Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

... My point is that I doubt the technique
has been tried because the velocity due to the
variable diameter would hide any overall motion
due to a planet.

That is probably true in most cases, although you can't be sure that the
observed velocity figures are really due to huff puffing and not to orbital
movement.

That's what I just said Henry, it would be hard
to tell the difference so I doubt the technique
has been applied.

And why don't those nearby systems with planets show Wilson Variability
in brightness along with the doppler shift and wobble that they
display?

Similarly, why don't all spectroscopic binaries
show extreme variability?

That is a very good question. I think it has been asked of Henri before.

answered.

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.
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.

Yes, that's why I said "the value". Basically, he
can chose k in the earlier equation as any arbitrary
function of the local density but then has to stick
with it, and probably the form of that equation would
be dictated by the physics any way, probably
proportional to the density on the assumption that
each encounter with a particle was independent, leaving
only a simple constant to be determined empirically.

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.

If the speeds unify so fast on nearby stars (including Cepheids) that we do
not see differences in aberation and stellar position for slow vs fast
photons, then the speeds would unify too fast for brightness variation to
be significant.

I think aberation and stellar position effects are
going to be too small to be noticeable even with
significant brightness variations, but the apparent
Doppler variations would then imply non-Keplerian
orbits. After all, once the fast photons catch the
slow ones, the Doppler goes to infinity as would
the inferred orbital speed ;-) Very rapid extinction
is the only way round that.

...not necessarily so 'rapid'.

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.

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

George

"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
98.139...

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 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.

If the speeds unify so fast on nearby stars (including Cepheids) that
we do
not see differences in aberation and stellar position for slow vs
fast
photons, then the speeds would unify too fast for brightness
variation to
be significant.

I think aberation and stellar position effects are
going to be too small to be noticeable even with
significant brightness variations, but the apparent
Doppler variations would then imply non-Keplerian
orbits. After all, once the fast photons catch the
slow ones, the Doppler goes to infinity as would
the inferred orbital speed ;-) Very rapid extinction
is the only way round that.

...not necessarily so 'rapid'.

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.

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.

George

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

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

Such as?

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.

I am.

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.

Not in the slightest, the phrase "distance between"
has no meaning for a single pulse, speed has. The
only way you can avoid multiple pulses is if the
speed difference decays in much less than the
critical distance.

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.

You can play with hypothetical theories for ever.

George

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:10:58 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:31:57 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:

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.

Such as?

Too close, moving too slowly...
If two similar stars are orbiting in nearly circular orbits, their
contributions to a combined brightness curve will just about nullify each
other.
I tried to expain this to Andersen in the case of HD10875


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.

I am.

But you don't really know.


It can only be the speed.

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

Not in the slightest, the phrase "distance between"
has no meaning for a single pulse, speed has. The
only way you can avoid multiple pulses is if the
speed difference decays in much less than the
critical distance.

I'm concerned by the fact that light from one part of the orbit will be
'unified' before light from another part is even emitted. I can see a problem
there but haven't been able to work out exactly what it might be.

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.

You can play with hypothetical theories for ever.

particularly when it keeps producing the right results.


George

On 19 Feb, 05:09, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:10:58 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:31:57 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:
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.

Such as?

Too close, moving too slowly...

The distance is usually known from Hipparcos or
so far away that it is academic for this purpose.

The velocity can be determined from the spectrum
of course and your program is then supposed to
tell us the velocity, but in general nearby stars
that are too close to resolve must be moving quite
fast.

If two similar stars are orbiting in nearly circular orbits, their
contributions to a combined brightness curve will just about nullify each
other.

Unde certain circumstances that might be
possible but the two light curves can be
separated spectroscopically, the depth of
spectral lines should vary with one set
rising while the others fade.

I tried to expain this to Andersen in the case of HD10875

Which of the above did you suggest applied?

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.

I am.

But you don't really know.

Yes I do, it would make a difference of about
45 parts per million to the critical distance
for the pulsar for example (mental arithmetic,
E&OE).

It can only be the speed.

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

Not in the slightest, the phrase "distance between"
has no meaning for a single pulse, speed has. The
only way you can avoid multiple pulses is if the
speed difference decays in much less than the
critical distance.

I'm concerned by the fact that light from one part of the orbit will be
'unified' before light from another part is even emitted. I can see a problem
there but haven't been able to work out exactly what it might be.

Don't worry, the star emits for billions of years
so that's always going to be the case. However the
speed of any individual photon can only respond to
the "quality of the space" it is passing through (I
like your phrase, nicely general). It isn't a problem
unless you are looking for excuses to explain why
your theory doesn't work when the time comes.

George

On 19 Feb 2007 05:32:38 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 19 Feb, 05:09, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:10:58 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:31:57 -0000, "George Dishman"
will be expected.

Such as?

Too close, moving too slowly...

The distance is usually known from Hipparcos or
so far away that it is academic for this purpose.

The velocity can be determined from the spectrum
of course and your program is then supposed to
tell us the velocity, but in general nearby stars
that are too close to resolve must be moving quite
fast.

George, my program DOES NOT tell us anything about the maximum velocity.
Where did you get the idea that it does?

If two similar stars are orbiting in nearly circular orbits, their
contributions to a combined brightness curve will just about nullify each
other.

Unde certain circumstances that might be
possible but the two light curves can be
separated spectroscopically, the depth of
spectral lines should vary with one set
rising while the others fade.


I tried to expain this to Andersen in the case of HD10875

Which of the above did you suggest applied?

The addition of two sine curves 180 out...... plus extinction.

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.

I am.

But you don't really know.

Yes I do, it would make a difference of about
45 parts per million to the critical distance
for the pulsar for example (mental arithmetic,
E&OE).

George, measurements made on Earth about the rate of change of velocity in the
Earth's gravity field don't really tell us much about the possible role that
the whole solar gravity field might play in regard to a local EM frame of
reference, if such exists.
Light entering that frame from outside and initially moving at c+v wrt Earth
might be affected much more than you think.
However I basically agree with what you say. Gravity is probably too weak to be
a major factor.



I'm concerned by the fact that light from one part of the orbit will be
'unified' before light from another part is even emitted. I can see a problem
there but haven't been able to work out exactly what it might be.

Don't worry, the star emits for billions of years
so that's always going to be the case. However the
speed of any individual photon can only respond to
the "quality of the space" it is passing through (I
like your phrase, nicely general). It isn't a problem
unless you are looking for excuses to explain why
your theory doesn't work when the time comes.

George