Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:39:51 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Feb 2007 21:55:33 -0800, "Leonard Kellogg"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

Anyway, put the numbers into your program and tell
me what you get and then we can discuss their
interpretation. Check the results for zero distance
first and make sure you get the right speed and phase.

Naturally for zero distance I get no brightness variation.
The observed velocity is in phase with the true velocity.

You should still get a very small variation due to the
conventional bunching you reminded me of at the top.

Not if the observer is at the orbit centre.

He isn't saying to put the observer at the orbit centre, he
is saying to locate the observer just in front of the light
source so that your program output shows the effect of the
initial bunching of the pulses due to the changing position
of the star, but not the bunching which occurs in transit.

At each iteration, the observer is at zero distance from
the source, but is treated as being motionless, as usual.
It is as if there were 30,000 observers round the orbit,
each motionless relative to the orbit centre, but placed
immediately in front of the source.

If your program is unable to do that, you should be able to
put the observer at the near side of the orbit. Apparently
you have simplified the program to treat an orbiting star
as a reciprocating point, oscillating back and forth in the
line of sight. Just place the observer at the near end of
the stroke.

I can't see the point.
There wil be no opportunity for bunching and no brighness variation.
All I will see is conventional doppler frequency variation using constant
c.

That was the entire point of the exercise, to check
the code by confirming that your program gives the
conventional result when there is no opportunity
for bunching.

Of course it does. Do you think I'm stupid? (don't answer that:

George

On 18 Feb 2007 19:20:31 -0800, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:


The 'bunching of pulses' I refer to is not the same.

Are you saying that light pulses emitted by pulsars bunch
in a manner different from that of light pulses emitted by
other types of star?

Well basically no.... but it is the way they are handled
that matters. Pulsar pulses don't become any more intense
just because they 'bunch'. Nobody talks about the brightness
curve of a pulsar because the pulses are very constant.

What distinguishes pulsar light from other starlight is that
it is *not* constant. Is that a problem for your program?
The bunching process is the same, but your program is
designed to represent brightness changes in a continuous
stream of light, not in a chopped stream?

You said, 'The program assumes the star emits identical
pulses of light towards the observer at regular intervals
as it moves around its orbit...'

If it can handle pulses of light from a regular star, why
can't it handle pulses of light from a pulsar?

It can... but the answer it produces is in the form of a brightness curve, not
the bunching factor. One doesn't hear of 'brighness curves of pulsars'. The
pulses are constant even if their arrival rate is not.

I use symbolic pulses from a star of constant brightness
emitted at equi-temporal points around the orbit. These
travel at varying c+cos(v) speeds towards a distant obsever.
The rate at which they arrive at the observer should then
simulate its brightness curve there.

So apply that to the pulsar.

There is absolutely no point....unless you can provide a reliable curve showing
the variation in arrival rate of the pulses over time. That should be the same
as my 'brightness curve'. I can't make sense of the curve published by Jacoby
et al

Also, I cannot adjust the number of pulses I sample per orbit (122 million in
this case) without changing the code a bit. I can do it but it will take a
little time


Aside from dwarf novae, the only regularly-variable dwarf
stars I know of are ZZ Ceti variables. Wikipedia says:
"These non-radially pulsating stars have very short periods
of 0.5 to no more than 25 minutes with tiny fluctuations of
0.001 to 0.2 magnitudes."

there are millions of stars varying by 0.3 to 1.6 mags.
Cepheids (as they are broadly named) are the most interesting.

The star you asked for information about is a white dwarf.
I responded with relevant information about white dwarf
variability. We are not concerned at the moment with
other star types.

provide me with a good curve of pulse arrival times and i can probably do what
you ask.


Leonard

On 19 Feb 2007 00:41:06 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 19 Feb, 04:44, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:36:42 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:59:26 -0000, "George Dishman"
But you cannot ever get that because the variable
speed messes up the Doppler equation. As with any
modelling technique, you put in your initial guess
of the actual parameters, the program caclulates
the observed signals and then you iterate until
the predicted observables match that actuals.

Ah, but I only need a value for the MAXIMUM orbital speed.

Ah, but you cannot know that, all you know is the
maximum Doppler shift.

That's all I need.

Yes but you have to process it appropriately. Your
program is not doing that at present.

It's near enough to do what I want at present.... although I will have to take
Yaw angle into acount eventually..
All I am doing now is matching curves. The value of (distance x max velocity)
is rather arbitrary because I dont really know the unification distance and it
is not easy to obtain velocity diagrams.

The BaTh and SR
doppler equations are effectively the same.

No they aren't, that's the whole point. Look at the
bottom of your reply where you agree the _apparent_
speed should reach c at the critical distance!

Yes.... but during extinction, the wavelength contracts or expands, so as to
still maintain the correct details of source velocity.

No, the speed matching causes the 'wavelength',
which in this case is the distance between pulses,
to eventually settle down to a constant value but
it will not be the original.

Not according to me.
The final distance between adjacent pulses will vary according to their initial
velocity relative to the barycentre. Some will move closer together, others
further apart.

The extreme test
example here is for viewing at 8 light years with
negligible extinction, or equivalently at infinity
with an exponential extinction distance of 8 light
years, and the wavelength is zero. Your software
still gives v/c=0.00009 when it should be v/c=1.

George, unless I have access to a curve showing variation in pulse arrival
times I cannot help you much.

Reading the papers about this pulsar is quite confusing for me because the
authors make such a big issue of Shapiro delay. (They even admit light is
slowed by gravity). The BaTh interpretation would be quite different from
theirs.

I have removed most of the bugs although it doesn't have comprehensive
instructions as yet. Extinction doesn't work for circular orbits.

That's OK, your existing distance factor can be
essentially used as the extinction factor as long
as we are observing from a much greater distance.

It can. ..or you can set eccentricity at 0.01

No, set it to 2.3*10^-7 if anything, but you
don't need an explicit extinction term. Just
treat your program as an observer at infinity
and distance is the characteristic extinction
length.

Yes I can do that.
I only introduced the 'extinction' facility in order to try to obtain a value
for its rate.

Like I said, all I need is period, distance and a value for the maximum
radial
velocity.

Like I said, what you have is maximum Doppler shift.

No problem.

Indeed, but you need to fix the bug in the
software to convert from the shift to the
speed correctly.

George, this is a circular orbit and there is no difference between my and your
value of maximum velocity. I have tried to explain that extinction will not
affect measured doppler and its interpretation.


The red curve for the apparent speed. If you enter
27km/s the red curve should show that deviation
above and below the white axis. It would help if
you added a vertical scale or we cannot confirm
that. I'm presuming the value in the table on the
left called "Max. Vel." is your assumption for the
actual speed which you entered rather than the
highest point on the red curve.

The velocity curves are set to always have the same size on the screen. The
scale is linear and yes, the maximum is that shown in the velocity box. Ity
should be the same fro both red and blue curves.

No, it should be 0.00009c for the blue curve
at 8 light years and 1.0c for the red curve.
The 'wavelength' at that distance is zero.

George, I don't think we're taking about the same things here.
The blue curve is the true radial velocity curve towards the observer.
The red curve is generated in this way:

For the purpose of counting the arrival of pulses, the orbit period is divided
into 500 divisions, which form the elements of an array. The program adds all
the pulses that arrive in that division to make up the value of that array
element. It also follows each pulse individually so that it records the speed
at which the pulse left the source barycentre. It averages the velocities of
all the pulse that are placed into each array element.

Introducing extinction doesn't really change anything.

I have realised though that when using ellitical orbits I have to compensate
for Yaw angle because the maximum observed velocity is not necessarily the
velocity at periastron.

That could be the cause of your extra phase
change.

It shouldn't make much difference at low eccentricities and doesn't affect
brightness curve shape anyway. ..just the distance.


There is second
order term involving the 'rate of change of acceleration'. You have
omitted it.

I don't believe there is such a term but that's why
I want to do the short distance test first.

No, I was wrong there, although not entirely. The main reason the point moves
is due solely to the difference in emission times. For short distances, a half
period is quite significant.

Getting the correct location for the maximum speed
will matter too, but for our circular orbit it
shouldn't matter.

Anyway, bottom line at the moment is that you are
not calculating the apparent velocity correctly
from the pulse period so let's get that fixed
before worrying about the effects of eccentricity.

George you have it all back to front.

I don't want to calculate the velocity. I want to read about it in a table or
graph.
Can you provide that info for me?


George

On Feb 19, 2:56 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

[snip all]


I don't want to calculate the velocity. I want to read about it in a table or
graph.
Can you provide that info for me?

Why should he do your research for you?




George

On 19 Feb 2007 05:32:38 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 19 Feb, 05:09, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:10:58 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:31:57 -0000, "George Dishman"
will be expected.

Such as?

Too close, moving too slowly...

The distance is usually known from Hipparcos or
so far away that it is academic for this purpose.

The velocity can be determined from the spectrum
of course and your program is then supposed to
tell us the velocity, but in general nearby stars
that are too close to resolve must be moving quite
fast.

George, my program DOES NOT tell us anything about the maximum velocity.
Where did you get the idea that it does?

If two similar stars are orbiting in nearly circular orbits, their
contributions to a combined brightness curve will just about nullify each
other.

Unde certain circumstances that might be
possible but the two light curves can be
separated spectroscopically, the depth of
spectral lines should vary with one set
rising while the others fade.


I tried to expain this to Andersen in the case of HD10875

Which of the above did you suggest applied?

The addition of two sine curves 180 out...... plus extinction.

That would suggest a non-linear relation between (v-c/n)
and dv/ds. It still needs to be first order at zero but
perhaps a third order component? Gravity certainly isn't
going to do anything for you.

I'm not so sure of that.

I am.

But you don't really know.

Yes I do, it would make a difference of about
45 parts per million to the critical distance
for the pulsar for example (mental arithmetic,
E&OE).

George, measurements made on Earth about the rate of change of velocity in the
Earth's gravity field don't really tell us much about the possible role that
the whole solar gravity field might play in regard to a local EM frame of
reference, if such exists.
Light entering that frame from outside and initially moving at c+v wrt Earth
might be affected much more than you think.
However I basically agree with what you say. Gravity is probably too weak to be
a major factor.



I'm concerned by the fact that light from one part of the orbit will be
'unified' before light from another part is even emitted. I can see a problem
there but haven't been able to work out exactly what it might be.

Don't worry, the star emits for billions of years
so that's always going to be the case. However the
speed of any individual photon can only respond to
the "quality of the space" it is passing through (I
like your phrase, nicely general). It isn't a problem
unless you are looking for excuses to explain why
your theory doesn't work when the time comes.

George

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:14:53 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:22:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
The only explanation I can suggest is that all large mass centres are
surrounded by some kind of weak EM reference frame....and these extend well
away from the objects themselves.
:-)

The brain hasn't thawed yet, I see.

A little (more) Vodka might help....

Paul


Interesting to see that you have became an etherist.

My local H-aether doesn't result in contractions of M, L or T.

Incidentally, what's happened to Androcles....haven't heard from him for a
week. Has he frozen to death or migrated south, I wonder?


Paul

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.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:45:59 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can
NOT use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or
v2 are a significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by
experiment) predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

Correction: That should be 'from a moving source'.

It might be just possible to compare OWLS from two differently moving
sources...but not in the lab.

A straw man.
Also, not true.


In any case, I was not talking about the speed of light but the speed of
particles moving near the speed of light ('v1 and v2 are a significant
fraction of the speed of c').

Build your own particle accelerator, using the predictions of BaTh and see
if you can get particles to move faster than c as is implied by v_effective
=(v1+v2) rather than v_effective = composition(v1,v2).

If we lived in a universe where BaTh worked, v1+v2 would work. It MUST so
that c+v will work unless you say that c+v ONLY applies to massless
particles and THEN you must explain how the massive particles 'know' they
must go slower than c when they are surrounded by photons moving faster
than c as they would be if c'=c+v worked.

You must play by the rules of the game.
Everything must be consistent with c'=c+v. You must deal with all the
implications, you can not pick and choose which you want to deal with.

Rubbish

On 19 Feb 2007 06:05:07 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 18, 11:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:02:58 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:





"PD" wrote in
roups.com:

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

...
Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it
implies circularity is what's wrong.

....

I showed how to derive the formula with trivial mathematical
circularity. Does that make me as great as Einstein ...or greater...?

Well, Henri, as I explained to you in great detail, there is nothing
circular about it. You started with the presumption that c is
constant, independent of the reference frame, and used that derive the
correct rule for the addition of velocities. That is precisely the
right way to do it. Circularity would entail concluding what you
started with, and that is not what you're doing. If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

Henri, another way of saying it is this:
If one is speaking of how SR says things 'should be', then one must (at
least for the sake of the discussion in progress) accept the postulates of
SR and the derived conclusions.

If one is doing so, then the BaTh statement c'=c+v would be expressed (in
SR) as c' = composition(c,v) and the results will always be c.

Nothing terribly unexpected about this. But it does invalidate attempts to
say that SR requires photons leaving a moving source to know the velocity
of the target so that they arrive there at c.

....but it doesn't invalidate the concept of a single absiolute aether frame.

The other important point PD made might be reworded as "if we were to
compute the 'relative velocity' using any other rule than the composition
rule, the results would not agree with expermental data".

how would you know? OWLS has never been measured...nor can it be...

Because it has been tested for things *other than* light as well. For
example, it has been tested for muons emitted from stationary and
moving pions, it has been tested for protons given successive,
identical momentum kicks, it has been tested a hundred different ways.
That is what I was explaining to you, that the rule for the
combination of velocities applies to *all* things, from protons to
basketballs, and that it has been tested in a multitude of
applications. It is *not necessary* to test it for light, since the
result is only what is postulated anyway. It is the testing for *every
case but light* that verifies its general applicability, and it is
this wide range of testing that lends credence to the postulate that
in turn gives rise to the prediction of the general rule.

More rubbish.


For example, two particles approach each other at v1 and v2,
if v_effective=v1+v2 were correct, rather than
v_effective=composition(v1,v2)
then dozens of years of expermental data from particle accelerators around
the world would have given much different results from those that have been
seen.

I don't think so. They are concerned with energy and the circularity of SR
would probably multiply and dive\die by the same factor somewhere..

Not at all, Henri. Unless you can demonstrate where that is.


The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can NOT
use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or v2 are a
significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by experiment)
predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

And as I explained to you numerous times, that is irrelevant. The rule
applies to *everything*, not just light. The general applicability of
this rule *stems directly from* the *assumption* that it is true for
light. So by testing it in many, many cases *except* light, you
demonstrate the general applicability of the rule, which in turn
demonstrates the truth of the assumption.

How can it be irrelevant when that's what you are claiming.

You are a dreamer, draper.


PD

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:41:39 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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



Henri, another way of saying it is this:
If one is speaking of how SR says things 'should be', then one must (at
least for the sake of the discussion in progress) accept the postulates
of SR and the derived conclusions.

If one is doing so, then the BaTh statement c'=c+v would be expressed
(in SR) as c' = composition(c,v) and the results will always be c.

Nothing terribly unexpected about this. But it does invalidate attempts
to say that SR requires photons leaving a moving source to know the
velocity of the target so that they arrive there at c.

....but it doesn't invalidate the concept of a single absiolute aether
frame.

Of course not.
MMX did that.


The other important point PD made might be reworded as "if we were to
compute the 'relative velocity' using any other rule than the
composition rule, the results would not agree with expermental data".

how would you know? OWLS has never been measured...nor can it be...

A strawman.

OWLS has been determined from many different experiments including
observation of the moons of Jupiter.

All results are consistent with SR/GR.

You're all becoming desperate now.


I don't think so. They are concerned with energy and the circularity of
SR would probably multiply and dive\die by the same factor somewhere.

You need to understand your enemies. Understand SR before you attack it.

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can
NOT use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or
v2 are a significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by
experiment) predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

Not true but it would not be important even if it were true.
It is just a straw man.

OWLS has an infinite number of values.