Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:31:57 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Feb 2007 00:38:58 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 15 Feb, 23:15, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 05:33:24 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 15 Feb, 12:48, bz wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote
oups.com:
On 14 Feb, 23:29, bz wrote:
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote

In that case which non-variable spectroscopic
binaries have you analysed and what wa the
predicted light curve?

George, like I said, the biggest problem for me is to find both velocity
and
brightness curves for the same star.

I asked about non-variable stars!

"bz" wrote in message
. 198.139...

The brightness curve looks like this:
----------------------------------------------------





Brightness curves for near circular orbits are pretty well the same so all
I
need is the magnitude change and maximum velocity.

If you can find some examples for me I will try to match them.

You could ask in sci.astro.research, all you need
is the velocity curve and a paper that says "No
brightness variation has been detected to the level
of *** mag."

There are plenty of reason why no brightness variation will be expected.

There appears to be another factor contributing to light speed
unification
other than plain space density of matter.
Maybe this is related to the gravity field of the stars involved. I have
no
explanation as yet.

Gravity would slightly couteract the speed unification
effect but it is a second order effect so increases the
unification distance by about one part in ten thousand
typically, completely irrelevant as you don't know the
distance to within an order of magnitude yet.

I'm not trying to explain it at this stage. I just want to find a
consistent
pattern. Unification distance appears to be definitely related to orbit
period.

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.



Well 'rapid' is subjective. What I mean is very
much less than the parallax distance to the system.

for small period orbits, yes...but not so much for orbits over about a
year.

Once the light leaves the star, the only remnant of that
is the difference between the actual speed and c/n.

However the brightness is predicted to go to
infinity at the critical distance when the first double image would
occur.
Since this doesn't seem to happen and multiple images are not commonly
observed, I am prepared to accept that exinction rates are normally
fairly
high.

That's all I meant. Typically it must be no more
than a fraction of a light year.

No. It doesn't work like that. Something makes it period dependent.

It can only be the speed.

....and maybe distance between 'pulses'. Similar really.

After all,
you cannot unify light with other light that hasn't yet been emitted.

Nothing of that kind was suggested. The pulsar is an
obvious example, each pulse is 45 us or 13.5 km long
and they start out 2.95 ms or 885 km apart. The highest
frequency shift is 30.54 mHz so over the entire journey,
the faster pulses only catch up by 79.7 m. You explained
this yourself in another post:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

The light from these stars still travels throgh similar quality space,
even if
it emitted months later.

Eventually the pulses change speed (asymptotically as has
been said) to c/n but it is the 'quality of space' as you
nicely put it that is responsible, not another bunch of
photons 885 km away, and bear in mind too that the speed
doesn't just come to match adjacent pulses but _all_ the
pulses emitted over the 1.5 day orbit end up at exactly
the same speed.

There's plenty time for that to happen, you figure for
the critical distance is 8 light years and the system is
over 3000 light years away.

there is a lot to be done yet George.


George