Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:34:03 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:04:08 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:

Not at all, I expect you to model J1909-3744, PSR1613+16
and J0737-3039A/B but I've learned from experience that
you waste a lot of time looking at multiple examples if
you haven't got the software right for the first one.

The original software is correct to 1 part in c/v...except maybe for a few
orbit diameters from the source.

The _original_ software was wrong by four orders of
magnitude, but that's going back a bit and I think
you fixed that.

It wasn't wrong and it didn't need fixing.
My 'incompressible photon' model was the problem.

More recently you said you didn't
get a phase shift at near zero distance when I
asked what distance gave 45 degrees. Hopefully you
have now fixed that.

The phase shift is 90...at short distances but 'moves' as the emission delay
becomes less important.

The pulse separation method is completely accurate for circular obits,
(for
one star only)
You George, have never produced even ONE brightness curve...nor are you
capable
of doing so.

I did last year, or have you forgotten.

Ony a rough one.

When you can plot linear velocities (blue and red) with
scales in m/s and brightness curves in magnitude as well
as relate them to the orbital phase using the Shapiro
effect and use those to determine the orbital parameters
and the speed equalisation distance, then we will look at
all three. My guess is that you will find more excuses
for not doing the work because you are scared of what you
will find.

You are asking me to match data, wrongly interpreted with Einsteiniana, ..

No, I'm challenging you to match the data recorded at
the observatory using ballistic theory only, but that
includes matching the orbital phase.

How do we know the orbital phase of a variable star George?

using a
theory that ridicules Einsteiniana. That's a bit pointless isn't it?

That's only a guess, I don't know what they will show
myself, but you won't take the risk whereas I will. Sort
your program, then we can put it to use.

My program is sorted George...
It isn't available yet though.

OK, I'll wait.

George



"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:12:27 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On 25 Mar 2007 07:36:34 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 25, 2:41 am, "Jerry" wrote:

Actually, of course, they orbit around their common
barycenter, so what's the big deal?

It is very BIG.

It means I don't need anywhere near as much extinction to explain the distance
anomaly. Orbit pitch can also be included in the equation.

What's this, Wilson?
How can you get pitch from a point source, Wilson?
All orbits are edge-on, Wilson, you said so.
In fact you don't need ANY extinction, it is ALL explained by pitch,
you stupid old wabo.

ALL right...you fluked the right explanation....BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY.....
AND STILL DON'T.


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

On 25 Mar 2007 18:13:26 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 25, 6:21 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 25 Mar 2007 01:41:16 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 24, 4:22 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Good....now can you provide me with its brightness curve?

Sure. The white dwarf has virtually constant brightness.

Evidence please....

CORRECTION

A relatively young white dwarf, whose thermonuclear heat engine
has only recently been extinguished, may very well go into
an oscillatory phase as it cools through the instability strip.

A brief period of oscillation is part of the normal dying
behavior of many white dwarfs.

My rough plot of the white dwarf companion of PSR J1909-3744
on an H-R diagram shows that it has long cooled past any
possible presence on the instability strip.

Therefore it has constant brightness.

My god woman, MOST stars have constant brightness. That's what we have been
trying to tell you.
They only appear to vary because of the bunching of light due to c+v as they
move around an orbit.
This even applies to huff-puff stars, if such exist, ...and don't argue because
nobody has yet come up with a plausible theory that connects their brightness
variation with their huffing.

Anyway thankyou for having the courage to admit you lied when you said you had
seen the brightness curve of the dwarf.

As dead stars which do not support thermonuclear reactions,
white dwarf stars in general lack "heat engines" which would
support oscillatory pulsations such as might be exhibited by,
say, dwarf Cepheids.

Change that statment to read, "white dwarf stars in general
lack 'heat engines' which would support SUSTAINED oscillatory
pulsations..."

I can see you are finally coming round to my way of thinking.
Congratulations...there's hope for you yet.

Jerry


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:12:27 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On 25 Mar 2007 07:36:34 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 25, 2:41 am, "Jerry" wrote:

Actually, of course, they orbit around their common
barycenter, so what's the big deal?

It is very BIG.

It means I don't need anywhere near as much extinction to explain the distance
anomaly. Orbit pitch can also be included in the equation.

What's this, Wilson?
How can you get pitch from a point source, Wilson?
All orbits are edge-on, Wilson, you said so.
In fact you don't need ANY extinction, it is ALL explained by pitch,
you stupid old wabo.

ALL right...you fluked the right explanation....BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY.....
AND STILL DON'T.


Stupid old wabo, I've been modelling variables since 1987, of course I know.

Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.


1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.
-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348

Translation:
Forget extinction and uni****ation, put in the pitch you know is there.


2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727

Translation:
Forget extinction and uni****ation, put in the pitch you know is there.


3) Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
Translation:
Add in extinction and uni****ation, make is as complicated as it can be
and pretend light travels at one speed only.

Of course the dunces are in confederacy against me, you are one
of them. You are as daft as Tom and Jeery, Phuckwit Duck, Blind Poe, Dishwater, Tusseladd, Jako Epke [Old Man], Dork Van de fumble mumbler... oops... I take that back, nobody is as daft as Dork.

But... no need to feel bad, old chap, even Galileo was wrong.

"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Galileo.html

The moon causing tides is childishness.... I don't think so.

However, uni****ation is childishness when the answer is plain.

Quit ****ing around with the speed of light and program in pitch,

it is all so simple, even Sagnac.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Sagnac/Z1.gif

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:12:26 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:12:27 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

What's this, Wilson?
How can you get pitch from a point source, Wilson?
All orbits are edge-on, Wilson, you said so.
In fact you don't need ANY extinction, it is ALL explained by pitch,
you stupid old wabo.

ALL right...you fluked the right explanation....BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY.....
AND STILL DON'T.


Stupid old wabo, I've been modelling variables since 1987, of course I know.

The thing is, our brightness curves are also the true velocity curves....or
they would be if only one star was contributing to the curves. Astronomers have
used doppler shifts of incoming light to calculate orbital velocities. This is
where they have been going wrong for years. It was only through arguing with
George about pulsars that I realised the mistake.
As you know, pulses bunch together as they travel due to c+v.
Astronomers have treated this bunching as Einsteinian doppler shift and arrived
at completely exaggerated velocity values....so when you see a published
velocity curve...don't believe it.


Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

Funny how huff puff star all seem to have companions....



"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

On Mar 24, 4:02 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Your problem is that you accept the 'data'....when it is completely wrong.


This remark right here is what separates you from scientists, Henri.
At this point, and in accordance with your remark, you are espousing
religion, not science. A very small, cultish religion, mind you, but a
religion nonetheless.

PD

On Mar 24, 4:22 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:


Except that we can see it with a telescope and it
has a spectrum just like lots of other white dwarfs.

...what, an ordinary black body spectrum?
That could be anything.

Like what?

If you knew anything about physics you wouldn't ask questions like that.


This is what Ralph says when he doesn't know the answer. It's a
defensive gesture, an attempt to talk the ball back into your court.

PD

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:12:26 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:12:27 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

What's this, Wilson?
How can you get pitch from a point source, Wilson?
All orbits are edge-on, Wilson, you said so.
In fact you don't need ANY extinction, it is ALL explained by pitch,
you stupid old wabo.

ALL right...you fluked the right explanation....BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY.....
AND STILL DON'T.


Stupid old wabo, I've been modelling variables since 1987, of course I know.

The thing is, our brightness curves are also the true velocity curves....or
they would be if only one star was contributing to the curves.

The luminosity is out of phase with velocity.

Astronomers have
used doppler shifts of incoming light to calculate orbital velocities.


Of course. Why shouldn't they?


This is
where they have been going wrong for years.

The problem, H, is phase. Let's say a star is in a perfectly circular
orbit, seen edge-on. When it is coming directly toward us the
light gets here earlier than it should, and when it s moving directly
away the light gets here later than it should. That means we see
an elliptical orbit from the timing of max velocity and min velocity,
yet the orbit was a perfect circle. Max luminosity occurs when
the star is approaching.
So while astronomers get the right velocities, they get them at
the wrong time. I thought you already knew this.

It was only through arguing with
George about pulsars that I realised the mistake.
As you know, pulses bunch together as they travel due to c+v.

Of course.


Astronomers have treated this bunching as Einsteinian doppler shift and arrived
at completely exaggerated velocity values....so when you see a published
velocity curve...don't believe it.

Well, ok, that would make the *acceleration* wrong, and
it is from the acceleration that we determine longitude of
periastron. The velocity is still directly related to the doppler.
It's just that the velocity is stretched and contracted along
the time axis, and that is ... tada... a function of distance.
Remember that the SLOPE of a velocity/time graph is
acceleration. So the max and min velocity values are correct,
but the velocity curve should appear more sinusoidal than it does.


Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

Funny how huff puff star all seem to have companions....

All recurring variables have an orbit. I'm of the opinion
that beat frequencies should be investigated.
For example, Pluto and Neptune.
http://www.nineplanets.org/gif/dobro3.gif




1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.
-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348

Translation:
Forget extinction and uni****ation, put in the pitch you know is there.


2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727

Translation:
Forget extinction and uni****ation, put in the pitch you know is there.


3) Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
Translation:
Add in extinction and uni****ation, make is as complicated as it can be
and pretend light travels at one speed only.

Of course the dunces are in confederacy against me, you are one
of them. You are as daft as Tom and Jeery, Phuckwit Duck, Blind Poe, Dishwater, Tusseladd, Jako Epke [Old Man], Dork Van de fumble mumbler... oops... I take that back, nobody is as daft as Dork.

But... no need to feel bad, old chap, even Galileo was wrong.

"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Galileo.html

The moon causing tides is childishness.... I don't think so.

However, uni****ation is childishness when the answer is plain.

Quit ****ing around with the speed of light and program in pitch,

it is all so simple, even Sagnac.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Sagnac/Z1.gif

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

On 26 Mar 2007 06:02:51 -0700, "PD" wrote:

On Mar 24, 4:02 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Your problem is that you accept the 'data'....when it is completely wrong.


This remark right here is what separates you from scientists, Henri.
At this point, and in accordance with your remark, you are espousing
religion, not science. A very small, cultish religion, mind you, but a
religion nonetheless.


The point I have made is far too subtle for you Draper.
Go away.

PD


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:18:52 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:12:26 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

Stupid old wabo, I've been modelling variables since 1987, of course I know.

The thing is, our brightness curves are also the true velocity curves....or
they would be if only one star was contributing to the curves.

The luminosity is out of phase with velocity.

The phasing is far more complicated than you think..

Astronomers have
used doppler shifts of incoming light to calculate orbital velocities.


Of course. Why shouldn't they?


This is
where they have been going wrong for years.

The problem, H, is phase. Let's say a star is in a perfectly circular
orbit, seen edge-on. When it is coming directly toward us the
light gets here earlier than it should, and when it s moving directly
away the light gets here later than it should. That means we see
an elliptical orbit from the timing of max velocity and min velocity,
yet the orbit was a perfect circle. Max luminosity occurs when
the star is approaching.

The change in 'luminosity' due to velocity is generally negligible.
The change in 'brightness' is what we are discussing.
It is caused by the bunching and rarification of emitted light around the orbit
for instance by the 'hypothetical pulses' we use in our programs.
Maximum brightness occurs due to the bunching of light emitted when the star is
at its furthest point from us....or thereabouts.

So while astronomers get the right velocities, they get them at
the wrong time. I thought you already knew this.

No A. They get completely wrong velocities. The bunching effect is caused by
acceleration. The minute changes in luminosity are due to velocity variations.
George and I call these ADopler and VDoppler processes.

Astronomers observe ADoppler shifts and then treat them with VDoppler equations
.......and get hugely exaggerated velocity figures.

It was only through arguing with
George about pulsars that I realised the mistake.
As you know, pulses bunch together as they travel due to c+v.

Of course.


Astronomers have treated this bunching as Einsteinian doppler shift and arrived
at completely exaggerated velocity values....so when you see a published
velocity curve...don't believe it.

Well, ok, that would make the *acceleration* wrong, and
it is from the acceleration that we determine longitude of
periastron. The velocity is still directly related to the doppler.

This is where George corrected me....and contributed somewhat to his own
downfall.
I was previously working on the assumption that INDIVIDUAL photons did not
experience the same kind of 'bunching' as the pulses. It was only by analysing
pulsar pulse that I found the alternative possibility.
According to our theory, pulses emitted as the neutron star moves around its
orbit should bunch together and separate as they traverse space. However, not
only is their spacing affected, so is the actual pulse width..and by the same
fractional amount.
To cut a long story a bit shorter, the observed wavelengths of light from
orbiting objects such as variable stars is NOT a true reflection of their
actual orbital speeds. It is most likely a gross exageration of those speeds.

It's just that the velocity is stretched and contracted along
the time axis, and that is ... tada... a function of distance.
Remember that the SLOPE of a velocity/time graph is
acceleration. So the max and min velocity values are correct,
but the velocity curve should appear more sinusoidal than it does.

No. If VDoppler equations are used to treat ADoppler wavelength shifts, all the
calculated orbit parameters will be way out.
Have a look at Psr1913+16. Hulse and Taylor got a Nobel for producing a load of
crap based on the assumptoion that it has a highly elliptical orbit.
However the BaTh matches the velocity curve with ADoppler from a CIRCULAR
orbit.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/psr1913+16.jpg
If that's not a good fit, what is?....derived from a simple circular or maybe
very slightly elliptical orbit.


Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

Funny how huff puff star all seem to have companions....

All recurring variables have an orbit. I'm of the opinion
that beat frequencies should be investigated.
For example, Pluto and Neptune.
http://www.nineplanets.org/gif/dobro3.gif

That's why my program allows you to see the individual brightness contributions
of each members of a pair or see the combined effect.
It is this combined brightness that makes the wrongly calculated velocity
curves different in shape and phase from the observed (combined) brightness
curve.

1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.
-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348

Translation:
Forget extinction and uni****ation, put in the pitch you know is there.

Now that I have given up the 'incompressible photon' idea, pitch does indeed
come into the equation. However, I can never actualy calculate the pitch angle.
All I can do is produce a figure for (orbital velocity x cos(pitch).
I also agree that light speed unification is no longer as crucial as I
previously thought.


2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727

Translation:
Forget extinction and uni****ation, put in the pitch you know is there.


3) Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
Translation:
Add in extinction and uni****ation, make is as complicated as it can be
and pretend light travels at one speed only.

Of course the dunces are in confederacy against me, you are one
of them. You are as daft as Tom and Jeery, Phuckwit Duck, Blind Poe, Dishwater, Tusseladd, Jako Epke [Old Man], Dork Van de fumble mumbler... oops... I take that back, nobody is as daft as Dork.

But... no need to feel bad, old chap, even Galileo was wrong.

"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Galileo.html

The moon causing tides is childishness.... I don't think so.

However, uni****ation is childishness when the answer is plain.

Extinction efects might still be needed to explain DeSitter's calculations
about his claimed 'visible' binaries.
I suspect however that he made the same mistakes about calculating orbital
speeds as have all the other astronomers.

Quit ****ing around with the speed of light and program in pitch,

I don't need to. My figure for orbital speed includes it. We cannot separate
the two.

it is all so simple, even Sagnac.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Sagnac/Z1.gif

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

We'll talk about sagnac again soon.


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.