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

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:33:43 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

.....
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.

The main purpose of this thread was to ascertain whether or not there
was enough star movement to cause this kind of effect.
the general cinsensus is that most stars are too far away for this to
happen.

Of course. 'Most stars' are not even visible with the naked eye. Most stars
are in distant galaxies.

You like computer programs, enjoy, this one shows motion of stars.
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos/apps/ShowMotion.html

a google search for cepheid "with high proper motion"
turns up some very interesting hits.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979MNRAS.189..377P

and
18055+0230STF2272 A complicated multiple system with high proper motion


and http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/ftp/cats/cats.bib seems to have quite a few
high proper motion stars.


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

.....
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?


.....
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.

.....
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?

.....
Too long.

Too many questions left unanswered.

You could just snip everything but my questions and answer them, instead of
ignoring them.





--
bz

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

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap