HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:46:34 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


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...

You ignore the effect that I have repeatedly mentioned, that the light must
come from the direction 'where the star was when the light was
emitted'[modified by aberration]. So WH variable stars with large proper
motion MUST result in the fast photons coming from a different location in
the sky than the slow photons. This would make the image waltz back and forth
in time with the orbit RATHER than showing up as variations in brightness.

c+v predicts this effect. SR/GR does not.

If you can show that the effect occurs, you will go a long way to making c+v
a viable theory.

If it is never observed, c+v is falsified.



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......

Not so different. It is still a trig function.

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.

Then pitch is ignored by the program?



[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.

I suspect we disagree upon who is 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.

If they were, there would be visible effects.


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.

Photons leaving a glass plate do NOT slow down, they return to the velocity
they had before they entered the plate (c).

You, on the other hand, need for them to change speed, permanently, AND for
different photons to change speed differently. Some must slow down and others
must speed up. THAT requires a special kind of magic.

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.

BaTh would exacerbate the effect. The fast photons would bunch together and
come from one location. The slow photons would bunch together and come from a
different location in the sky. Intermedia velocity photons would come from
yet another location, between the two.

Double star systems with high proper motion would appear quite different than
they do.


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.

The shapes might be right IF the line of sight to the system did not change.
If the line of sight changes between when slow and when fast photons are
emitted, then your shapes can not be right.

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.

pitch, yaw, eccentricity, period, phase difference, observer distance,
brightness, max velocity(ratio), radius, max velocity, R(inner circle)

I count 11 parameters, then there is extinction and overtones.

Looks like more than one parameter to me, by an order of magnitude.

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.

How many parameters?

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.

'right kind'?
What would be the 'right kind' and how are the curves you produce BETTER than
those produced by other models?

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.

Cepheid variables are observed in distant galaxies. That contradicts your 'I
know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...'

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.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'critical distance'?
Why should I not worry about it when you say something that is contradictory
to something else you (or reality) has said?

I suggest you NOT follow the advice you give others. If you encounter a
contradiction, WORRY about it!

Therein lurks the possiblity for discovery and greatness.

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.

When you are are making claims about what SR says, it is very important that
you NOT distort what SR says.

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.

It is vital. Your argument falls apart when you say things wrong.


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.

Not in an SR/GR universe. You claimed that SRians said something that would
NOT be correct under SR. EIther 1) they said something wrong or 2) you
misunderstood what they said.

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.

It would be good if the program ALSO showed an understanding of SR/GR and its
predictions so that the discrepancies could be studied.


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.

Why? Many of them have velocities similar to those you use in your Wilson
variable simulations. And they are far enough away that we should be seeing
the brightness variations predicted by your progra, but we do not. Why?


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.




--
bz 73 de N5BZ k

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap