On 30 Mar, 07:07, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 29 Mar 2007 17:24:58 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:







Henri Wilson wrote:

The extinction distance is directly proportional to period.
The 0.0007 value is for a period of 0.0042 years.
It becomes 0.007 for 0.042 years, 0.07 for 0.42 years..etc.
...always independent of peripheral velocity.

How can you explain THAT?

As I said 19 and 20 March, the light speed unification
distance is inversely proportional to the rate of pulse
bunching. The more rapidly the pulses bunch, the shorter
the unification distance. What you have found is the
obvious fact that the rate of pulse bunching is inversely
proportional to the period. All else being equal, the
shorter the period, the more rapidly the pulses bunch.
So naturally, the shorter the period, the shorter the
unification distance.

That's an interesting idea....I'll think about it......

I don't think you quite followed what Leonard was saying,
or at least what i think he was saying. This goes back
to the little applet I wrote for you a couple of weeks
ago. Did you never wonder how I was able to do that ?

..but unification - or
classical extinction - should depend only on the properties of the space
through which the light travels...should it not?

Yes it should.

Obviously however the speed of a pulse cannot be unified with that of another
that hasn't even been emitted.
I'm somewhat mystified by this.

You need to step back a little and look at the problem
a different way. The VDoppler as you said produces a
relatively small brightening effect so for high values
we can assume ADoppler is dominant. The equation for
ADoppler without speed equalisation is is 1/(c^2-da)
where d is the distance from the source to the observer
and a is the instantaneous acceleration towards the
observer at the time of emission. The value c^2/a is
then the "critical distance". Obviously that depends on
the acceleration which in turn depends on the period.
Note also though that the component of the acceleration
towards the observer also depends on the pitch.

What that means is that for a high brightness, the
speed equalisation distance has to be an exact fraction
of the "critical distance" which means the properties
of the space the light passes through depend on the
inclination of the orbit.

Basically you have to invent this "speed equalistion"
factor and set it to an orbit dependent value to avoid
de Sitter's argument. You can set a low value but then
you get no brightening and Doppler effects are no
different to conventional values, but to get any of
the effects you have been claiming over the years, you
have to have the "properties of space" being entirely
dependent on the source acceleration and the inclination
of the orbit.

Inclination is particularly telling. It means if we see
a star with high variability, the speed equalisation
distance must be very close to the critical distance,
and that means another observer looking at the same
star form an inclination a few degrees less would see
multiple images. However there is nothing special about
us so we should see some stars showing multiple images
if this model was correct. As you know, we don't.

The solution is that speed equalisation must happen
over a relatively short distance and there aren't any
significant brightening or ADoppler effects.

I don't think unification takes place as rapidly as I originally believed. I no
longer need it to explain why my distances had to always be much shorter than
the Hipparcos ones.

As you can see, the requirement is actually that it
is a lot shorter than you thought.

With a very rough estimate based on your figure of
0.0007 light years for 45 degrees and a phase
uncertainty based on the time spread of 74ns on
a PRF of 2.295ms, I get a speed equalistion distance
of 54 light seconds. That should be typical of the
"property of space" for all stars.

George