vicinity of the
source....maybe in the first couple of LYs of travel.

Use a half life model. Most will be gone within 10 half lives.

I do use a 'half distance' model.

Which is 'equivalent' to a half life model IF the velocity is constant.

So, what is the 'half distance' or 'half life' of c+v and c-v photons?

And are they the same?

No they still live.
By using 'unification rate', I largely overcome the problem.

I merely vary the rate per lightday until I get about the right (hipparcos)
distance.

Why should photons traveling at .8 c speed up at exactly the same rate that
photons traveling at 1.2 c slow down?

But if they don't 'unify at the same rate' then one or the other would
predominate (and speed up or slow down the 'c' photons). This should cause
some strange effects.

If the orbit is eccentric, there will be more photons emitted that are in
one or the other of the sub/super luminal states. This will produce an
unbalance. Even if you can invent a method of taking energy from the c+v
photons and giving it to the c-v photons, there will be problems because
there will be less of one kind than of the other.

This, in itself is a severe problem for the Ritz model.

Problem or not, something causes my required distances to be consistently
shorter than the hipparcos ones.....and the effect is period dependent....

There could be an entirely different explanation....but 'extinction' seems the
most plausible.

And why don't those nearby systems with planets show Wilson
Variability in brightness along with the doppler shift and wobble that
they display?

The light from these stars still travels throgh similar quality
space, even if it emitted months later.

That does NOT answer the question.

I'm not going to worry about it.

You must IF your theory is ever going to be acceptable.

Bob, right now my main concern is trying to find decent data to work with.
I wont achieve anything if I just talk about it with you and George...even
though your comments are often helpful.

You might say that the light has not traveled far enough yet for it to
bunch up, but then you are contradicting the idea that the velocities
unify rapidly.

It all depends on the star's orbit velocity.

If so, then all doppler binaries, with orbital velocities similar to
those which give the Wilson Curves that match the cephieds, should show
similar variations in brightness.

I dont have enough data to make any definite claims about unification as
yet....except that is appears to happen according to the BaTh.

More like: without adding the magic of unification, BaT fails.
'Magic' because it is difficult to justify speeding up slow photons while
slowing down fast one and still maintain coherent images of the source.

One might come to that conclusion if the effect wasn't so consistent. The plain
fact is, the BaTh matches many brightness curves very closely. The only problem
is that the distances are usually too short.

Of course there are many stars that DO vary intrinsically and maybe I'm
trying to match those with a theory that doesn't apply.

Well said!

Well obviously a proportion of binaries must be eclipsing. ...but a greater
proportion could be explained purely by the BaTh since it produces very similar
curves.
Also it is hard *but not impossible) to explain the presence of harmonics in a
brightness curve on purely 'orbit grounds'....so maybe many stars ARE
huff-puffing.

If it is a large orbit with velocities below 0.00001 c, very little
bunching or brightness change will be expected over quite large
distances.

For instance a star in a 1 year orbit moving at 0.00001 c should vary
by only about 0.04 magnitudes at 300 LYs distance without taking into
account any extinction.
At 500 LYs the figure is about 0.065 mag variation.

So all double stars (with the right orbital plane) at great distances
should show large brightness variations.

Without unification they would, yes...but they don't...

Exactly.
Actually if the observer lies well beyoind the critical distance, no brightness
variation is to be expected, even without unification.

That is what I'm trying to explain.

There is a simple explaination: the Ritzian model is wrong. Light always
moves at c wrt all observers, even those in the interial FoR of the source.


Stick to your religious belief if you wish to Bob.

There could be other reasons for it.
....face-on orbits for instance.

I did say 'with the right orbital plane'.

Face on orbits would show no doppler shift in either model. We probably do
not even know they are double stars unless they are optically separable.

We can usually tell by the type of spectrum if two stars are contributing to a
'point source'.