Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 8 Jun, 00:18, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 20:41:44 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:19:01 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
On 4 Jun, 22:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

It has been modified. I can't dpo any beter without spending a lot more
time
and it I would prefer you used your imagination.....which you have done
below.

I think you could have done better with less effort,
it still shows the overall sphere moving which is not
correct.

Yes it is. The big sphere belongs to the larger star and moves with IT.

There are two aspects, first consider an alpha particle
in the solar wind at the radius of Pluto but far from
any of the planets. The motion of the Jupiter slightly
changes the gravitational _acceleration_ but not the
location or speed directly so from that point of view
changes in the sphere are limited to distances from the
source star comparable to the radius of its movement
round the barycentre.

On the other hand, we have detected signals from CMEs
running into the termination shock. There is significant
random variation from such outbursts. Basically the
effect of motion due to that of the source is far less
than the noise and showing the outer regions as unmoving
would be more accurate.

The
small sphere is centred around the smaller star. In actual fact the large
sphere should have a bump on it..but that's too hard.

Only close in.

I assume also , the shorter the period, the greater the phase lag between
sphere and star.

Probabably but it is moot beyond a small region in the centre.

If you want to do it properly, you should probably
calculate an inverse square for each star and add
them at each point and then plot a contour map but
that's a lot of effort for little gain.

Yes. I have shown the basic principle. That's enough at this stage.

It is misleading though, the sphere shouldn't be moving.

Did you read what I said in the other thread about using Maxwell's
equation to
explain this?

I didn't but I don't see that it relates to my point,
the light can only respond in one way so it must be
the combination and showing two separate spheres is
misleading.

Ah, but you shouldn't assume that light speed is completely determined by the
sphere. I have stressed that it is a weak effect, that takes time and distance.

It isn't an assumption, we calculated distances of circa
a light minute and the sphere is many light hours in radius.

(use fixed pitch)

-S |a |b

b--|---------------------------//--------------------------|---------------*-----------------------Earth

-s |a' |b'

S and s represent a binary pair of stars, orbiting a barycentre b. At
points a
and a', which are near the two stars and at rest wrt the baycentre,
Maxwell's
two constants are measured.
The resulting calculation shows light speed to be c+v and c-v respectively
wrt
the barycentre. (The readings are clearly affected by the movement of the
two
masses).

You get the permeability and permittivity of the
material and from that a refractive index. The
speed is then c/n relative to the material for
both stars. That would transform to the frame of
the barycentre in accordance with Fizeau's
measurements. It wouldn't be c+v or c-v but a
speed that depended primarily on the outward speed
of the material wrt the barycentre.

I'm not thinking in terms of 'solar wind' any more.
I'm suggesting other factors are responsible such as charge.

The only charges _are_ the solar wind.

I reckon if you measure Maxwell's two factors when moving relative to a star
you will not get c for an answer. the closer you ar to it, the greater will be
the deviation...just a hunch...

You don't get c, you get c/n and yes n it will be
greater in the denser material closer to the star.

In summary, my concept of EM reference spheres is fully supported and
explained by Maxwell's equations.

Not true, for a given set of measurements, Maxwell's
Equations only give a single value of speed. Ballistic
theory requires that, at least initially, light from
one star has a different speed from light from the
other so ballistic theory is always going to be
incompatible with Maxwell's Equations.

You didn't read my experiment.

I did but it doesn't illustrate the problem so I
wrote a similar version that does.

What I am saying is that if you perform experiments to measure the
permeability
and permittivity of space whilst MOVING TOWARDS THE SUN at v, then you
would
calculate light speed to be c+v.

What I am saying is that if you perform experiments to
measure the permeability and permittivity of space, you
get a single value for each. That tells you the speed
of light at that location relative to your instruments.
Light from a spacecraft moving towards you at 0.1c and
one moving away at 0.1c would both have that speed
according to Maxwell but would have different speeds
according to ballistic theory. Forget Maxwell's
Equations Henry, they are of no use to you.

On the contrary. If you had bothered to think about the experiment I described
you would understand why.

And if you read mine you should see why ballistic
theory is incompatible. Your version only has a
single light source so doesn't show the problem
that Maxwell's Equations give one value for the
speed while ballistic theory requires light from
different sources to move at different speeds.

True.
I don't think the solar wind is the main factor in this. I think it could
be
something to do with electric charge and the capacitance of volumes of
space.

Space has no charge though, it is only the charged
particles, mainly electrons, protons and alpha
particles, that cause the deviation from the
vacuum value.

That's oversimplifying the problem.
There is a 'field around every charge. It permeates space. What does that
imply?

That the absence of charges implies an absence of fields
and that the fields move with the charges. In our topic
the charges are those in the stellar wind.

I don't see your point, I am saying the change to
uniform speed is essentially complete before the
light leaves the sphere. Are you disagreeing?

Yes. I am assuming planets don't have significant 'spheres'.

Well they have an atmosphere perhaps but it is of
limited extent.

Very limited. It wont significantly affect the light from the star.

Right, so we can ignore planets and my point stands,
the change to uniform speed is essentially complete
before the light leaves the sphere of the star.

If ony one star is involved, light speed wrt the star's surface generally
doesn't change much as it passes through the sphere. It would still leave
the sphere at around c wrt the star and c+v wrt Earth.
However that wouldn't be true for short periods because the sphere would
most likely lag well behind the star.

OK, assume the inner regions of the sphere move with
the star but the outer regions lag so there is some
difference in speed between the star and the outer
edge of the sphere. My point is that since the speed
equalisation distance is much smaller than the sphere,
the light is in equilibrium, essentially moving at c/n
as it passes through the sphere and it leaves at c (or
c/n) relative to the edge of the sphere, not the star.

Two points:
We can probably assume the inverse square law applies...so what happesn son the
outskirts maty not be very important.

We know the distance is short overall. If the equalisation
factor varies as inverse square, the equalised speed would
be in equilibrium with the material close in but might
decouple in the farther regions, but the flow speed becomes
relatively constant there (variations due to CMEs and other
stellar events are more significant).

secondly, we cannot assume refractive index operates as it would in the case of
a pure 'matter medium'.

We can because refractive index is simply defined as the
ratio of the speed to c.

No need Henry. Close in it would be complex but the
light is always changing to be c/n relative to the
part of the sphere it is travelling through so by the
time it leaves at the termination shock (or whatever
boundary you choose), it is only the last bit that
defines the speed entering the ISM.

But the spheres aren't homogeneous by any means. Their 'strength' must
drop off
rapidly with distance for one thing.

Sure, they both drop at around inverse square but
so what? The light rapidly reaches c/n relative
to the mean motion of the mix.

As it departs the sphere, its speed approaches c wrt the mix...ie., basically,
wrt the star.

No, wrt the mix is correct but remember the mix is
moving at perhaps 400 km/s relative to the Sun and
should be something of that order for other stars
too.

It might be very slightly different from c due to an 'outer
layer' effect....and this could indeed explain certain small differences
between BaTh predictions and actual observed brightness curves.

Not really, all the light is moving at the same speed
so the c+v and c-v difference has been eliminated.

You need to study the history of science a bit,

(I've written a book on it, will that do?).

Maybe you should have learnt the subject before
writing the book, physics starts with observations
and tries to derive concepts to explain them.

that's basically what I said.
...the maths come later...

No, _empirical_ maths is how the observations are
made into usable tools, concepts follow from the
maths.

as verification and for technology to follow.

Maths is used to model an initial concept and do some quantitative
analysis..

Look at the development of quantum theory. It didn't
start with the corpusclar theory of light which was
conceptual and a dead end, it cam first from observation
to which The Rayleigh fitted a simple empirical formula.
It didn't attempt to give an explanation, it was just a
useful tool. That had the drawback of the ultra-violet
catastrophe which Wein solved again by fitting a better
curve to the data. Planck solved that and was driven to
the idea of quantisation in attempting to resolve the
problem at low frequencies. The concept came out of the
third iteration of empirical physics.

Planck merely fiddled with curves till he found one that fitted.

Exactly - the empirical maths came before the concept, and
Rayleigh and Wein's maths came before Planck's work.

.and these can be quite philosophical ..but it is
still physics.
I'm a firm believer in models George. They don't have to be mechanical but
they
will always be physical....because if they aren't already, they will
immediately define a new branch of physics.

They're nice to have - we all want to understand, but
physics isn't about understanding, it is about making
accurate predictions.

Predictions are indeed important. My program correctly predicts variable star
curves, using BaTh.

No, you still have your maths wrong.

Huygens tells you their direction of motion, your
handwaving doesn't so it isn't 'better', in fact
it isn't a theory since it doesn't allow you to
calculate the direction of the beam while Huygens'
method does.

Leonard Kellogg agrees with me.

I haven't seen his post yet.

George