Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:18:52 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:12:26 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

Stupid old wabo, I've been modelling variables since 1987, of course I know.

The thing is, our brightness curves are also the true velocity curves....or
they would be if only one star was contributing to the curves.

The luminosity is out of phase with velocity.

The phasing is far more complicated than you think..

Astronomers have
used doppler shifts of incoming light to calculate orbital velocities.


Of course. Why shouldn't they?


This is
where they have been going wrong for years.

The problem, H, is phase. Let's say a star is in a perfectly circular
orbit, seen edge-on. When it is coming directly toward us the
light gets here earlier than it should, and when it s moving directly
away the light gets here later than it should. That means we see
an elliptical orbit from the timing of max velocity and min velocity,
yet the orbit was a perfect circle. Max luminosity occurs when
the star is approaching.

The change in 'luminosity' due to velocity is generally negligible.
The change in 'brightness' is what we are discussing.
It is caused by the bunching and rarification of emitted light around the orbit
for instance by the 'hypothetical pulses' we use in our programs.
Maximum brightness occurs due to the bunching of light emitted when the star is
at its furthest point from us....or thereabouts.

So while astronomers get the right velocities, they get them at
the wrong time. I thought you already knew this.

No A. They get completely wrong velocities. The bunching effect is caused by
acceleration. The minute changes in luminosity are due to velocity variations.
George and I call these ADopler and VDoppler processes.

Astronomers observe ADoppler shifts and then treat them with VDoppler equations
.......and get hugely exaggerated velocity figures.

It was only through arguing with
George about pulsars that I realised the mistake.
As you know, pulses bunch together as they travel due to c+v.

Of course.


Astronomers have treated this bunching as Einsteinian doppler shift and arrived
at completely exaggerated velocity values....so when you see a published
velocity curve...don't believe it.

Well, ok, that would make the *acceleration* wrong, and
it is from the acceleration that we determine longitude of
periastron. The velocity is still directly related to the doppler.

This is where George corrected me....and contributed somewhat to his own
downfall.
I was previously working on the assumption that INDIVIDUAL photons did not
experience the same kind of 'bunching' as the pulses. It was only by analysing
pulsar pulse that I found the alternative possibility.
According to our theory, pulses emitted as the neutron star moves around its
orbit should bunch together and separate as they traverse space. However, not
only is their spacing affected, so is the actual pulse width..and by the same
fractional amount.
To cut a long story a bit shorter, the observed wavelengths of light from
orbiting objects such as variable stars is NOT a true reflection of their
actual orbital speeds. It is most likely a gross exageration of those speeds.

It's just that the velocity is stretched and contracted along
the time axis, and that is ... tada... a function of distance.
Remember that the SLOPE of a velocity/time graph is
acceleration. So the max and min velocity values are correct,
but the velocity curve should appear more sinusoidal than it does.

No. If VDoppler equations are used to treat ADoppler wavelength shifts, all the
calculated orbit parameters will be way out.
Have a look at Psr1913+16. Hulse and Taylor got a Nobel for producing a load of
crap based on the assumptoion that it has a highly elliptical orbit.
However the BaTh matches the velocity curve with ADoppler from a CIRCULAR
orbit.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/psr1913+16.jpg
If that's not a good fit, what is?....derived from a simple circular or maybe
very slightly elliptical orbit.


Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

Funny how huff puff star all seem to have companions....

All recurring variables have an orbit. I'm of the opinion
that beat frequencies should be investigated.
For example, Pluto and Neptune.
http://www.nineplanets.org/gif/dobro3.gif

That's why my program allows you to see the individual brightness contributions
of each members of a pair or see the combined effect.
It is this combined brightness that makes the wrongly calculated velocity
curves different in shape and phase from the observed (combined) brightness
curve.

1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.
-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348

Translation:
Forget extinction and uni****ation, put in the pitch you know is there.

Now that I have given up the 'incompressible photon' idea, pitch does indeed
come into the equation. However, I can never actualy calculate the pitch angle.
All I can do is produce a figure for (orbital velocity x cos(pitch).
I also agree that light speed unification is no longer as crucial as I
previously thought.


2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727

Translation:
Forget extinction and uni****ation, put in the pitch you know is there.


3) Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
Translation:
Add in extinction and uni****ation, make is as complicated as it can be
and pretend light travels at one speed only.

Of course the dunces are in confederacy against me, you are one
of them. You are as daft as Tom and Jeery, Phuckwit Duck, Blind Poe, Dishwater, Tusseladd, Jako Epke [Old Man], Dork Van de fumble mumbler... oops... I take that back, nobody is as daft as Dork.

But... no need to feel bad, old chap, even Galileo was wrong.

"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Galileo.html

The moon causing tides is childishness.... I don't think so.

However, uni****ation is childishness when the answer is plain.

Extinction efects might still be needed to explain DeSitter's calculations
about his claimed 'visible' binaries.
I suspect however that he made the same mistakes about calculating orbital
speeds as have all the other astronomers.

Quit ****ing around with the speed of light and program in pitch,

I don't need to. My figure for orbital speed includes it. We cannot separate
the two.

it is all so simple, even Sagnac.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Sagnac/Z1.gif

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

We'll talk about sagnac again soon.


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.