Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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.

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

Don't be so ****ing stupid. The phasing is more complicated than
*YOU* don't think, it isn't more complicated than *I* KNOW.
Gawd, you **** me off sometimes, you think others are as ignorant
as you.



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.

luminosity:
Pronunciation: "lü-m&-'nä-s&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : the quality or state of being luminous b : something luminous
2 a : the relative quantity of light b : relative brightness of something
3 : the relative quantity of radiation emitted by a celestial source (as a star)

The change in 'luminosity' and the change in 'brightness'
are the same thing, you dumb cluck.

What the **** is wrong with you?

Listen, moron, the luminosity curve and the velocity curve
are different animals, but they are related.

Now, are you discussing the velocity or the luminosity?


It is caused by the bunching and rarification [snip]

I know ****ing well what causes the change in luminosity that
you call 'brightness'. I modelled it long before you ever did.
I thought we'd at last got around to velocity curves after
8 years of your struggling and waffling and crazy theorizing.
Sheesh, you are stupid.



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

No A.

Ok, so you don't know it and now you have another crazy
theory of your own.
It must be time to put you back on the killfile.

They get completely wrong velocities.

****ing moron.



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

STUPID ****ing moron.

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.

You couldn't analyze a ****in' pizza and tell if it had cheese in it.
Questioning Doppler now, sheesh.

According to our theory, pulses emitted as the neutron star [snip]

Does it ever occur to you that neutrons do not emit photons?

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.

**** off, ****head.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:25:33 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:18:52 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

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..

Don't be so ****ing stupid. The phasing is more complicated than
*YOU* don't think, it isn't more complicated than *I* KNOW.

The phase of the maximum varies with distance becasue of the size of the delay
between pulse emissions.
It stars out at exactly 90 ahead of the TRUE velocity and moves to a lesser
value with time. It also depends on the eccentricity of the orbit..
However the velocity that astronomers wrongly determine is exactly in phase
with the brightness curve. That's because they actually USE the brightness
curve to determine doppler shift.


Gawd, you **** me off sometimes, you think others are as ignorant
as you.

If you knew how to program properly you could see the effect yourself.


The change in 'luminosity' due to velocity is generally negligible.
The change in 'brightness' is what we are discussing.

luminosity:
Pronunciation: "lü-m&-'nä-s&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : the quality or state of being luminous b : something luminous
2 a : the relative quantity of light b : relative brightness of something
3 : the relative quantity of radiation emitted by a celestial source (as a star)

The change in 'luminosity' and the change in 'brightness'
are the same thing, you dumb cluck.

What the **** is wrong with you?

No they aren't.
However we are both wrong.

'Brightness' is luminous flux PER UNIT AREA.
Luminosity is what we are really measuring.

Listen, moron, the luminosity curve and the velocity curve
are different animals, but they are related.

Which velocity curve are you talking about?
I'm perfectly aware that the brightness curve is 90 ahead of the TRUE veocity
curve...but the fact is, maximum pulse bunching occurs at the same phase as
does maximum wavelength reduction. in fact the degree of bunching and the
wavelength reduction are the same for light emitted at any point around the
orbit.
Can you see now where astronomers have gone completely wrong?
'Bunching' greatly magnifies the real doppler shift.

This is more easily understood if you consider pulsars, which emit real pulses
at regular intervals around their orbits.


Now, are you discussing the velocity or the luminosity?

it is really luminosity but brightness is easier to write.

It is caused by the bunching and rarification [snip]

I know ****ing well what causes the change in luminosity that
you call 'brightness'. I modelled it long before you ever did.
I thought we'd at last got around to velocity curves after
8 years of your struggling and waffling and crazy theorizing.
Sheesh, you are stupid.

You still don't get it.
in the case of a pulsar, the individual pulses move either closer together or
further apart as they travel. When they arrive at Earth, the rate at which htey
arrive is wrongly taken as a doppler measure of the source speed. They are
wrong because they use constant c rather than c+v...in fact VERY wrong.

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

No A.

Ok, so you don't know it and now you have another crazy
theory of your own.
It must be time to put you back on the killfile.

If you follow the conversation I'm having with Geoerge, you might learn
something important.

They get completely wrong velocities.

****ing moron.

****ing raidio engineers don't knwo that brightness and luminosity are
different.

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

STUPID ****ing moron.

****ing old pom..


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.

You couldn't analyze a ****in' pizza and tell if it had cheese in it.
Questioning Doppler now, sheesh.

According to our theory, pulses emitted as the neutron star [snip]

Does it ever occur to you that neutrons do not emit photons?

Don't come in here late and start swinging! I have been questioning how pulsar
pulse are emitted. I reckon they've gottten that all wrong too because they
have entirely the wrong speeds and orbit radii.

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.

**** off, ****head.

Silly old pom...



"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 Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:25:33 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:18:52 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

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..

Don't be so ****ing stupid. The phasing is more complicated than
*YOU* don't think, it isn't more complicated than *I* KNOW.

The phase of the maximum varies with distance becasue of the size of the delay
between pulse emissions.

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




It stars out at exactly 90 ahead of the TRUE velocity and moves to a lesser
value with time. It also depends on the eccentricity of the orbit..

ALL wrong...you ****ed the wrong explanation....BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHY..... AND STILL DON'T.


However the velocity that astronomers wrongly determine is exactly in phase
with the brightness curve. That's because they actually USE the brightness
curve to determine doppler shift.

****ing hopeless, ignorant tord.



Gawd, you **** me off sometimes, you think others are as ignorant
as you.

If you knew how to program properly you could see the effect yourself.

Arrogant pile of ignorant ****. **** off.
*plonk*

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:24:18 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:25:33 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

The luminosity is out of phase with velocity.

The phasing is far more complicated than you think..

Don't be so ****ing stupid. The phasing is more complicated than
*YOU* don't think, it isn't more complicated than *I* KNOW.

The phase of the maximum varies with distance becasue of the size of the delay
between pulse emissions.

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

My above statement is correct.

It stars out at exactly 90 ahead of the TRUE velocity and moves to a lesser
value with time. It also depends on the eccentricity of the orbit..

ALL wrong...you ****ed the wrong explanation....BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHY..... AND STILL DON'T.

Sorry, I was talking about circular orbits only here.

However the velocity that astronomers wrongly determine is exactly in phase
with the brightness curve. That's because they actually USE the brightness
curve to determine doppler shift.

****ing hopeless, ignorant tord.

Admittedly my above statement migh have made me sound like that. It certainly
doesn't apply to elliptical orbits.

For those, the phasing between brightness and TRUE velocity can be almost
anything between 0 and 360, depending on the yaw angle.
The main principle in all this is that brighness peaks are made up of light
that was emitted when the star was in the 'concave' section of the orbit wrt
the observer....ie., the far side, where maximum acceleration occurs TOWARDS
the observer.

The phasing moves considerably with distance.

Gawd, you **** me off sometimes, you think others are as ignorant
as you.

If you knew how to program properly you could see the effect yourself.

Arrogant pile of ignorant ****. **** off.
*plonk*

silly old pom. You are as confused as George.
You both seem to think an orbit is like a spinning wheel with lights fastened
at regular distances around its rim.

George seems to have disappeared since I drew his attention to his error.




"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.