On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:46:34 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


I am trying to figure out why we don't see multiple images. Light
traveling through similar regions will do nothing to prevent that. So
what is the relevance?

I htink you have i mind optical effects. that's different..

If BaTh predicts optical effects (it does)
and we do not see those optical effects (we don't)
then BaTh is invalidated.

So far it only preddicts hte shapes of star brightnes curves.....and we DO see
them..
It hasn't failed...


Bob, my program doesn't produce a range of sines and add them together
to get a result.
It simulates c+v light, that's all.

Henri, your program 'simulates c+v light' emitted by a moving source along
a single line of sight.

You stick a 'bundle of photons' into a 'packet of photons'. You compute the
speed of that bundle by calculating the relative velocity of the source wrt
earth along that line of sight(you use trig[cosines {sines shifted by 90
degrees}] to do this).

You then allow those packets to travel the distance to earth and calculate
the total photons at any particular point along the way at any particular
time.

What you are doing is equivalent to summing three different scaled sine
functions. The scaling proportional to the distance traveled and the
velocity.

not quite.
One term (travel time) is D/(1+vcos)...very different......

The phase of each of the three functions represents the eccentricity, and
the tilts of the orbit in two different planes.

Not so Bob.
I only use edge on orbits. That's all I require


[hint, I have just given you a method to figure out the answer the 'what
formula does your program use' questions.]

You are totally confused.

They approach 'c+u' photons.

You introduce u as a new variable. What is its significance?

Ther speed wrt their source is changing continuously. Every swirl in
space has a different speed wrt the source and light passing through
tends toward the equilibrium EM speed in that swirl....so u might be
anything...

This theory would imply that stars beyond gas clouds that are moving with
high velocities wrt earth would have their images displaced in the
direction of the motion of the gas clouds.

They probably are.

The telescope filled with moving water showed that there would be such an
effect when moving through dense media. This is consistent with SR as well
as with BaTh.

It would be very interesting if you could show that photons moving through
a gas cloud RETAINED the velocity that they had in the cloud, even when
they leave that cloud. BaTh would predict the retention of that velocity.

The might be a tiny RI correction. Also it might move straight into another
'cloud' with a different relative speed.

After all, how can those photons know to slow back down(or speed back up)
just because they have entered empty space?

RI. Try it with a glass plate.

They would then be that much earlier (or later) when they arrive here than
other photons emitted by the same source that missed going through the gas
cloud they went through. And their image would be displaced from the image
drawn by those photons.

The movements are too small to cause that kind of effect. It would happen
anyway, BaTh or no BaTh.

The idea is to feed in the known values of those parameters...if they
can be obtained.

If that produces results that differ from known brightness curves, you
modify the parameters or your program until the curves look more realistic.

Bob, the shapes are right. It is only the distance that is in question...and
that shows a consistent error....too consistent to be coincidence.

That is the way that model builders work. There is nothing wrong with that.

Once a match is found, you try to figure out why you had to modify the
parameters.

Only ONE parameter.



Since your program is just summing, phasing and scaling sine waves,
any waveform it produces can clearly be produced by summed, phased and
scaled sine waves.

Yes it's called fourier analysis.

The decomposition of the curve is.
Building the original curve from sines has a different name.

My program doesn't rely on that.

In effect, it does the same thing.

No bob, you are totally confused.


Astronomers are still completely mystified by the behavior of cepheids.
That's becasue they are indoctrinated with Einsteiniana.

I don't think 'completely mystified' is a correct description. There are
models that are consistent with everything we know that are very good at
reproducing their behavior.

None of the models can produce the right kind of brightness curves.

Then we can not see BaTh variable stars in distant galaxies. All
variables there are eclipsing or cephied or some other but not BaTh?

I know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...

Cepheid variables are used to determine the distance of many galaxies.

Since there is no other way of accurately checking, you know you can say that
with confidence.

Any way you are wrong. The brightness pattern settles down to virtually
its asymptotic state at the extinction distance. The curves will remain
the same beyond that distance.

You were the one that said 'no brightness variation is to be expected
[beyond the critical distance].'

Did you mean that once past that distance the 'variability' pattern is
'set' and will not change?

Don't worry about it. The critical distance is not important because extinction
always cuts in well before it.


and D calculating that light emitted by A may be approaching B at a
speed different from c, you are incorrect.

No I'm not.
That has been made clear by many SRians here. Light can be assessed to
be approaching another object at other than c.

By SR, from the viewpoint of the receiver of the photons, the photons are
always traveling at c, from the moment emitted until they are receive.

That is not important for the BaTh.


The third party observer, D, must use the same formula that B uses when
calculating what B will see when the photons arrive from A.

Not important.

D may, of course, look at things from D's viewpoint and see that the
photons from A will arrive sooner (or later) at B because A is in motion
wrt B, but when D computes what B will see, s/he must compute things as
seen from B's viewpoint.

....if D correctly computes what B will see, he will know that B will measure
OWLS as not being c.

That's all my program requires.

Your program is NOT consistent with SR because it has the photons leaving
the source at c'=c+v and traveling toward the earth at that velocity for
some time wrt the viewer on earth.

That is consistent with BaTh but NOT with SR.

Good, That's what it is supposed to be doing.


which they often are.
Agreed. but if they are not then we could not tell if it was a single
star or a double star if their orbit was perpendicular to the line of
sight to earth.

Correct. that still leaves about 80% that WILL show two spectra.

Those should ALL be Wilson variables. Most are not. Bad for BaTh.

Not so. I told you why. velocities are generally far too small.