Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:43:52 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:
.....
That depends on the geometry. Currently, all your action occurs along
a single, one dimensional line, and you 'scale' things, using trig, to
'emulate' an orbit with tilts in three space, but you make no
allowance for different 'line of sight' paths that the photons would
need to travel.

I know what you are saying and have considered it myself. particularly
in the case of long period orbits where the conditions along the LOS
could be quite different for light emitted, say, one year apart.

give it due consideration.

If it were significant, I doubt if we would get such clear images of
very distant galaxies.

I agree that there would be significant bluring if c'=c+v photons existed.

.....
Yes..but I still don't think it's worth worrying about. Mind you, it
could explain some of the erratic behavior often seen in recorded
brightness curves.

I doubt it, I am not talking about brightness curves here, I am talking
about the image of the star jumping back and forth.

I gather you are likening this to what we often see in the atmosphere
due to lensing in temperature gradients. I don't think that would happen
in space. Like I said, we would see everything so clearly.

You might liken it to that effect, but it should be syncronized with the
relative velocity of the source at the time that the arriving photons were
actually emitted.

Clearly they MUST arrive from the position held by the star when those
photons were emitted (modified by aberation, of course).

If the star moves (and many do) significantly between the time the slow
photons were emitted and when the fast photons were emitted, then the
images formed by each would be in significantly different locations in the
sky.

The faster photons arrive from the direction 'more close to current
actual location in the sky of the star' (which we can't see because the
light from there has not arrived here yet.)

The slower photons come from where the star was when those photons were
emitted.

A star with a high proper motion should look like an airplane at night
with {blinking} red and green lights on the wing tips. The lights being
seen as streaks of different colored light from different locations in
the sky.

The photons would NOT merge into a single image any more than the red
and green lights merge into a single white light.

Well you can speculate as much as you like about this bob.
I can't afford to worry about it at this stage.

I suggest that you can not afford NOT to worry about it
because it may, by itself, drain the BaTh of all viability as a model.

.....
I do use a 'half distance' model.

Which is 'equivalent' to a half life model IF the velocity is constant.

So, what is the 'half distance' or 'half life' of c+v and c-v photons?

And are they the same?

No they still live.

I assumed they remain but become 'c' photons rather than c+v or c-v
photons.

By using 'unification rate', I largely overcome the problem.

I merely vary the rate per lightday until I get about the right
(hipparcos) distance.

Why should photons traveling at .8 c speed up at exactly the same rate
that photons traveling at 1.2 c slow down?

But if they don't 'unify at the same rate' then one or the other would
predominate (and speed up or slow down the 'c' photons). This should
cause some strange effects.

If the orbit is eccentric, there will be more photons emitted that are
in one or the other of the sub/super luminal states. This will produce
an unbalance. Even if you can invent a method of taking energy from the
c+v photons and giving it to the c-v photons, there will be problems
because there will be less of one kind than of the other.

This, in itself is a severe problem for the Ritz model.

Problem or not, something causes my required distances to be
consistently shorter than the hipparcos ones.....and the effect is
period dependent....

Henri, if you take the log of the sum of three sin waves, such as

sumlog(theta)=log(a*sin(theta+alpha)+b*sin(theta+b eta)+c+sin(theta+chi))

and are allowed to set the six parameters a, b, c and alpha, beta and chi
to any values you like, you can produce curves that look like any of the
curves you currently produce with your program.

This does not make the results any more or less significant than the
results of your program.

In fact, as you probably know, you can produce ANY repetitive curve by
summing properly phased and scaled sine wave.


There could be an entirely different explanation....but 'extinction'
seems the most plausible.

It seems less and less likely, the more I think about it.

.....
I'm not going to worry about it.

You must IF your theory is ever going to be acceptable.

Bob, right now my main concern is trying to find decent data to work
with. I wont achieve anything if I just talk about it with you and
George...even though your comments are often helpful.

I try to help. Good to know that at least some of my comments have been
helpful.

.....
It all depends on the star's orbit velocity.

If so, then all doppler binaries, with orbital velocities similar to
those which give the Wilson Curves that match the cephieds, should
show similar variations in brightness.

I dont have enough data to make any definite claims about unification
as yet....except that is appears to happen according to the BaTh.

More like: without adding the magic of unification, BaT fails.
'Magic' because it is difficult to justify speeding up slow photons
while slowing down fast one and still maintain coherent images of the
source.

One might come to that conclusion if the effect wasn't so consistent.
The plain fact is, the BaTh matches many brightness curves very closely.
The only problem is that the distances are usually too short.

That sum of sines, as mentioned, can do the same.

Of course there are many stars that DO vary intrinsically and maybe
I'm trying to match those with a theory that doesn't apply.

Well said!

Well obviously a proportion of binaries must be eclipsing. ...but a
greater proportion could be explained purely by the BaTh since it
produces very similar curves.
Also it is hard *but not impossible) to explain the presence of
harmonics in a brightness curve on purely 'orbit grounds'....so maybe
many stars ARE huff-puffing.

That is all correct.
The question is how many are actually due to BaTh.
More and more it looks like less and less.

.....
So all double stars (with the right orbital plane) at great distances
should show large brightness variations.

Without unification they would, yes...but they don't...

Exactly.
Actually if the observer lies well beyoind the critical distance, no
brightness variation is to be expected, even without unification.

Beyond means inside or outside????
Too close or too far away?

Either answer would seem to reduce the number of Wilson Variable stars
rather drastically.



That is what I'm trying to explain.

There is a simple explaination: the Ritzian model is wrong. Light always
moves at c wrt all observers, even those in the interial FoR of the
source.


Stick to your religious belief if you wish to Bob.

Oh, my faith is not as strong as yours.

I keep looking for flaws in my favorite theories. I love to find such
flaws.


There could be other reasons for it.
....face-on orbits for instance.

I did say 'with the right orbital plane'.

Face on orbits would show no doppler shift in either model. We probably
do not even know they are double stars unless they are optically
separable.

We can usually tell by the type of spectrum if two stars are
contributing to a 'point source'.


Only if they are from different stellar families.






--
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