Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:43:52 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:
.....
That depends on the geometry. Currently, all your action occurs along
a single, one dimensional line, and you 'scale' things, using trig, to
'emulate' an orbit with tilts in three space, but you make no
allowance for different 'line of sight' paths that the photons would
need to travel.

I know what you are saying and have considered it myself. particularly
in the case of long period orbits where the conditions along the LOS
could be quite different for light emitted, say, one year apart.

give it due consideration.

If it were significant, I doubt if we would get such clear images of
very distant galaxies.

I agree that there would be significant bluring if c'=c+v photons existed.

.....
Yes..but I still don't think it's worth worrying about. Mind you, it
could explain some of the erratic behavior often seen in recorded
brightness curves.

I doubt it, I am not talking about brightness curves here, I am talking
about the image of the star jumping back and forth.

I gather you are likening this to what we often see in the atmosphere
due to lensing in temperature gradients. I don't think that would happen
in space. Like I said, we would see everything so clearly.

You might liken it to that effect, but it should be syncronized with the
relative velocity of the source at the time that the arriving photons were
actually emitted.

Clearly they MUST arrive from the position held by the star when those
photons were emitted (modified by aberation, of course).

If the star moves (and many do) significantly between the time the slow
photons were emitted and when the fast photons were emitted, then the
images formed by each would be in significantly different locations in the
sky.

The faster photons arrive from the direction 'more close to current
actual location in the sky of the star' (which we can't see because the
light from there has not arrived here yet.)

The slower photons come from where the star was when those photons were
emitted.

A star with a high proper motion should look like an airplane at night
with {blinking} red and green lights on the wing tips. The lights being
seen as streaks of different colored light from different locations in
the sky.

The photons would NOT merge into a single image any more than the red
and green lights merge into a single white light.

Well you can speculate as much as you like about this bob.
I can't afford to worry about it at this stage.

I suggest that you can not afford NOT to worry about it
because it may, by itself, drain the BaTh of all viability as a model.

.....
I do use a 'half distance' model.

Which is 'equivalent' to a half life model IF the velocity is constant.

So, what is the 'half distance' or 'half life' of c+v and c-v photons?

And are they the same?

No they still live.

I assumed they remain but become 'c' photons rather than c+v or c-v
photons.

By using 'unification rate', I largely overcome the problem.

I merely vary the rate per lightday until I get about the right
(hipparcos) distance.

Why should photons traveling at .8 c speed up at exactly the same rate
that photons traveling at 1.2 c slow down?

But if they don't 'unify at the same rate' then one or the other would
predominate (and speed up or slow down the 'c' photons). This should
cause some strange effects.

If the orbit is eccentric, there will be more photons emitted that are
in one or the other of the sub/super luminal states. This will produce
an unbalance. Even if you can invent a method of taking energy from the
c+v photons and giving it to the c-v photons, there will be problems
because there will be less of one kind than of the other.

This, in itself is a severe problem for the Ritz model.

Problem or not, something causes my required distances to be
consistently shorter than the hipparcos ones.....and the effect is
period dependent....

Henri, if you take the log of the sum of three sin waves, such as

sumlog(theta)=log(a*sin(theta+alpha)+b*sin(theta+b eta)+c+sin(theta+chi))

and are allowed to set the six parameters a, b, c and alpha, beta and chi
to any values you like, you can produce curves that look like any of the
curves you currently produce with your program.

This does not make the results any more or less significant than the
results of your program.

In fact, as you probably know, you can produce ANY repetitive curve by
summing properly phased and scaled sine wave.


There could be an entirely different explanation....but 'extinction'
seems the most plausible.

It seems less and less likely, the more I think about it.

.....
I'm not going to worry about it.

You must IF your theory is ever going to be acceptable.

Bob, right now my main concern is trying to find decent data to work
with. I wont achieve anything if I just talk about it with you and
George...even though your comments are often helpful.

I try to help. Good to know that at least some of my comments have been
helpful.

.....
It all depends on the star's orbit velocity.

If so, then all doppler binaries, with orbital velocities similar to
those which give the Wilson Curves that match the cephieds, should
show similar variations in brightness.

I dont have enough data to make any definite claims about unification
as yet....except that is appears to happen according to the BaTh.

More like: without adding the magic of unification, BaT fails.
'Magic' because it is difficult to justify speeding up slow photons
while slowing down fast one and still maintain coherent images of the
source.

One might come to that conclusion if the effect wasn't so consistent.
The plain fact is, the BaTh matches many brightness curves very closely.
The only problem is that the distances are usually too short.

That sum of sines, as mentioned, can do the same.

Of course there are many stars that DO vary intrinsically and maybe
I'm trying to match those with a theory that doesn't apply.

Well said!

Well obviously a proportion of binaries must be eclipsing. ...but a
greater proportion could be explained purely by the BaTh since it
produces very similar curves.
Also it is hard *but not impossible) to explain the presence of
harmonics in a brightness curve on purely 'orbit grounds'....so maybe
many stars ARE huff-puffing.

That is all correct.
The question is how many are actually due to BaTh.
More and more it looks like less and less.

.....
So all double stars (with the right orbital plane) at great distances
should show large brightness variations.

Without unification they would, yes...but they don't...

Exactly.
Actually if the observer lies well beyoind the critical distance, no
brightness variation is to be expected, even without unification.

Beyond means inside or outside????
Too close or too far away?

Either answer would seem to reduce the number of Wilson Variable stars
rather drastically.



That is what I'm trying to explain.

There is a simple explaination: the Ritzian model is wrong. Light always
moves at c wrt all observers, even those in the interial FoR of the
source.


Stick to your religious belief if you wish to Bob.

Oh, my faith is not as strong as yours.

I keep looking for flaws in my favorite theories. I love to find such
flaws.


There could be other reasons for it.
....face-on orbits for instance.

I did say 'with the right orbital plane'.

Face on orbits would show no doppler shift in either model. We probably
do not even know they are double stars unless they are optically
separable.

We can usually tell by the type of spectrum if two stars are
contributing to a 'point source'.


Only if they are from different stellar families.






--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:27:10 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

in space. Like I said, we would see everything so clearly.

You might liken it to that effect, but it should be syncronized with the
relative velocity of the source at the time that the arriving photons were
actually emitted.

Clearly they MUST arrive from the position held by the star when those
photons were emitted (modified by aberation, of course).

If the star moves (and many do) significantly between the time the slow
photons were emitted and when the fast photons were emitted, then the
images formed by each would be in significantly different locations in the
sky.

yes but the light still travels through quite similar regions of space.


The photons would NOT merge into a single image any more than the red
and green lights merge into a single white light.

Well you can speculate as much as you like about this bob.
I can't afford to worry about it at this stage.

I suggest that you can not afford NOT to worry about it
because it may, by itself, drain the BaTh of all viability as a model.

The fact that is models many brightness curves is clear support for its
validity.

I do use a 'half distance' model.

Which is 'equivalent' to a half life model IF the velocity is constant.

So, what is the 'half distance' or 'half life' of c+v and c-v photons?

And are they the same?

No they still live.

I assumed they remain but become 'c' photons rather than c+v or c-v
photons.

They approach 'c+u' photons.


Problem or not, something causes my required distances to be
consistently shorter than the hipparcos ones.....and the effect is
period dependent....

Henri, if you take the log of the sum of three sin waves, such as

sumlog(theta)=log(a*sin(theta+alpha)+b*sin(theta+ beta)+c+sin(theta+chi))

and are allowed to set the six parameters a, b, c and alpha, beta and chi
to any values you like, you can produce curves that look like any of the
curves you currently produce with your program.

This does not make the results any more or less significant than the
results of your program.

In fact, as you probably know, you can produce ANY repetitive curve by
summing properly phased and scaled sine wave.

Do you think I'm stupid.
The program operates along very strict lines...based solely on the relative
movement of c+v and c-v light.
There is no way I can fiddle the results.

There could be an entirely different explanation....but 'extinction'
seems the most plausible.

It seems less and less likely, the more I think about it.

Plenty of others think it is very likely. It's not a new idea you know.


One might come to that conclusion if the effect wasn't so consistent.
The plain fact is, the BaTh matches many brightness curves very closely.
The only problem is that the distances are usually too short.

That sum of sines, as mentioned, can do the same.

No it cannot...although I suppose any ellipse is the sum of two sines 90 out.

Of course there are many stars that DO vary intrinsically and maybe
I'm trying to match those with a theory that doesn't apply.

Well said!

Well obviously a proportion of binaries must be eclipsing. ...but a
greater proportion could be explained purely by the BaTh since it
produces very similar curves.
Also it is hard *but not impossible) to explain the presence of
harmonics in a brightness curve on purely 'orbit grounds'....so maybe
many stars ARE huff-puffing.

That is all correct.
The question is how many are actually due to BaTh.
More and more it looks like less and less.

I say the brightness variation of huff-puff stars is still largely a
consequence of the BaTh.

So all double stars (with the right orbital plane) at great distances
should show large brightness variations.

Without unification they would, yes...but they don't...

Exactly.
Actually if the observer lies well beyoind the critical distance, no
brightness variation is to be expected, even without unification.

Beyond means inside or outside????
Too close or too far away?

too far a away....but that shouldn't happen because of extinction anyway..

Either answer would seem to reduce the number of Wilson Variable stars
rather drastically.

Not so, it turns out that many stars in our galaxy have just about the right
velocities and distances to be variable.

Diostance of 100-20,000 LYs, velocities ~0.0001 to 0.000001, periods 1 to 24
months....these are ideal for producing some kind of variability.

That is what I'm trying to explain.

There is a simple explaination: the Ritzian model is wrong. Light always
moves at c wrt all observers, even those in the interial FoR of the
source.


Stick to your religious belief if you wish to Bob.

Oh, my faith is not as strong as yours.

Even SR says an observer will measure the approach of light towards other
moving objects as being different from c. That is what the BaTh is based on.

I keep looking for flaws in my favorite theories. I love to find such
flaws.


There could be other reasons for it.
....face-on orbits for instance.

I did say 'with the right orbital plane'.

Face on orbits would show no doppler shift in either model. We probably
do not even know they are double stars unless they are optically
separable.

We can usually tell by the type of spectrum if two stars are
contributing to a 'point source'.


Only if they are from different stellar families.

which they often are.

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:27:10 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

in space. Like I said, we would see everything so clearly.

You might liken it to that effect, but it should be syncronized with the
relative velocity of the source at the time that the arriving photons
were actually emitted.

Clearly they MUST arrive from the position held by the star when those
photons were emitted (modified by aberation, of course).

If the star moves (and many do) significantly between the time the slow
photons were emitted and when the fast photons were emitted, then the
images formed by each would be in significantly different locations in
the sky.

yes but the light still travels through quite similar regions of space.

I don't understand the relevence.

I am trying to figure out why we don't see multiple images. Light traveling
through similar regions will do nothing to prevent that. So what is the
relevance?

The photons would NOT merge into a single image any more than the red
and green lights merge into a single white light.

Well you can speculate as much as you like about this bob.
I can't afford to worry about it at this stage.

I suggest that you can not afford NOT to worry about it
because it may, by itself, drain the BaTh of all viability as a model.

The fact that is models many brightness curves is clear support for its
validity.

Any curve can be reproduced by the sum of sines.

.....
No they still live.

I assumed they remain but become 'c' photons rather than c+v or c-v
photons.

They approach 'c+u' photons.

You introduce u as a new variable. What is its significance?

Problem or not, something causes my required distances to be
consistently shorter than the hipparcos ones.....and the effect is
period dependent....

Henri, if you take the log of the sum of three sin waves, such as

sumlog(theta)=log(a*sin(theta+alpha)+b*sin(theta +beta)+c+sin(theta+chi))

and are allowed to set the six parameters a, b, c and alpha, beta and
chi to any values you like, you can produce curves that look like any of
the curves you currently produce with your program.

This does not make the results any more or less significant than the
results of your program.

In fact, as you probably know, you can produce ANY repetitive curve by
summing properly phased and scaled sine wave.

Do you think I'm stupid.

I don't spend my time on stupid people.

The program operates along very strict lines...based solely on the
relative movement of c+v and c-v light.

I know how the program operates. I have seen the code. I am sure you have
modified it somewhat since then, but I doubt there have been major changes.

There is no way I can fiddle the results.

Who said anything about 'fiddling' the results?

The program has several parameters that anyone can vary.

There could be an entirely different explanation....but 'extinction'
seems the most plausible.

It seems less and less likely, the more I think about it.

Plenty of others think it is very likely. It's not a new idea you know.

'Extinction' of sub/super luminal photons is NOT thought to be likely by
'plenty of others'.

One might come to that conclusion if the effect wasn't so consistent.
The plain fact is, the BaTh matches many brightness curves very
closely. The only problem is that the distances are usually too short.

That sum of sines, as mentioned, can do the same.

No it cannot...although I suppose any ellipse is the sum of two sines 90
out.

Since your program is just summing, phasing and scaling sine waves,
any waveform it produces can clearly be produced by summed, phased and
scaled sine waves.

.....
The question is how many are actually due to BaTh.
More and more it looks like less and less.

I say the brightness variation of huff-puff stars is still largely a
consequence of the BaTh.

The data does not seem support that assertion.

So all double stars (with the right orbital plane) at great
distances should show large brightness variations.

Without unification they would, yes...but they don't...

Exactly.
Actually if the observer lies well beyoind the critical distance, no
brightness variation is to be expected, even without unification.

Beyond means inside or outside????
Too close or too far away?

too far a away....but that shouldn't happen because of extinction
anyway..

Then we can not see BaTh variable stars in distant galaxies. All variables
there are eclipsing or cephied or some other but not BaTh?

Either answer would seem to reduce the number of Wilson Variable stars
rather drastically.

Not so, it turns out that many stars in our galaxy have just about the
right velocities and distances to be variable.

Diostance of 100-20,000 LYs, velocities ~0.0001 to 0.000001, periods 1
to 24 months....these are ideal for producing some kind of variability.

So all double stars with those parameters should be variable except those
with their orbit perpendicular to the line of sight to earth?

That is what I'm trying to explain.

There is a simple explaination: the Ritzian model is wrong. Light
always moves at c wrt all observers, even those in the interial FoR of
the source.


Stick to your religious belief if you wish to Bob.

Oh, my faith is not as strong as yours.

Even SR says an observer will measure the approach of light towards
other moving objects as being different from c. That is what the BaTh is
based on.

SR uses 'composition' of velocities and any velocity composed with c is c.

If you are talking about
A B
D

and D calculating that light emitted by A may be approaching B at a speed
different from c, you are incorrect.

.....
We can usually tell by the type of spectrum if two stars are
contributing to a 'point source'.


Only if they are from different stellar families.

which they often are.
Agreed. but if they are not then we could not tell if it was a single star
or a double star if their orbit was perpendicular to the line of sight to
earth.





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 04:01:42 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:27:10 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

in space. Like I said, we would see everything so clearly.

You might liken it to that effect, but it should be syncronized with the
relative velocity of the source at the time that the arriving photons
were actually emitted.

Clearly they MUST arrive from the position held by the star when those
photons were emitted (modified by aberation, of course).

If the star moves (and many do) significantly between the time the slow
photons were emitted and when the fast photons were emitted, then the
images formed by each would be in significantly different locations in
the sky.

yes but the light still travels through quite similar regions of space.

I don't understand the relevence.

I am trying to figure out why we don't see multiple images. Light traveling
through similar regions will do nothing to prevent that. So what is the
relevance?

I htink you have i mind optical effects. that's different..


The photons would NOT merge into a single image any more than the red
and green lights merge into a single white light.

Well you can speculate as much as you like about this bob.
I can't afford to worry about it at this stage.

I suggest that you can not afford NOT to worry about it
because it may, by itself, drain the BaTh of all viability as a model.

The fact that is models many brightness curves is clear support for its
validity.

Any curve can be reproduced by the sum of sines.

Bob, my program doesn't produce a range of sines and add them together to get a
result.
It simulates c+v light, that's all.

....
No they still live.

I assumed they remain but become 'c' photons rather than c+v or c-v
photons.

They approach 'c+u' photons.

You introduce u as a new variable. What is its significance?

Ther speed wrt their source is changing continuously. Every swirl in space has
a different speed wrt the source and light passing through tends toward the
equilibrium EM speed in that swirl....so u might be anything...

Problem or not, something causes my required distances to be
consistently shorter than the hipparcos ones.....and the effect is
period dependent....

Henri, if you take the log of the sum of three sin waves, such as

sumlog(theta)=log(a*sin(theta+alpha)+b*sin(thet a+beta)+c+sin(theta+chi))

and are allowed to set the six parameters a, b, c and alpha, beta and
chi to any values you like, you can produce curves that look like any of
the curves you currently produce with your program.

This does not make the results any more or less significant than the
results of your program.

In fact, as you probably know, you can produce ANY repetitive curve by
summing properly phased and scaled sine wave.

Do you think I'm stupid.

I don't spend my time on stupid people.

You sure spend plenty of time on the bright ones.

The program operates along very strict lines...based solely on the
relative movement of c+v and c-v light.

I know how the program operates. I have seen the code. I am sure you have
modified it somewhat since then, but I doubt there have been major changes.

It's a lot better now.
It still needs streamlining but it works and it's quite fast.


There is no way I can fiddle the results.

Who said anything about 'fiddling' the results?

The program has several parameters that anyone can vary.

The idea is to feed in the known values of those parameters...if they can be
obtained.

There could be an entirely different explanation....but 'extinction'
seems the most plausible.

It seems less and less likely, the more I think about it.

Plenty of others think it is very likely. It's not a new idea you know.

'Extinction' of sub/super luminal photons is NOT thought to be likely by
'plenty of others'.

You mix in the wrong circles..


One might come to that conclusion if the effect wasn't so consistent.
The plain fact is, the BaTh matches many brightness curves very
closely. The only problem is that the distances are usually too short.

That sum of sines, as mentioned, can do the same.

No it cannot...although I suppose any ellipse is the sum of two sines 90
out.

Since your program is just summing, phasing and scaling sine waves,
any waveform it produces can clearly be produced by summed, phased and
scaled sine waves.

Yes it's called fourier analysis.

My program doesn't rely on that.

The question is how many are actually due to BaTh.
More and more it looks like less and less.

I say the brightness variation of huff-puff stars is still largely a
consequence of the BaTh.

The data does not seem support that assertion.

Astronomers are still completely mystified by the behavior of cepheids.
That's becasue they are indoctrinated with Einsteiniana.

So all double stars (with the right orbital plane) at great
distances should show large brightness variations.

Without unification they would, yes...but they don't...

Exactly.
Actually if the observer lies well beyoind the critical distance, no
brightness variation is to be expected, even without unification.

Beyond means inside or outside????
Too close or too far away?

too far a away....but that shouldn't happen because of extinction
anyway..

Then we can not see BaTh variable stars in distant galaxies. All variables
there are eclipsing or cephied or some other but not BaTh?

I know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...

Any way you are wrong. The brightness pattern settles down to virtually its
asymptotic state at the extinction distance. The curves will remain the same
beyond that distance.


Either answer would seem to reduce the number of Wilson Variable stars
rather drastically.

Not so, it turns out that many stars in our galaxy have just about the
right velocities and distances to be variable.

Diostance of 100-20,000 LYs, velocities ~0.0001 to 0.000001, periods 1
to 24 months....these are ideal for producing some kind of variability.

So all double stars with those parameters should be variable except those
with their orbit perpendicular to the line of sight to earth?

All stars are in some kind of often complex orbit. A great many ARE variable.
The orbit tilt effectively reduces the peripheral velocities. I would guess
that about 5% of stars in our galaxy are variable by at least 0.1 mag.

Variability ain't easy to measure you know.



Even SR says an observer will measure the approach of light towards
other moving objects as being different from c. That is what the BaTh is
based on.

SR uses 'composition' of velocities and any velocity composed with c is c.

If you are talking about
A B
D

and D calculating that light emitted by A may be approaching B at a speed
different from c, you are incorrect.

No I'm not.
That has been made clear by many SRians here. Light can be assessed to be
approaching another object at other than c.

That's all my program requires.
...
We can usually tell by the type of spectrum if two stars are
contributing to a 'point source'.


Only if they are from different stellar families.

which they often are.
Agreed. but if they are not then we could not tell if it was a single star
or a double star if their orbit was perpendicular to the line of sight to
earth.

Correct. that still leaves about 80% that WILL show two spectra.

Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]

So Ralph, when are you going to get off USENET and actually publish
your findings in a journal?

Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]

So Ralph, when are you going to get off USENET and actually publish
your findings in a journal?

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 04:01:42 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:27:10 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:
.....
If the star moves (and many do) significantly between the time the
slow photons were emitted and when the fast photons were emitted, then
the images formed by each would be in significantly different
locations in the sky.

yes but the light still travels through quite similar regions of
space.

I don't understand the relevence.

I am trying to figure out why we don't see multiple images. Light
traveling through similar regions will do nothing to prevent that. So
what is the relevance?

I htink you have i mind optical effects. that's different..

If BaTh predicts optical effects (it does)
and we do not see those optical effects (we don't)
then BaTh is invalidated.


The photons would NOT merge into a single image any more than the
red and green lights merge into a single white light.

Well you can speculate as much as you like about this bob.
I can't afford to worry about it at this stage.

I suggest that you can not afford NOT to worry about it
because it may, by itself, drain the BaTh of all viability as a model.

The fact that is models many brightness curves is clear support for
its validity.

Any curve can be reproduced by the sum of sines.

Bob, my program doesn't produce a range of sines and add them together
to get a result.
It simulates c+v light, that's all.

Henri, your program 'simulates c+v light' emitted by a moving source along
a single line of sight.

You stick a 'bundle of photons' into a 'packet of photons'. You compute the
speed of that bundle by calculating the relative velocity of the source wrt
earth along that line of sight(you use trig[cosines {sines shifted by 90
degrees}] to do this).

You then allow those packets to travel the distance to earth and calculate
the total photons at any particular point along the way at any particular
time.

What you are doing is equivalent to summing three different scaled sine
functions. The scaling proportional to the distance traveled and the
velocity.

The phase of each of the three functions represents the eccentricity, and
the tilts of the orbit in two different planes.

[hint, I have just given you a method to figure out the answer the 'what
formula does your program use' questions.]

.....

They approach 'c+u' photons.

You introduce u as a new variable. What is its significance?

Ther speed wrt their source is changing continuously. Every swirl in
space has a different speed wrt the source and light passing through
tends toward the equilibrium EM speed in that swirl....so u might be
anything...

This theory would imply that stars beyond gas clouds that are moving with
high velocities wrt earth would have their images displaced in the
direction of the motion of the gas clouds.

The telescope filled with moving water showed that there would be such an
effect when moving through dense media. This is consistent with SR as well
as with BaTh.

It would be very interesting if you could show that photons moving through
a gas cloud RETAINED the velocity that they had in the cloud, even when
they leave that cloud. BaTh would predict the retention of that velocity.

After all, how can those photons know to slow back down(or speed back up)
just because they have entered empty space?

They would then be that much earlier (or later) when they arrive here than
other photons emitted by the same source that missed going through the gas
cloud they went through. And their image would be displaced from the image
drawn by those photons.

.....
There is no way I can fiddle the results.

Who said anything about 'fiddling' the results?

The program has several parameters that anyone can vary.

The idea is to feed in the known values of those parameters...if they
can be obtained.

If that produces results that differ from known brightness curves, you
modify the parameters or your program until the curves look more realistic.

That is the way that model builders work. There is nothing wrong with that.

Once a match is found, you try to figure out why you had to modify the
parameters.

.....
One might come to that conclusion if the effect wasn't so
consistent. The plain fact is, the BaTh matches many brightness
curves very closely. The only problem is that the distances are
usually too short.

That sum of sines, as mentioned, can do the same.

No it cannot...although I suppose any ellipse is the sum of two sines
90 out.

Since your program is just summing, phasing and scaling sine waves,
any waveform it produces can clearly be produced by summed, phased and
scaled sine waves.

Yes it's called fourier analysis.

The decomposition of the curve is.
Building the original curve from sines has a different name.

My program doesn't rely on that.

In effect, it does the same thing.

The question is how many are actually due to BaTh.
More and more it looks like less and less.

I say the brightness variation of huff-puff stars is still largely a
consequence of the BaTh.

The data does not seem support that assertion.

Astronomers are still completely mystified by the behavior of cepheids.
That's becasue they are indoctrinated with Einsteiniana.

I don't think 'completely mystified' is a correct description. There are
models that are consistent with everything we know that are very good at
reproducing their behavior.

.....
Actually if the observer lies well beyoind the critical distance, no
brightness variation is to be expected, even without unification.

Beyond means inside or outside????
Too close or too far away?

too far a away....but that shouldn't happen because of extinction
anyway..

Then we can not see BaTh variable stars in distant galaxies. All
variables there are eclipsing or cephied or some other but not BaTh?

I know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...

Cepheid variables are used to determine the distance of many galaxies.

Any way you are wrong. The brightness pattern settles down to virtually
its asymptotic state at the extinction distance. The curves will remain
the same beyond that distance.

You were the one that said 'no brightness variation is to be expected
[beyond the critical distance].'

Did you mean that once past that distance the 'variability' pattern is
'set' and will not change?

.....
Even SR says an observer will measure the approach of light towards
other moving objects as being different from c. That is what the BaTh
is based on.

SR uses 'composition' of velocities and any velocity composed with c is
c.

If you are talking about
A B
D

and D calculating that light emitted by A may be approaching B at a
speed different from c, you are incorrect.

No I'm not.
That has been made clear by many SRians here. Light can be assessed to
be approaching another object at other than c.

By SR, from the viewpoint of the receiver of the photons, the photons are
always traveling at c, from the moment emitted until they are receive.

The third party observer, D, must use the same formula that B uses when
calculating what B will see when the photons arrive from A.

D may, of course, look at things from D's viewpoint and see that the
photons from A will arrive sooner (or later) at B because A is in motion
wrt B, but when D computes what B will see, s/he must compute things as
seen from B's viewpoint.

That's all my program requires.

Your program is NOT consistent with SR because it has the photons leaving
the source at c'=c+v and traveling toward the earth at that velocity for
some time wrt the viewer on earth.

That is consistent with BaTh but NOT with SR.

We can usually tell by the type of spectrum if two stars are
contributing to a 'point source'.


Only if they are from different stellar families.

which they often are.
Agreed. but if they are not then we could not tell if it was a single
star or a double star if their orbit was perpendicular to the line of
sight to earth.

Correct. that still leaves about 80% that WILL show two spectra.

Those should ALL be Wilson variables. Most are not. Bad for BaTh.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:46:34 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:


I am trying to figure out why we don't see multiple images. Light
traveling through similar regions will do nothing to prevent that. So
what is the relevance?

I htink you have i mind optical effects. that's different..

If BaTh predicts optical effects (it does)
and we do not see those optical effects (we don't)
then BaTh is invalidated.

So far it only preddicts hte shapes of star brightnes curves.....and we DO see
them..
It hasn't failed...


Bob, my program doesn't produce a range of sines and add them together
to get a result.
It simulates c+v light, that's all.

Henri, your program 'simulates c+v light' emitted by a moving source along
a single line of sight.

You stick a 'bundle of photons' into a 'packet of photons'. You compute the
speed of that bundle by calculating the relative velocity of the source wrt
earth along that line of sight(you use trig[cosines {sines shifted by 90
degrees}] to do this).

You then allow those packets to travel the distance to earth and calculate
the total photons at any particular point along the way at any particular
time.

What you are doing is equivalent to summing three different scaled sine
functions. The scaling proportional to the distance traveled and the
velocity.

not quite.
One term (travel time) is D/(1+vcos)...very different......

The phase of each of the three functions represents the eccentricity, and
the tilts of the orbit in two different planes.

Not so Bob.
I only use edge on orbits. That's all I require


[hint, I have just given you a method to figure out the answer the 'what
formula does your program use' questions.]

You are totally confused.

They approach 'c+u' photons.

You introduce u as a new variable. What is its significance?

Ther speed wrt their source is changing continuously. Every swirl in
space has a different speed wrt the source and light passing through
tends toward the equilibrium EM speed in that swirl....so u might be
anything...

This theory would imply that stars beyond gas clouds that are moving with
high velocities wrt earth would have their images displaced in the
direction of the motion of the gas clouds.

They probably are.

The telescope filled with moving water showed that there would be such an
effect when moving through dense media. This is consistent with SR as well
as with BaTh.

It would be very interesting if you could show that photons moving through
a gas cloud RETAINED the velocity that they had in the cloud, even when
they leave that cloud. BaTh would predict the retention of that velocity.

The might be a tiny RI correction. Also it might move straight into another
'cloud' with a different relative speed.

After all, how can those photons know to slow back down(or speed back up)
just because they have entered empty space?

RI. Try it with a glass plate.

They would then be that much earlier (or later) when they arrive here than
other photons emitted by the same source that missed going through the gas
cloud they went through. And their image would be displaced from the image
drawn by those photons.

The movements are too small to cause that kind of effect. It would happen
anyway, BaTh or no BaTh.

The idea is to feed in the known values of those parameters...if they
can be obtained.

If that produces results that differ from known brightness curves, you
modify the parameters or your program until the curves look more realistic.

Bob, the shapes are right. It is only the distance that is in question...and
that shows a consistent error....too consistent to be coincidence.

That is the way that model builders work. There is nothing wrong with that.

Once a match is found, you try to figure out why you had to modify the
parameters.

Only ONE parameter.



Since your program is just summing, phasing and scaling sine waves,
any waveform it produces can clearly be produced by summed, phased and
scaled sine waves.

Yes it's called fourier analysis.

The decomposition of the curve is.
Building the original curve from sines has a different name.

My program doesn't rely on that.

In effect, it does the same thing.

No bob, you are totally confused.


Astronomers are still completely mystified by the behavior of cepheids.
That's becasue they are indoctrinated with Einsteiniana.

I don't think 'completely mystified' is a correct description. There are
models that are consistent with everything we know that are very good at
reproducing their behavior.

None of the models can produce the right kind of brightness curves.

Then we can not see BaTh variable stars in distant galaxies. All
variables there are eclipsing or cephied or some other but not BaTh?

I know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...

Cepheid variables are used to determine the distance of many galaxies.

Since there is no other way of accurately checking, you know you can say that
with confidence.

Any way you are wrong. The brightness pattern settles down to virtually
its asymptotic state at the extinction distance. The curves will remain
the same beyond that distance.

You were the one that said 'no brightness variation is to be expected
[beyond the critical distance].'

Did you mean that once past that distance the 'variability' pattern is
'set' and will not change?

Don't worry about it. The critical distance is not important because extinction
always cuts in well before it.


and D calculating that light emitted by A may be approaching B at a
speed different from c, you are incorrect.

No I'm not.
That has been made clear by many SRians here. Light can be assessed to
be approaching another object at other than c.

By SR, from the viewpoint of the receiver of the photons, the photons are
always traveling at c, from the moment emitted until they are receive.

That is not important for the BaTh.


The third party observer, D, must use the same formula that B uses when
calculating what B will see when the photons arrive from A.

Not important.

D may, of course, look at things from D's viewpoint and see that the
photons from A will arrive sooner (or later) at B because A is in motion
wrt B, but when D computes what B will see, s/he must compute things as
seen from B's viewpoint.

....if D correctly computes what B will see, he will know that B will measure
OWLS as not being c.

That's all my program requires.

Your program is NOT consistent with SR because it has the photons leaving
the source at c'=c+v and traveling toward the earth at that velocity for
some time wrt the viewer on earth.

That is consistent with BaTh but NOT with SR.

Good, That's what it is supposed to be doing.


which they often are.
Agreed. but if they are not then we could not tell if it was a single
star or a double star if their orbit was perpendicular to the line of
sight to earth.

Correct. that still leaves about 80% that WILL show two spectra.

Those should ALL be Wilson variables. Most are not. Bad for BaTh.

Not so. I told you why. velocities are generally far too small.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...WilsonFake.JPG This
message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the
computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for
a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234
http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/im...l/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:46:34 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:


I am trying to figure out why we don't see multiple images. Light
traveling through similar regions will do nothing to prevent that. So
what is the relevance?

I htink you have i mind optical effects. that's different..

If BaTh predicts optical effects (it does)
and we do not see those optical effects (we don't)
then BaTh is invalidated.

So far it only preddicts hte shapes of star brightnes curves.....and we
DO see them..
It hasn't failed...

You ignore the effect that I have repeatedly mentioned, that the light must
come from the direction 'where the star was when the light was
emitted'[modified by aberration]. So WH variable stars with large proper
motion MUST result in the fast photons coming from a different location in
the sky than the slow photons. This would make the image waltz back and forth
in time with the orbit RATHER than showing up as variations in brightness.

c+v predicts this effect. SR/GR does not.

If you can show that the effect occurs, you will go a long way to making c+v
a viable theory.

If it is never observed, c+v is falsified.



Bob, my program doesn't produce a range of sines and add them together
to get a result.
It simulates c+v light, that's all.

Henri, your program 'simulates c+v light' emitted by a moving source
along a single line of sight.

You stick a 'bundle of photons' into a 'packet of photons'. You compute
the speed of that bundle by calculating the relative velocity of the
source wrt earth along that line of sight(you use trig[cosines {sines
shifted by 90 degrees}] to do this).

You then allow those packets to travel the distance to earth and
calculate the total photons at any particular point along the way at any
particular time.

What you are doing is equivalent to summing three different scaled sine
functions. The scaling proportional to the distance traveled and the
velocity.

not quite.
One term (travel time) is D/(1+vcos)...very different......

Not so different. It is still a trig function.

The phase of each of the three functions represents the eccentricity,
and the tilts of the orbit in two different planes.

Not so Bob.
I only use edge on orbits. That's all I require.

Then pitch is ignored by the program?



[hint, I have just given you a method to figure out the answer the 'what
formula does your program use' questions.]

You are totally confused.

I suspect we disagree upon who is confused.

They approach 'c+u' photons.

You introduce u as a new variable. What is its significance?

Ther speed wrt their source is changing continuously. Every swirl in
space has a different speed wrt the source and light passing through
tends toward the equilibrium EM speed in that swirl....so u might be
anything...

This theory would imply that stars beyond gas clouds that are moving
with high velocities wrt earth would have their images displaced in the
direction of the motion of the gas clouds.

They probably are.

If they were, there would be visible effects.


The telescope filled with moving water showed that there would be such
an effect when moving through dense media. This is consistent with SR as
well as with BaTh.

It would be very interesting if you could show that photons moving
through a gas cloud RETAINED the velocity that they had in the cloud,
even when they leave that cloud. BaTh would predict the retention of
that velocity.

The might be a tiny RI correction. Also it might move straight into
another 'cloud' with a different relative speed.

After all, how can those photons know to slow back down(or speed back
up) just because they have entered empty space?

RI. Try it with a glass plate.

Photons leaving a glass plate do NOT slow down, they return to the velocity
they had before they entered the plate (c).

You, on the other hand, need for them to change speed, permanently, AND for
different photons to change speed differently. Some must slow down and others
must speed up. THAT requires a special kind of magic.

They would then be that much earlier (or later) when they arrive here
than other photons emitted by the same source that missed going through
the gas cloud they went through. And their image would be displaced from
the image drawn by those photons.

The movements are too small to cause that kind of effect. It would
happen anyway, BaTh or no BaTh.

BaTh would exacerbate the effect. The fast photons would bunch together and
come from one location. The slow photons would bunch together and come from a
different location in the sky. Intermedia velocity photons would come from
yet another location, between the two.

Double star systems with high proper motion would appear quite different than
they do.


The idea is to feed in the known values of those parameters...if they
can be obtained.

If that produces results that differ from known brightness curves, you
modify the parameters or your program until the curves look more
realistic.

Bob, the shapes are right. It is only the distance that is in
question...and that shows a consistent error....too consistent to be
coincidence.

The shapes might be right IF the line of sight to the system did not change.
If the line of sight changes between when slow and when fast photons are
emitted, then your shapes can not be right.

That is the way that model builders work. There is nothing wrong with
that.

Once a match is found, you try to figure out why you had to modify the
parameters.

Only ONE parameter.

pitch, yaw, eccentricity, period, phase difference, observer distance,
brightness, max velocity(ratio), radius, max velocity, R(inner circle)

I count 11 parameters, then there is extinction and overtones.

Looks like more than one parameter to me, by an order of magnitude.

Since your program is just summing, phasing and scaling sine waves,
any waveform it produces can clearly be produced by summed, phased and
scaled sine waves.

Yes it's called fourier analysis.

The decomposition of the curve is.
Building the original curve from sines has a different name.

My program doesn't rely on that.

In effect, it does the same thing.

No bob, you are totally confused.

How many parameters?

Astronomers are still completely mystified by the behavior of
cepheids. That's becasue they are indoctrinated with Einsteiniana.

I don't think 'completely mystified' is a correct description. There are
models that are consistent with everything we know that are very good at
reproducing their behavior.

None of the models can produce the right kind of brightness curves.

'right kind'?
What would be the 'right kind' and how are the curves you produce BETTER than
those produced by other models?

Then we can not see BaTh variable stars in distant galaxies. All
variables there are eclipsing or cephied or some other but not BaTh?

I know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...

Cepheid variables are used to determine the distance of many galaxies.

Since there is no other way of accurately checking, you know you can say
that with confidence.

Cepheid variables are observed in distant galaxies. That contradicts your 'I
know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...'

Any way you are wrong. The brightness pattern settles down to
virtually its asymptotic state at the extinction distance. The curves
will remain the same beyond that distance.

You were the one that said 'no brightness variation is to be expected
[beyond the critical distance].'

Did you mean that once past that distance the 'variability' pattern is
'set' and will not change?

Don't worry about it. The critical distance is not important because
extinction always cuts in well before it.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'critical distance'?
Why should I not worry about it when you say something that is contradictory
to something else you (or reality) has said?

I suggest you NOT follow the advice you give others. If you encounter a
contradiction, WORRY about it!

Therein lurks the possiblity for discovery and greatness.

and D calculating that light emitted by A may be approaching B at a
speed different from c, you are incorrect.

No I'm not.
That has been made clear by many SRians here. Light can be assessed to
be approaching another object at other than c.

By SR, from the viewpoint of the receiver of the photons, the photons
are always traveling at c, from the moment emitted until they are
receive.

That is not important for the BaTh.

When you are are making claims about what SR says, it is very important that
you NOT distort what SR says.

The third party observer, D, must use the same formula that B uses when
calculating what B will see when the photons arrive from A.

Not important.

It is vital. Your argument falls apart when you say things wrong.


D may, of course, look at things from D's viewpoint and see that the
photons from A will arrive sooner (or later) at B because A is in motion
wrt B, but when D computes what B will see, s/he must compute things as
seen from B's viewpoint.

...if D correctly computes what B will see, he will know that B will
measure OWLS as not being c.

Not in an SR/GR universe. You claimed that SRians said something that would
NOT be correct under SR. EIther 1) they said something wrong or 2) you
misunderstood what they said.

That's all my program requires.

Your program is NOT consistent with SR because it has the photons
leaving the source at c'=c+v and traveling toward the earth at that
velocity for some time wrt the viewer on earth.

That is consistent with BaTh but NOT with SR.

Good, That's what it is supposed to be doing.

It would be good if the program ALSO showed an understanding of SR/GR and its
predictions so that the discrepancies could be studied.


which they often are.
Agreed. but if they are not then we could not tell if it was a single
star or a double star if their orbit was perpendicular to the line of
sight to earth.

Correct. that still leaves about 80% that WILL show two spectra.

Those should ALL be Wilson variables. Most are not. Bad for BaTh.

Not so. I told you why. velocities are generally far too small.

Why? Many of them have velocities similar to those you use in your Wilson
variable simulations. And they are far enough away that we should be seeing
the brightness variations predicted by your progra, but we do not. Why?


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.




--
bz 73 de N5BZ k

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap