Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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