Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 21 Apr 2007 05:25:27 -0700, George Dishman wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 19 Apr 2007 03:44:41 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
...
If you get your head round this you'll see that this much higher
value is what you expect to be the _published_ velocity curve. It
is nothing like the true velocity.

....but nobody except you and I has ever considered using the green
brightness
curve to calculate the source velocity.

The penny still hasn't dropped - what everyone has always been doing
is measuring the actual shift which in your model is TDoppler, the
combination of both V and A parts, and then publishing "velocity" curves
by using the equation that would be applicable if _only_ VDoppler existed.
To do a comparison with those published curves, you need to plot that
false velocity - what I thought was your red curve.

I now have a third model. The compression of individual photons is much
'diluted'.

It is nothing more than handwaving, you have given
no equations, and it nonsense both physically and
mathematically but laying those aside, it would still
affect both curves identically so we don't even need
to consider it.

Your whole argument is based on the clasical wave theory of light ...which is
known to be wrong.

My theory is perfectly sound.


Yes, and a little consideration of Fourier analysis tells you that
must
be the case. You have it correct Henry, now just add the red curve to
the plot so we don't have to use a calculator to get the figures.

Here is a summary of our current findings:

Let's start with some more fundamental findings.

The effects we see are the result of TDoppler.

Ballistic theory defines the speed that every part of
a wave travels hence tells us without any further
consideration what the effects will be.

What you are calling a 'wave' is the property of a very large group of photons.

You have successfully modelled the luminosity variation
as a function of the orbital parameters as your green
curve.

The same curve on a linear scale can be used for the
velocity curve with a simple scale conversion.

The velocity curve is a direct measure of TDoppler.

Luminosity variation can be a combination of TDoppler
and intrinsic variation.

VDoppler is negligible for stars.

ADoppler alone produces very accurate brightness curves.

Only if the orbital velocity you use is that determined
by conventional theory. You have claimed before that the
values used by astronomers are much too high and that is
a valid conclusion from ballistic theory.

This certainly appears to be true for pulsars.

VDoppler requires
assumptions about the intrinsic brightness of cepheids to match their
brightness curves.

The only assumption is that intrinsic variation can increase
the total variation which is not a problem. If it required
that intrinsic variation was synchronised and 180 out of
phase so that it reduced the total I would object.

OK

Both ADoppler alone and VDoppler alone can produce the correct shape and
phasing of associated OBSERVED velocity curves.

The curve is due to TDoppler, there aren't two different
mechanisms, just the different dependencies for a single
effect.

I would say there are.
....and ADoppler exists only in the BaTh.

But if the ADoppler velocity curve is the same as its brightness curve
then the
velocity variation is far too high. Pulsars seem to fo;;ow VDoppler
predictions but, if pulsar curves are matched with the BaTh curves, then
all
currently calculated pulsar velocites are far higher than the true ones.

VDoppler could be correct in all instances....but I have now suggested a
possible alternative explanation for this.

The correct statement is that TDoppler can be correct in
all instances. That leads to the conclusion that your
"extinction distance" is quite small and similar for
all types of stars which to my mind is a bonus, not a
problem. I have no idea why you are objecting to that
conclusion.

My objection is that I couldn't produce my brightness curves with VDoppler
alone.

And nor does VDoppler, there would be no Doppler whatsoever because
they would be launched with the same "absolute wavelength" as you
called it regardless of speed.

In BaTh, the VDoppler effect is independent of distance. If gratings are
purely
wavelength dependent, they shouldn't detect VDoppler.

Ah but they do, however that is not a problem. You are
forgetting your "cars on the motorway" analogy. Speed
equalisation means that the light is moving at c when
it reaches us and since the frequency must be unchanged
the wavelength becomes altered. Whether gratings measure
frequency or wavelength becomes moot because both will
give the same answer.

OK Let's assume that.

ADoppler takes place while the source is accelerating..

No, it is caused by the acceleration at the point of
emission but it takes place during propagation just
as the conversion of VDoppler from fixed wavelength -
variable speed to variable wavelength - common speed.
Both require that photons be fully compressible.

I'm not sure if I fully agree with this. You are again trying to apply
classical wave theory to ballistics.

The problem is we don't really know what 'light wavelength' is.
Is it solely related to the properties of individual photons or is it a group
thing?
In reality, we don't even know that individual photons exist.


No, their wavelengths stay the same.

Yes, that's what I meant. After leaving their accelerating source, they
experience no further changes.

Right, but since photons from the sources have the same
"absolute wavelength" at emission regardless of the speed
of the source (a point you have made many times), if they
are incompressible then there is no VDoppler either. The
effect of speed equalisation would be to slow down or speed
up the photons until they were travelling at c while leaving
their wavelength unaltered. By the time they reach us they
would all be moving at c and all have the same wavelength
so they would all have the same frequency too. Whatever
method is used to measure them, there would be no Doppler
effect whatsoever. Incompressible photons simply doesn't
work.

Ah! no, I qualified my statement by pointing out that they DO change 'length'
every time they experience a velocity change. They are 'compressible' but the
'ends' don't continue to move relatively AFTER the acceleration...not for long
anyway.

My red curve merely showed the phase position of photon arrival compared
with
their phase of emission. There was no change in wavelength from the
original
VDoppler.

That's why it was wrong.

It wasn't wrong... but it wasn't designed to do what you want it to do.

OK, but it was wrong in the context of modelling ballistic
theory. Showing a red curve, or even just putting two scales
on the same curve, one log in magnitudes and the other linear
in km/s, will give you the true ballistic theory prediction.

....easier said than done.....

Then you just match the velocity curve with whatever parameters
you like and you can claim your match and then see what it tells
you about the physics of space.

Incidentally, if you do a search for "Methods to Account for Interstellar
Extinction" you will find thousands of references that might be useful.

I have made my case that you can succeed with just two
very credible assumptions - that Cepheids have some
intrinsic variation that adds to the TDoppler effect and
that eclipses sometimes happen. You can then match all
the experimental data, including fitting to the empirical
Shapiro delay curve, and the result says speed equalisation
is a short distance effect for _all_ stars.

Your alternative is building a model that contradicts
ballistic theory and requires space properties that
depend on the period of the star that produced the light
passing through it.

Henry, it is very odd but I seem to be in the position
of telling you why ballistic theory works for this
limited test, and you are telling me why it doesn't!

....but I suspect you want to eliminate ADoppler altogether...and hence throw
the BaTh out with it.

What's going on here? Of course it still fails Sagnac
and it predicts the wrong sense for the Shapiro delay
(which is why you can only fit an empirical curve) but
I'm curious to know why you are arguing against me.

Phase George, Phase.

I'm not actually arguing...I'm keeping an eye out for bigger things that might
come out of this.

I like my latest theory. "Photons are much less compressible than their
groups".

George


www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.