On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:27:10 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

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

in space. Like I said, we would see everything so clearly.

You might liken it to that effect, but it should be syncronized with the
relative velocity of the source at the time that the arriving photons were
actually emitted.

Clearly they MUST arrive from the position held by the star when those
photons were emitted (modified by aberation, of course).

If the star moves (and many do) significantly between the time the slow
photons were emitted and when the fast photons were emitted, then the
images formed by each would be in significantly different locations in the
sky.

yes but the light still travels through quite similar regions of space.


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 suggest that you can not afford NOT to worry about it
because it may, by itself, drain the BaTh of all viability as a model.

The fact that is models many brightness curves is clear support for its
validity.

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.

I assumed they remain but become 'c' photons rather than c+v or c-v
photons.

They approach 'c+u' photons.


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

Henri, if you take the log of the sum of three sin waves, such as

sumlog(theta)=log(a*sin(theta+alpha)+b*sin(theta+ beta)+c+sin(theta+chi))

and are allowed to set the six parameters a, b, c and alpha, beta and chi
to any values you like, you can produce curves that look like any of the
curves you currently produce with your program.

This does not make the results any more or less significant than the
results of your program.

In fact, as you probably know, you can produce ANY repetitive curve by
summing properly phased and scaled sine wave.

Do you think I'm stupid.
The program operates along very strict lines...based solely on the relative
movement of c+v and c-v light.
There is no way I can fiddle the results.

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

It seems less and less likely, the more I think about it.

Plenty of others think it is very likely. It's not a new idea you know.


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.

That sum of sines, as mentioned, can do the same.

No it cannot...although I suppose any ellipse is the sum of two sines 90 out.

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.

That is all correct.
The question is how many are actually due to BaTh.
More and more it looks like less and less.

I say the brightness variation of huff-puff stars is still largely a
consequence of the BaTh.

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.

Beyond means inside or outside????
Too close or too far away?

too far a away....but that shouldn't happen because of extinction anyway..

Either answer would seem to reduce the number of Wilson Variable stars
rather drastically.

Not so, it turns out that many stars in our galaxy have just about the right
velocities and distances to be variable.

Diostance of 100-20,000 LYs, velocities ~0.0001 to 0.000001, periods 1 to 24
months....these are ideal for producing some kind of variability.

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.

Oh, my faith is not as strong as yours.

Even SR says an observer will measure the approach of light towards other
moving objects as being different from c. That is what the BaTh is based on.

I keep looking for flaws in my favorite theories. I love to find such
flaws.


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'.


Only if they are from different stellar families.

which they often are.