Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

Henri Wilson wrote:

Anyway, put the numbers into your program and tell
me what you get and then we can discuss their
interpretation. Check the results for zero distance
first and make sure you get the right speed and phase.

Naturally for zero distance I get no brightness variation.
The observed velocity is in phase with the true velocity.

You should still get a very small variation due to the
conventional bunching you reminded me of at the top.

Not if the observer is at the orbit centre.

He isn't saying to put the observer at the orbit centre, he
is saying to locate the observer just in front of the light
source so that your program output shows the effect of the
initial bunching of the pulses due to the changing position
of the star, but not the bunching which occurs in transit.

At each iteration, the observer is at zero distance from
the source, but is treated as being motionless, as usual.
It is as if there were 30,000 observers round the orbit,
each motionless relative to the orbit centre, but placed
immediately in front of the source.

If your program is unable to do that, you should be able to
put the observer at the near side of the orbit. Apparently
you have simplified the program to treat an orbiting star
as a reciprocating point, oscillating back and forth in the
line of sight. Just place the observer at the near end of
the stroke.

I can't see the point.
There will be no opportunity for bunching and no brightness
variation. All I will see is conventional doppler frequency
variation using constant c.

There will be a small amount of bunching and brightness
variation from the advancing and retreating position of the
emitter, but basically you are right, what you see will be
very close to the conventional variation. That simulation
is like zeroing out a spring scale before weighing. Once
you have obtained results for the zero case, you can then go
on to look at differences between those initial (very small)
bunching and brightness changes, and the much larger changes
caused by bunching in transit.

George, I think you are refering to the pulses emitted by
the pulsar itself. These will be observed to have a cyclic
doppler shift.

The 'bunching of pulses' I refer to is not the same.

Are you saying that light pulses emitted by pulsars bunch
in a manner different from that of light pulses emitted by
other types of star?

Well basically no.... but it is the way they are handled
that matters. Pulsar pulses don't become any more intense
just because they 'bunch'. Nobody talks about the brightness
curve of a pulsar because the pulses are very constant.

What distinguishes pulsar light from other starlight is that
it is *not* constant. Is that a problem for your program?
The bunching process is the same, but your program is
designed to represent brightness changes in a continuous
stream of light, not in a chopped stream?

You said, 'The program assumes the star emits identical
pulses of light towards the observer at regular intervals
as it moves around its orbit...'

If it can handle pulses of light from a regular star, why
can't it handle pulses of light from a pulsar?

I use symbolic pulses from a star of constant brightness
emitted at equi-temporal points around the orbit. These
travel at varying c+cos(v) speeds towards a distant obsever.
The rate at which they arrive at the observer should then
simulate its brightness curve there.

So apply that to the pulsar.

There is no observed brightness variation reported
but that can probably only be taken to say any
variation is less than 1 mag, the existing single
measurements are no more accurate than that.

Most variations are around 1.5 mag or less.
...and yes, I don't have much faith in the accuracies of
many published figures.

Aside from dwarf novae, the only regularly-variable dwarf
stars I know of are ZZ Ceti variables. Wikipedia says:
"These non-radially pulsating stars have very short periods
of 0.5 to no more than 25 minutes with tiny fluctuations of
0.001 to 0.2 magnitudes."

there are millions of stars varying by 0.3 to 1.6 mags.
Cepheids (as they are broadly named) are the most interesting.

The star you asked for information about is a white dwarf.
I responded with relevant information about white dwarf
variability. We are not concerned at the moment with
other star types.

Leonard

Henri Wilson wrote:

How does the light know that it should adjust its speed
relative to the barycentre rather than something else?

In actual fact light only 'knows' of one object, its own
source. ...

How does the light determine its speed relative to the
barycentre of the system it has left?

It leaves at between c+v and c-v in the observer direction,
wrt the orbit centre. I'm saying, that in time, it unifies
to something like c wrt that centre. Don't ask me how or
why... but this seems to happen in varying amounts according
to the BaTh.

It is most astonishing. Light from the star adjusts its
speed relative to something with which it has no connection.

If the light came only from the far side of the orbit,
would it unify relative to the mean radial speed during
that half-orbit, instead of unifying relative to the mean
radial speed over the full orbit?

I presume it unifies to the mean, rather than the median.
Is that correct?

No, you don't seem to understand this properly.
The suggestion is that all light emitted in any particular
direction unifies towards c in the barycentre frame. For
circular orbits, it starts out with velocities in the range
c+v to c-v wrt the barycentre in that direction. For
elliptical orbits the range will be biased somewhat,
depending on the eccentricity and yaw angle.

The example I used was a bad choice, but your reply tells
me that it doesn't matter: The light doesn't unify relative
to either the mean or the median of the emission speeds,
but to the speed of the barycentre. I was speculating that
perhaps the whole beam of light averaged its speed over
time. Instead, you say the light adjusts its speed relative
to the barycentre of the system from which it was emitted.

Does light readjust its speed relative to the barycentre
of a system that it passes through? For example, if the
speed of light emitted from the Moon is first unified
(or partially unified) relative to the barycentre of the
Earth-Moon system, does the light then change speed if it
happens to pass through the Saturn-Titan system, to unify
relative to the barycentre of the Saturn-Titan system?
And does the light again readjust its speed to unify
relative to the barycentre of the Galaxy?

As you say in your first reply quoted above, the light
should only 'know' of one object, its own source. So it
is most puzzling how it can also be aware of the various
barycentres, know which barycentre it must unify its speed
relative to, and know the amount of adjustment required.

The only explanation I can suggest is that all large mass
centres are surrounded by some kind of weak EM reference
frame....and these extend well away from the objects
themselves.

I gather that what you meant was some kind of weak EM
*field* which changes the speed of light passing through
it closer to c. The strength of such a field would have
to be nearly constant with distance, so that light speed
can eventually unify yet not unify too rapidly. If the
strength of the EM field fell off at the same rate as the
gravitational field, light from the far side of the orbit
which passes close to the primary body would be unified
much more rapidly than light which does not pass close to
the primary.

Would light leaving the Moon toward a distant viewer unify
its speed to c relative to the Earth-Moon barycentre or to
the Moon-Sun barycentre?

For a three body system, The radial velocity would be
something like c+Acos(xt)+Bcos(yt).

The max amd min are c+A+B and c-A-B.

That seems reasonable.

So I presume there would be two separate unification
processes occuring simultaneously at different rates.
The A would go towards zero over relatively short
distances followed by the B over larger distances.

So light from the Moon would tend to unify relative to the
Earth-Moon barycentre, and then tend to unify relative to
the Moon-Sun barycentre.

It is a puzzle how the light could seem to know that it
was emitted from a body which is orbiting other bodies.
And it is a puzzle how the light could seem to know its
speed relative to the different barycentres.

Like I said above, there must be some kind of reference
frame surrounding large masses.

I say this because unification rate appears to be dependent
on orbit period. Don't ask me why. There could be an entirely
different explanation as to why the hipparcos distances are
generally longer than those I need to match brightness curves.

The obvious relationship is that the shorter the orbit
period, the higher the radial speed, and thus the greater
the initial bunching effect, so the unification distance
needs to be shorter in order to prevent excessive bunching
during transit.

That is true...but it doesn't explain why the actual
unification rate itself should be period dependent.
What could make space around short period binaries
different from that around longer period ones?

I think that if you look at the numbers for a few stars,
you will find that the unification rate depends directly
on the maximum speed, rather than period.

I know there could be an entirely different explanation
for this....but I cannot see it.

The things which are closest at hand can sometimes be the
most difficult to see.

Leonard

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 00:36:42 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:59:26 -0000, "George Dishman"

But you cannot ever get that because the variable
speed messes up the Doppler equation. As with any
modelling technique, you put in your initial guess
of the actual parameters, the program caclulates
the observed signals and then you iterate until
the predicted observables match that actuals.

Ah, but I only need a value for the MAXIMUM orbital speed.

Ah, but you cannot know that, all you know is the
maximum Doppler shift.

That's all I need.

The BaTh and SR
doppler equations are effectively the same.

No they aren't, that's the whole point. Look at the
bottom of your reply where you agree the _apparent_
speed should reach c at the critical distance!

Yes.... but during extinction, the wavelength contracts or expands, so as to
still maintain the correct details of source velocity.

I feed in the max value and then try to match the brightness curve. In
doing so
I obtain velocity curves at both the source and the observer.

George, the latest upgrade of my program is now on my website if you would
like
to use it. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
I have removed most of the bugs although it doesn't have comprehensive
instructions as yet. Extinction doesn't work for circular orbits.

That's OK, your existing distance factor can be
essentially used as the extinction factor as long
as we are observing from a much greater distance.

It can. ..or you can set eccentricity at 0.01

I really need three quantities, Vmax, distance and magnitude change. I
can
determine yaw angle and orbit eccentricity when matching the basic SHAPE
of a
brightness curve ....if I have such a curve.

All that can ever be observed are the spectral shift
and brightness for normal stars or the PRF for pulsars.
none of your results are valid unless you are working
back from those.

Like I said, all I need is period, distance and a value for the maximum
radial
velocity.

Like I said, what you have is maximum Doppler shift.

No problem.

For elliptical orbits, this has to be corrected for yaw angle, which I can
determine from curve shape.

Not a problem, this one is circular (you snipped the
figure of ~10^-7 for eccentricity earlier).


The pulses are assumed to move at (c+v)cos(a) towards a distant
observer,
where
a is the angle between the orbit tangent and the LOS.

Rats! I assumed you would ignore the cos(a) term because
the orbit radius is much smaller than the distance to
the system so cos(a) ~ 1.


Sorry that should have been c + v.cos(a) where v is the tangential speed
at any
point and a a function of time.
This merely describes the radial velocities towards the observer from all
points around the orbit.

The point stands, I assumed something incorrect so
my comment was wrong and I understand why you were
confused by it. Anyway it's easy to get round as
I say later, just use 1 light hour for the distance.

Setting the distance to zero is
then equivalent to finding the rate that the pulses hit
a flat plane perpendicular to the line of sight say just
beyond the orbital radius and before any bunching can take
place, or having the right orbital speed but zero radius.

The program then
calculates the arrival times of all the pulses emitted over a number of
orbits
at the observer distance.
At any instant the pulse positions form a regular spatial pattern. As
this
pattern moves past the observer, it gives the impression of brightness
variation. (dn/dt = dn/dx.dx/dt)

Thus, a bunching of pulses shows up as a brightness increase.

That's what I expected. At the distance where the
pulses first overlap (the fast ones catch the slow
ones) you get zero time between pulse arrivals hence
the inverse is an infinite number per second or
infinite brightness. It isn't really infinite as
there are only a finite number of pulses in the
stream but the calculation will go to very high
levels.

That's right. It does....but I have realised that this never happens,
probably
becasue of extinction.

That's why it sets an upper limit to the extinction
distance, the whole point of this excercise.

This is why DeSitter was wrong...and his argument has
always been the only 'evidence' against the BaTh.

No, the Sagnac experiment rules it out, this is only
every going to be a hypothetical curiousity.

I'm not going to debate sagnac again.
You rely too much on the rotating frame...which can be very confusing.


If I produce a 'brightness curve' for the pulsar, its height will reflect
the
number of pulses arriving per unit time...not its 'brightness'. Pulsars
are
constant.

Yes, that's why I said I wasn't really interested in
the brightness as such, but it has been helpful in
finding the critical distance.

It could be, yes.



....So I'm not with you at all, here.

Understandable, I made an assumption about your
software that wasn't correct. The orbital radius
is 1.9 light seconds so if you set the distance
to one light hour, there should be minimal
bunching as the critical distance (below) is
8 light years and cos(a) = 0.999999861. You
should get the conventional curves to 1 part
in 10^7.

What curve are you talking about George?

The red curve for the apparent speed. If you enter
27km/s the red curve should show that deviation
above and below the white axis. It would help if
you added a vertical scale or we cannot confirm
that. I'm presuming the value in the table on the
left called "Max. Vel." is your assumption for the
actual speed which you entered rather than the
highest point on the red curve.

The velocity curves are set to always have the same size on the screen. The
scale is linear and yes, the maximum is that shown in the velocity box. Ity
should be the saem fro both rd and blue curves.

I have realised though that when using ellitical orbits I have to compensate
for Yaw angle because the maximum observed velocity is not necessarily the
velocity at periastron.

Not the pulsar curve I hope. I don't claim that is a result of the BaTh at
all.
It's a spinning neutron star.

Step 2. Increase the distance until you just get
the velocity curves going to infinity and tell me
what distance you get.

I assume you mean the 'brightness curves'.

Effectively yes. I should have said the speed goes
to c, not to infinity.

Consider the pulsar at four points in the orbit
round the barycentre '+':

D

A + C Earth

B

The diagram assumes the motion is anti-clockwise.

The highest acceleration towards Earth occurs at
point A. Look closer at two consecutive pulses
assuming they occur equally either side of A:

v - * ~ -- slow, c-v
A-(
* - v ~ -- fast, c+v

At the critical distance, the fast pulse just
catches the slow pulse after 8 light years so
they arrive simultaneously for an observer at
that distance.

Compare that with the conventional view. It says
the maximum Doppler would be at point B. For the
pulses to arrive simultanseously, the pulsar would
have to be moving at c to keep up with the first
pulse and emit the second alongside.

I am guessing that the critical distance should be
around 4 light years but let's see what your program
says before we get on to the more interesting stuff.

Period = 0.0042 years
Velocity = 0.0000933c

Critical distance = ~ 8 LYs.

See: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/J1909-3744.jpg

Note that the observed velocity curve (red) is very different from the
real
curve (blue) at that distance.

I asked and you answered:

2) Have you corrected your program to show the velocity curve
that would be derived from the ballistic Doppler shift?[*]

Yes.

At the point where the brightness goes to infinity,
the time between pulses goes to zero and the velocity
curve (red I think) should peak at c.

That is correct.

That should be
coincident with point A which should be where your
blue line crosses the white axis and is rising.

No it's more subtle than that. the point varies with distance.

I'm assuming you have related the phase back to the
source system. In other words you subtract the mean
time from the barycentre to the observer from the
actual time. Otherwise a few light hours change to
distance would create a major apparent phase shift.

There is second
order term involving the 'rate of change of acceleration'. You have
omitted it.

I don't believe there is such a term but that's why
I want to do the short distance test first.

No, I was wrong there, although not entirely. The main reason the point moves
is due solely to the difference in emission times. For short distances, a half
period is quite significant.

(I'm having some trouble producing the right colours with Vbasic on
windowsXP).

The colours are distinguishable on the jpeg so I that's
fine. The real concern is with the phase shift between
the blue and others. I'll have to give a little more
thought to the effect of propagation speed on arrival
time but have a think about what I'm saying and see if
you think your program is producing what I expect.

I have looked closely at this myself before.

The point of maximum brightness moves in phase wrt the source velocity
curve as
distance in varied.

You might like to run the 'lightfronts' section of my program. It shows
just
how the pulses move away from the source. Increase the time scale to about
20.

What I might do is try to produce my own version so
I can check what I expect. Your GUI is very unfriendly
or at least it was last time I tried to use it.

It is much improved now.

Good luck if you try to write a program.
Mine has taken about six years to perfect, on and off.
There is some tricky programming.

In the meantime, we will need to know the speed for
the peak of the red curve in comparison to the number
you enter so perhaps you could consider adding either
a speed scale or a box with the value at the peak like
the max/min brightness box.

No, both peaks have the same value.
Unification doesn't affect the interpretation of doppler shift. I explained
why..
When light enters a glass plate, it slows and its wavelength decreases. The
number of wavecrests passing a point per second is the same as it was outside
the glass.

When starlight moving at c+v reaches the Earth's EM reference frame, it slows
to c wrt Earth. Its absolute wavelength decreases to Lc/(c+v). That's exactly
what you would expect using constant c. (actually its L(c-v)/c, virtually the
same for all practical speeds)

Unification in interstellar gas converts all light from the star to near c wrt
the source but the ABSOLUTE wavelengths of the c+v and c-v light are shifted
oppositely in the process.

So measured doppler shift on Earth should still be a true indicator of the
source's relative speed.





George

On 18 Feb 2007 19:27:15 -0800, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

How does the light know that it should adjust its speed
relative to the barycentre rather than something else?

In actual fact light only 'knows' of one object, its own
source. ...

How does the light determine its speed relative to the
barycentre of the system it has left?

It leaves at between c+v and c-v in the observer direction,
wrt the orbit centre. I'm saying, that in time, it unifies
to something like c wrt that centre. Don't ask me how or
why... but this seems to happen in varying amounts according
to the BaTh.

It is most astonishing. Light from the star adjusts its
speed relative to something with which it has no connection.

If the light came only from the far side of the orbit,
would it unify relative to the mean radial speed during
that half-orbit, instead of unifying relative to the mean
radial speed over the full orbit?

I presume it unifies to the mean, rather than the median.
Is that correct?

No, you don't seem to understand this properly.
The suggestion is that all light emitted in any particular
direction unifies towards c in the barycentre frame. For
circular orbits, it starts out with velocities in the range
c+v to c-v wrt the barycentre in that direction. For
elliptical orbits the range will be biased somewhat,
depending on the eccentricity and yaw angle.

The example I used was a bad choice, but your reply tells
me that it doesn't matter: The light doesn't unify relative
to either the mean or the median of the emission speeds,
but to the speed of the barycentre. I was speculating that
perhaps the whole beam of light averaged its speed over
time. Instead, you say the light adjusts its speed relative
to the barycentre of the system from which it was emitted.

Does light readjust its speed relative to the barycentre
of a system that it passes through? For example, if the
speed of light emitted from the Moon is first unified
(or partially unified) relative to the barycentre of the
Earth-Moon system, does the light then change speed if it
happens to pass through the Saturn-Titan system, to unify
relative to the barycentre of the Saturn-Titan system?
And does the light again readjust its speed to unify
relative to the barycentre of the Galaxy?

As you say in your first reply quoted above, the light
should only 'know' of one object, its own source. So it
is most puzzling how it can also be aware of the various
barycentres, know which barycentre it must unify its speed
relative to, and know the amount of adjustment required.

Well if you read my original message in my thread "the light super highway",
you would have probably found te answer to that.
I regard the universe as resembling a huge, low density turbulent gas. Every
swirl acts like a very weak EM frame of reference. There is a natural EM speed
within every swirl WRT THAT SWIRL. The speed of all light entering a swirl will
tend towards that natural speed but might never get anywhere near it before it
emerges from the other side.
So I believe light is changing speed continuously as it crosses space...but by
very small amounts. The same process tends to unify all light traveling in any
one direction because the effect in any swirl is proportional to the difference
between natural and real speeds..


The only explanation I can suggest is that all large mass
centres are surrounded by some kind of weak EM reference
frame....and these extend well away from the objects
themselves.

I gather that what you meant was some kind of weak EM
*field* which changes the speed of light passing through
it closer to c. The strength of such a field would have
to be nearly constant with distance, so that light speed
can eventually unify yet not unify too rapidly. If the
strength of the EM field fell off at the same rate as the
gravitational field, light from the far side of the orbit
which passes close to the primary body would be unified
much more rapidly than light which does not pass close to
the primary.

Something like that, yes.

Would light leaving the Moon toward a distant viewer unify
its speed to c relative to the Earth-Moon barycentre or to
the Moon-Sun barycentre?

For a three body system, The radial velocity would be
something like c+Acos(xt)+Bcos(yt).

The max amd min are c+A+B and c-A-B.

That seems reasonable.

So I presume there would be two separate unification
processes occuring simultaneously at different rates.
The A would go towards zero over relatively short
distances followed by the B over larger distances.

So light from the Moon would tend to unify relative to the
Earth-Moon barycentre, and then tend to unify relative to
the Moon-Sun barycentre.

It is a puzzle how the light could seem to know that it
was emitted from a body which is orbiting other bodies.
And it is a puzzle how the light could seem to know its
speed relative to the different barycentres.

Like I said above, there must be some kind of reference
frame surrounding large masses.

I say this because unification rate appears to be dependent
on orbit period. Don't ask me why. There could be an entirely
different explanation as to why the hipparcos distances are
generally longer than those I need to match brightness curves.

The obvious relationship is that the shorter the orbit
period, the higher the radial speed, and thus the greater
the initial bunching effect, so the unification distance
needs to be shorter in order to prevent excessive bunching
during transit.

That is true...but it doesn't explain why the actual
unification rate itself should be period dependent.
What could make space around short period binaries
different from that around longer period ones?

I think that if you look at the numbers for a few stars,
you will find that the unification rate depends directly
on the maximum speed, rather than period.

I hope it's that simple. You are probably right.

I obtained a figure for unification rate from Algol. It is around 0.99993 per
lightday...but Algol might be a genuinely eclipsing star. I'll see what else I
can dig up.

I know there could be an entirely different explanation
for this....but I cannot see it.

The things which are closest at hand can sometimes be the
most difficult to see.

definitely



Leonard

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:39:33 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:29:52 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz

...
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.

I just noticed this in passing, that is not correct
Henry. Brightness variation still occurs but it
grows more slow as the speed difference decays. The
sum under an (inverse) exponential is finite, so
the distance in your program is actually the
integrated effect.

For the pulsar you are modelling for example, if
the area under the speed difference curve adds up
to the same as the initial difference time 8 light
years then the brightness curve will be as you
show here

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/J1909-3744.jpg

even though we are 4000 light years away. In fact
that curve will apply for any Hipparcos distance
more than about 100 light years. In other words,
as long as the observer distance is much greater
than the extinction distance, the D in your program
is actually the latter.

THat is true. The distance required to match a curve IS the extinction
distance
(or about 99.9999%)

No distances ever reash the critical one where multiple images
appear....or
that's what appears to happen.

I was only pointing out that without extinction, stars at very great
distances
should not appear to vary because the number of images should become very
high.

Yes but you also then get a very odd effect on the
spectrum which isn't seen either. The extinction
must always be much less than the critical distance.

Yes. I'm going to assume that is true, anyway.

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 Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:02:58 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

"PD" wrote in
roups.com:

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

...
Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it
implies circularity is what's wrong.

....

I showed how to derive the formula with trivial mathematical
circularity. Does that make me as great as Einstein ...or greater...?


Well, Henri, as I explained to you in great detail, there is nothing
circular about it. You started with the presumption that c is
constant, independent of the reference frame, and used that derive the
correct rule for the addition of velocities. That is precisely the
right way to do it. Circularity would entail concluding what you
started with, and that is not what you're doing. If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

Henri, another way of saying it is this:
If one is speaking of how SR says things 'should be', then one must (at
least for the sake of the discussion in progress) accept the postulates of
SR and the derived conclusions.

If one is doing so, then the BaTh statement c'=c+v would be expressed (in
SR) as c' = composition(c,v) and the results will always be c.

Nothing terribly unexpected about this. But it does invalidate attempts to
say that SR requires photons leaving a moving source to know the velocity
of the target so that they arrive there at c.

.....but it doesn't invalidate the concept of a single absiolute aether frame.

The other important point PD made might be reworded as "if we were to
compute the 'relative velocity' using any other rule than the composition
rule, the results would not agree with expermental data".

how would you know? OWLS has never been measured...nor can it be...

For example, two particles approach each other at v1 and v2,
if v_effective=v1+v2 were correct, rather than
v_effective=composition(v1,v2)
then dozens of years of expermental data from particle accelerators around
the world would have given much different results from those that have been
seen.

I don't think so. They are concerned with energy and the circularity of SR
would probably multiply and dive\die by the same factor somewhere..

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can NOT
use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or v2 are a
significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by experiment)
predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:15:08 GMT, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:02:58 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

"PD" wrote in
groups.com:

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

...
Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it
implies circularity is what's wrong.

....

I showed how to derive the formula with trivial mathematical
circularity. Does that make me as great as Einstein ...or greater...?


Well, Henri, as I explained to you in great detail, there is nothing
circular about it. You started with the presumption that c is
constant, independent of the reference frame, and used that derive the
correct rule for the addition of velocities. That is precisely the
right way to do it. Circularity would entail concluding what you
started with, and that is not what you're doing. If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

Henri, another way of saying it is this:
If one is speaking of how SR says things 'should be', then one must (at
least for the sake of the discussion in progress) accept the postulates of
SR and the derived conclusions.

If one is doing so, then the BaTh statement c'=c+v would be expressed (in
SR) as c' = composition(c,v) and the results will always be c.

Nothing terribly unexpected about this. But it does invalidate attempts to
say that SR requires photons leaving a moving source to know the velocity
of the target so that they arrive there at c.

....but it doesn't invalidate the concept of a single absiolute aether frame.

The other important point PD made might be reworded as "if we were to
compute the 'relative velocity' using any other rule than the composition
rule, the results would not agree with expermental data".

how would you know? OWLS has never been measured...nor can it be...

For example, two particles approach each other at v1 and v2,
if v_effective=v1+v2 were correct, rather than
v_effective=composition(v1,v2)
then dozens of years of expermental data from particle accelerators around
the world would have given much different results from those that have been
seen.

I don't think so. They are concerned with energy and the circularity of SR
would probably multiply and dive\die by the same factor somewhere..

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can NOT
use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or v2 are a
significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by experiment)
predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

Correction: That should be 'from a moving source'.

It might be just possible to compare OWLS from two differently moving
sources...but not in the lab.

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.