Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 29 Mar 2007 17:24:58 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

The extinction distance is directly proportional to period.
The 0.0007 value is for a period of 0.0042 years.
It becomes 0.007 for 0.042 years, 0.07 for 0.42 years..etc.
...always independent of peripheral velocity.

How can you explain THAT?

As I said 19 and 20 March, the light speed unification
distance is inversely proportional to the rate of pulse
bunching. The more rapidly the pulses bunch, the shorter
the unification distance. What you have found is the
obvious fact that the rate of pulse bunching is inversely
proportional to the period. All else being equal, the
shorter the period, the more rapidly the pulses bunch.
So naturally, the shorter the period, the shorter the
unification distance.

That's an interesting idea....I'll think about it........but unification - or
classical extinction - should depend only on the properties of the space
through which the light travels...should it not?
Obviously however the speed of a pulse cannot be unified with that of another
that hasn't even been emitted.
I'm somewhat mystified by this.
I don't think unification takes place as rapidly as I originally believed. I no
longer need it to explain why my distances had to always be much shorter than
the Hipparcos ones.






Leonard


"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 30 Mar, 07:07, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 29 Mar 2007 17:24:58 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:







Henri Wilson wrote:

The extinction distance is directly proportional to period.
The 0.0007 value is for a period of 0.0042 years.
It becomes 0.007 for 0.042 years, 0.07 for 0.42 years..etc.
...always independent of peripheral velocity.

How can you explain THAT?

As I said 19 and 20 March, the light speed unification
distance is inversely proportional to the rate of pulse
bunching. The more rapidly the pulses bunch, the shorter
the unification distance. What you have found is the
obvious fact that the rate of pulse bunching is inversely
proportional to the period. All else being equal, the
shorter the period, the more rapidly the pulses bunch.
So naturally, the shorter the period, the shorter the
unification distance.

That's an interesting idea....I'll think about it......

I don't think you quite followed what Leonard was saying,
or at least what i think he was saying. This goes back
to the little applet I wrote for you a couple of weeks
ago. Did you never wonder how I was able to do that ?

..but unification - or
classical extinction - should depend only on the properties of the space
through which the light travels...should it not?

Yes it should.

Obviously however the speed of a pulse cannot be unified with that of another
that hasn't even been emitted.
I'm somewhat mystified by this.

You need to step back a little and look at the problem
a different way. The VDoppler as you said produces a
relatively small brightening effect so for high values
we can assume ADoppler is dominant. The equation for
ADoppler without speed equalisation is is 1/(c^2-da)
where d is the distance from the source to the observer
and a is the instantaneous acceleration towards the
observer at the time of emission. The value c^2/a is
then the "critical distance". Obviously that depends on
the acceleration which in turn depends on the period.
Note also though that the component of the acceleration
towards the observer also depends on the pitch.

What that means is that for a high brightness, the
speed equalisation distance has to be an exact fraction
of the "critical distance" which means the properties
of the space the light passes through depend on the
inclination of the orbit.

Basically you have to invent this "speed equalistion"
factor and set it to an orbit dependent value to avoid
de Sitter's argument. You can set a low value but then
you get no brightening and Doppler effects are no
different to conventional values, but to get any of
the effects you have been claiming over the years, you
have to have the "properties of space" being entirely
dependent on the source acceleration and the inclination
of the orbit.

Inclination is particularly telling. It means if we see
a star with high variability, the speed equalisation
distance must be very close to the critical distance,
and that means another observer looking at the same
star form an inclination a few degrees less would see
multiple images. However there is nothing special about
us so we should see some stars showing multiple images
if this model was correct. As you know, we don't.

The solution is that speed equalisation must happen
over a relatively short distance and there aren't any
significant brightening or ADoppler effects.

I don't think unification takes place as rapidly as I originally believed. I no
longer need it to explain why my distances had to always be much shorter than
the Hipparcos ones.

As you can see, the requirement is actually that it
is a lot shorter than you thought.

With a very rough estimate based on your figure of
0.0007 light years for 45 degrees and a phase
uncertainty based on the time spread of 74ns on
a PRF of 2.295ms, I get a speed equalistion distance
of 54 light seconds. That should be typical of the
"property of space" for all stars.

George

On 30 Mar 2007 03:25:40 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 30 Mar, 07:07, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 29 Mar 2007 17:24:58 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

The extinction distance is directly proportional to period.
The 0.0007 value is for a period of 0.0042 years.
It becomes 0.007 for 0.042 years, 0.07 for 0.42 years..etc.
...always independent of peripheral velocity.

How can you explain THAT?

As I said 19 and 20 March, the light speed unification
distance is inversely proportional to the rate of pulse
bunching. The more rapidly the pulses bunch, the shorter
the unification distance. What you have found is the
obvious fact that the rate of pulse bunching is inversely
proportional to the period. All else being equal, the
shorter the period, the more rapidly the pulses bunch.
So naturally, the shorter the period, the shorter the
unification distance.

That's an interesting idea....I'll think about it......

I don't think you quite followed what Leonard was saying,
or at least what i think he was saying. This goes back
to the little applet I wrote for you a couple of weeks
ago. Did you never wonder how I was able to do that ?

..but unification - or
classical extinction - should depend only on the properties of the space
through which the light travels...should it not?

Yes it should.

Obviously however the speed of a pulse cannot be unified with that of another
that hasn't even been emitted.
I'm somewhat mystified by this.

You need to step back a little and look at the problem
a different way. The VDoppler as you said produces a
relatively small brightening effect so for high values
we can assume ADoppler is dominant. The equation for
ADoppler without speed equalisation is is 1/(c^2-da)
where d is the distance from the source to the observer
and a is the instantaneous acceleration towards the
observer at the time of emission.

I get c^2/(c^2-da) ....no worries...

The value c^2/a is
then the "critical distance". Obviously that depends on
the acceleration which in turn depends on the period.
Note also though that the component of the acceleration
towards the observer also depends on the pitch.

Hold a circle in front of you at any angle. (or an ellipse)
Rotate you head until you find an axis in the plane of the circle that
horizontal to the line between your eyes and is also perpendicular to the LOS.
(one always exists)
ALL the radial velocities and the accelerations around the orbit are then
multiplied by the same factor, cos(pitch), where the pitch angle refers to the
rotation around the above axis.

What that means is that for a high brightness, the
speed equalisation distance has to be an exact fraction
of the "critical distance" which means the properties
of the space the light passes through depend on the
inclination of the orbit.

That's OK. Cos(Pitch) is included in the velocity figure.

Basically you have to invent this "speed equalistion"
factor and set it to an orbit dependent value to avoid
de Sitter's argument. You can set a low value but then
you get no brightening and Doppler effects are no
different to conventional values, but to get any of
the effects you have been claiming over the years, you
have to have the "properties of space" being entirely
dependent on the source acceleration and the inclination
of the orbit.

George, frankly I cannot see where you got the idea that the ratio of VDoppler
to ADoppler is in any way connected to the 'extinction distance'.
The '45 degree' point is just a result of the minute difference in travel time
due to the distace being modified by Rsin(xt). It is just a second order
trigonometrical fact, quite negligible at normal star distances.

Extinction is a property of the space through which the light has to travel.

Inclination is particularly telling. It means if we see
a star with high variability, the speed equalisation
distance must be very close to the critical distance,
and that means another observer looking at the same
star form an inclination a few degrees less would see
multiple images. However there is nothing special about
us so we should see some stars showing multiple images
if this model was correct. As you know, we don't.

Sorry George, I think you have gone off the rails here.

The solution is that speed equalisation must happen
over a relatively short distance and there aren't any
significant brightening or ADoppler effects.

It doesn't have to happen over a very short distance at all.
You are using the wrong values for your radial velocities. In reality they are
much lower.
I suspect that DeSitter based his calculations on similarly wrong radial
velocities. I'll look it up.

I don't think unification takes place as rapidly as I originally believed. I no
longer need it to explain why my distances had to always be much shorter than
the Hipparcos ones.

As you can see, the requirement is actually that it
is a lot shorter than you thought.

With a very rough estimate based on your figure of
0.0007 light years for 45 degrees and a phase
uncertainty based on the time spread of 74ns on
a PRF of 2.295ms, I get a speed equalistion distance
of 54 light seconds. That should be typical of the
"property of space" for all stars.

I don't know what you are talking about....and I don't think you do either
George.
Your pulsar's true radial velocity (orbit speed x cos(pitch)) is only a few
metres per second.


George


Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.

Henri Wilson wrote:

[grammatical errors corrected to improve readability]

Hold a circle (or an ellipse) in front of you at any angle.
Rotate your head until you find an axis in the plane of the
circle that is horizontal to the line between your eyes,
and is also perpendicular to the LOS. (one always exists)
ALL the radial velocities and the accelerations around the
orbit are then multiplied by the same factor, cos(pitch),
where the pitch angle refers to the rotation around the
above axis.

Rotating one's head is irrelevant. The rotation that you
describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis. That is convienient but has no
effect on the process of multiplying radial velocities and
accelerations around the orbit by a factor of cos(pitch).

You said this previously and I do not understand why George
did not point out its irrelevancy at that time.

Do I understand your terminology correctly as saying that
the "pitch" of an orbit is zero when seen edge-on and 90
degrees when seen face-on?

If so, your term "pitch" means the same as "inclination",
which is the term everyone else uses in astronomy. Though
it is often measured as angular deviation from face-on
rather than from edge-on. That is how it is used in arXiv
astro-ph/0507420.pdf (Table 1, "Orbital inclination, i")

To double-check that we are talking about the same thing,
see the illustration of "yaw", "pitch", and "roll" near the
top of this page:

http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/pointing/pointing.html

Leonard

"Leonard Kellogg" wrote in message oups.com...

http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/pointing/pointing.html

Leonard

"Positive roll is right wing down, positive pitch is nose up, and positive yaw is east when heading north."


Positive roll is right wing down = clockwise seen from tail.
Positive pitch is nose up = clockwise seen from port wing.
Positive yaw is east when heading north = clockwise seen from above.

Mathematical angle is positive counterclockwise so you'll never
be sure you are talking about the same thing.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Androcube.gif

This has all been explained to Wilson before, his standard response
is "No", which he learns from Bielawski, Draper, Dishman and Poe,
rendering him ineducable.

Bielawski understands Poles are the butt of American jokes but
does not know how far it is from A to A.

"The answer was zero." - Androcles
"No, the answer is not zero.
Distance travelled by photon from A to A is not A-A. End of story." --Bielawski.
End of story.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:23:43 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Leonard Kellogg" wrote in message oups.com...

http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/pointing/pointing.html

Leonard

"Positive roll is right wing down, positive pitch is nose up, and positive yaw is east when heading north."


Positive roll is right wing down = clockwise seen from tail.
Positive pitch is nose up = clockwise seen from port wing.
Positive yaw is east when heading north = clockwise seen from above.

This is sci.physics.relativity not sci.flyingwithyoureyesshut .....

Roll is not required in my method. I 'rotate the telescope'.
My pitch is the same as yours but my YAW is measured looking upwards rather
than down.

Mathematical angle is positive counterclockwise so you'll never
be sure you are talking about the same thing.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Androcube.gif

This has all been explained to Wilson before, his standard response
is "No", which he learns from Bielawski, Draper, Dishman and Poe,
rendering him ineducable.

Bielawski understands Poles are the butt of American jokes but
does not know how far it is from A to A.

"The answer was zero." - Androcles

.....and "the odomoter of my car reads always zero when it is parked in the same
spot" - Androcles



Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.

On 30 Mar 2007 23:12:44 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

[grammatical errors corrected to improve readability]

Hold a circle (or an ellipse) in front of you at any angle.
Rotate your head until you find an axis in the plane of the
circle that is horizontal to the line between your eyes,
and is also perpendicular to the LOS. (one always exists)
ALL the radial velocities and the accelerations around the
orbit are then multiplied by the same factor, cos(pitch),
where the pitch angle refers to the rotation around the
above axis.

Rotating one's head is irrelevant. The rotation that you
describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis. That is convienient but has no
effect on the process of multiplying radial velocities and
accelerations around the orbit by a factor of cos(pitch).

You said this previously and I do not understand why George
did not point out its irrelevancy at that time.

Do I understand your terminology correctly as saying that
the "pitch" of an orbit is zero when seen edge-on and 90
degrees when seen face-on?

Yes...but the rotation is about an axis in the edge-on position....that axis
lying perpendicular to the LOS and in the plane of the orbit.

It is ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO FIND SUCH AN AXIS, no matter what the orbit
configuration wrt Earth.
..

If so, your term "pitch" means the same as "inclination",
which is the term everyone else uses in astronomy. Though
it is often measured as angular deviation from face-on
rather than from edge-on. That is how it is used in arXiv
astro-ph/0507420.pdf (Table 1, "Orbital inclination, i")

To double-check that we are talking about the same thing,
see the illustration of "yaw", "pitch", and "roll" near the
top of this page:

http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/pointing/pointing.html

Leonard

I have tried to explain before that I have redefined pitch and yaw to make the
programming of this stuff possible. My method is 100% correct and effective.
For the purpose of brightness variation and measurement, one angle can be
eliminated by simply 'rotating the horizontal', ie., one's head.

Every orbit, eliptical or circular can be described in this way. ...an edge on
orbit multiplied by cos(pitch)...or 'inclination' as you call it.

To verify what I am saying, I suggest you make a paper cutout of an ellipse,
stick it at some odd angle onto the end of a rod and hold it up in front of
you. If you rotate the rod (representing the LOS) you will see that at one
particular angle there will be an axis in the orbit plane that lies
perpendicular to the LOS and parallel to the line between your eyes (the new
horizontal).

In that position, the orbit can be rotated around THAT AXIS through an angle
(my 'pitch') into an edge on position. I define YAW as the angle between the
major axis of the ellipse and the LOS when the orbit is in that edge on
position. My 'zero yaw angle' is also defined differently ...for programming
reasons.

Thus, both acceleration and velocity can be simply multiplied by cos(pitch) to
reduce their component in the direction of the observer. The effect is to
simply reduce the height of my predicted brightness curves but not their
**shapes**, which are determined solely by eccentricity and yaw angle.

Note: It is not possible to resolve the pitch angle from a point source of
light and I know of no method that can determine the pitch component involved
in a measured velocity. So my radial velocity figures automatically represent
(orbital velocity x cos(pitch).


Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.

Henri Wilson wrote:

Hold a circle (or an ellipse) in front of you at any angle.
Rotate your head until you find an axis in the plane of the
circle that is horizontal to the line between your eyes,
and is also perpendicular to the LOS. (one always exists)
ALL the radial velocities and the accelerations around the
orbit are then multiplied by the same factor, cos(pitch),
where the pitch angle refers to the rotation around the
above axis.

Rotating one's head is irrelevant. The rotation that you
describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis. That is convienient but has no
effect on the process of multiplying radial velocities and
accelerations around the orbit by a factor of cos(pitch).

My apologies. I was wrong when I said 'The rotation that
you describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis.' That is always true of circles,
but usually not true of ellipses. Actual ellipses generally
do not end up with the long axis of the projected ellipse
being horizontal following such a rotation.

The rotation still appears to be irrelevant, though.

You said this previously and I do not understand why George
did not point out its irrelevancy at that time.

Do I understand your terminology correctly as saying that
the "pitch" of an orbit is zero when seen edge-on and 90
degrees when seen face-on?

Yes...but the rotation is about an axis in the edge-on
position....that axis lying perpendicular to the LOS and in
the plane of the orbit.

If I may clarify your clarification: You are now talking
about a second rotation. The first, as you said, can be
accomplished by rotating one's head. It has the effect of
making the axis for the second rotation horizontal WRT the
viewer. The second rotation is the pitch of the orbit.

However, neither rotation is ever actually necessary or
carried out in your analysis. The first is never done.
The second, AFAICS, is not actually a rotation, but the
value that you use for the pitch of the orbit.

It is ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO FIND SUCH AN AXIS, no matter what
the orbit configuration wrt Earth.

Perhaps I misunderstood your reason for describing the
first rotation. It has no effect on the maths used, but
it *does* show which axis you are referring to. Is that
the reason for bringing it up? Simply to explain which
axis you mean? You can do that just by saying 'A line in
the plane of the orbit perpendicular to the line of sight'.
This omits the bit about rotation to horizontal position,
because you never execute such a rotation. You could say
that the line passes through the center of the ellipse,
but that isn't really needed either since any line in the
plane of the orbit and perpendicular to the line of sight
will serve. Using a centerline just looks nicer.

That is a very minor objection. I raise it only because
you described the rotation to horizontal as though it were
part of your analysis process, but it isn't.

If so, your term "pitch" means the same as "inclination",
which is the term everyone else uses in astronomy. Though
it is often measured as angular deviation from face-on
rather than from edge-on. That is how it is used in arXiv
astro-ph/0507420.pdf (Table 1, "Orbital inclination, i")

To double-check that we are talking about the same thing,
see the illustration of "yaw", "pitch", and "roll" near the
top of this page:

http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/pointing/pointing.html

I have tried to explain before that I have redefined pitch
and yaw to make the programming of this stuff possible. My
method is 100% correct and effective. For the purpose of
brightness variation and measurement, one angle can be
eliminated by simply 'rotating the horizontal', ie.,
one's head.

The thing is, you are not starting with the ellipse at an
angle, so there is no angle to eliminate. If you started
with measurements of the actual orientation of the projected
ellipse in the sky, then it would be convenient to rotate
it so that a particular axis is horizontal WRT the observer.
But you are not starting with measurements of the actual
orientation of the projected ellipse, so there is nothing
to rotate. Instead, you are constructing an ellipse from
scratch, and not specifying orientation. (No reason to.)

Every orbit, eliptical or circular can be described in this
way. ...an edge on orbit multiplied by cos(pitch)...or
'inclination' as you call it.

Rotating one's head to change the orientation of an apparent
ellipse is trivial, and has no effect on the maths used.

If the actual shape is a circle, then the axis found is
the major axis of the projected ellipse. In that case,
of course, there is no need for a third rotation in yaw.

If the actual shape is an ellipse, then the axis found will
usually be at an angle to the major axis. In that case, it
appears that your resulting pitch angle will generally be
somewhat larger than the conventional inclination. I have
not anayzed this fully and am not certain of the result.

The conventional inclination is the angle between the line
of sight and the plane of the orbit, while your 'pitch' is
the angle that the orbit would need to rotate around a line
in the plane of the orbit and perpendicular to the line of
sight in order to become edge-on. I'm not certain, but it
appears that that angle would usually be larger than the
conventional inclination.

The only difference this makes that is obvious to me is the
one you are already aware of: It changes the value for yaw.
I have not attempted to analyze that at all.

To verify what I am saying, I suggest you make a paper
cutout of an ellipse, stick it at some odd angle onto the
end of a rod and hold it up in front of you. If you rotate
the rod (representing the LOS) you will see that at one
particular angle there will be an axis in the orbit plane
that lies perpendicular to the LOS and parallel to the line
between your eyes (the new horizontal).

In that position, the orbit can be rotated around THAT AXIS
through an angle (my 'pitch') into an edge on position. I
define YAW as the angle between the major axis of the ellipse
and the LOS when the orbit is in that edge on position. My
'zero yaw angle' is also defined differently ...for
programming reasons.

Thus, both acceleration and velocity can be simply multiplied
by cos(pitch) to reduce their component in the direction of
the observer. The effect is to simply reduce the height of my
predicted brightness curves but not their **shapes**, which
are determined solely by eccentricity and yaw angle.

Do you mean that the effect (a reduction in height of your
brightness curves) is a purely mathematical manipulation for
convenience in your program, or that you predict an actual
reduction in brightness? If the latter, what you are saying
is that the brightness is reduced from what is expected given
the inclination derived from observation.

In general, pitch is a factor in determining brightness.
A factor does not always reduce the resulting value. You
say that multiplying by cos(pitch) reduces the brightness
because you *want* and *need* the brightness to be reduced
in this particular case in order for your program to
produce results which match the observations.

Pitch is a factor in brightness, not a brightness-reduction
mechanism. It cannot be ignored or left out of the equation
without rendering the resulting value meaningless.

Note: It is not possible to resolve the pitch angle from
a point source of light and I know of no method that can
determine the pitch component involved in a measured
velocity. So my radial velocity figures automatically
represent (orbital velocity x cos(pitch).

Conventional analysis gets the inclination of J1909-3744
to better than two significant digits, via two separate
methods, which exactly agree with each other.

Leonard

On 4 Apr 2007 18:57:50 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

Hold a circle (or an ellipse) in front of you at any angle.
Rotate your head until you find an axis in the plane of the
circle that is horizontal to the line between your eyes,
and is also perpendicular to the LOS. (one always exists)
ALL the radial velocities and the accelerations around the
orbit are then multiplied by the same factor, cos(pitch),
where the pitch angle refers to the rotation around the
above axis.

Rotating one's head is irrelevant. The rotation that you
describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis. That is convienient but has no
effect on the process of multiplying radial velocities and
accelerations around the orbit by a factor of cos(pitch).

My apologies. I was wrong when I said 'The rotation that
you describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis.' That is always true of circles,
but usually not true of ellipses. Actual ellipses generally
do not end up with the long axis of the projected ellipse
being horizontal following such a rotation.

The rotation still appears to be irrelevant, though.

You said this previously and I do not understand why George
did not point out its irrelevancy at that time.

Do I understand your terminology correctly as saying that
the "pitch" of an orbit is zero when seen edge-on and 90
degrees when seen face-on?

Yes...but the rotation is about an axis in the edge-on
position....that axis lying perpendicular to the LOS and in
the plane of the orbit.

If I may clarify your clarification: You are now talking
about a second rotation. The first, as you said, can be
accomplished by rotating one's head. It has the effect of
making the axis for the second rotation horizontal WRT the
viewer. The second rotation is the pitch of the orbit.

That's it. In effect I just 'rotate the horizontal'...and make programming a
lot easier.
For the purpose of brightness, doppler shift and spectral analysis this
rotation is OK.

However, neither rotation is ever actually necessary or
carried out in your analysis. The first is never done.
The second, AFAICS, is not actually a rotation, but the
value that you use for the pitch of the orbit.

The program uses edge on orbits...because every possible orbit configuration
can be rotated about the above axis through a pitch angle to make it edge on.
Yaw angle is that between the major axis and the LOS.

The program sets up arrays containing velocities and velocity angles for 30000
points around the orbit.
I feed in a figure for maximum velocity. For an ellipse that occurs at the
perihelion as you know. A velocity v can mean 'v for the edge on orbit' or '2v
for an orbit pitched at 60 degrees around the axis'. All the velocity and
acceleration components in our direction are multiplied by the same cos(pitch)
when the rotation around the above axis occurs.

I cannot determine pitch angles but don't need to for the purpose of simulating
brightness curves.
An estimate of the true orbital velocity will of course be required if one
wishes to calculate orbit diameter.

It is ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO FIND SUCH AN AXIS, no matter what
the orbit configuration wrt Earth.

Perhaps I misunderstood your reason for describing the
first rotation. It has no effect on the maths used, but
it *does* show which axis you are referring to. Is that
the reason for bringing it up? Simply to explain which
axis you mean? You can do that just by saying 'A line in
the plane of the orbit perpendicular to the line of sight'.

Ah! but for any ellipse, there is only one such axis...and it occurs at only
one position of the horizontal (defined as the line between your eyes)
The axis has to pass through the centre of the ellipse.

Try it with a paper cutout.

This omits the bit about rotation to horizontal position,
because you never execute such a rotation. You could say
that the line passes through the center of the ellipse,
but that isn't really needed either since any line in the
plane of the orbit and perpendicular to the line of sight
will serve. Using a centerline just looks nicer.

I don't think you quite have the picture.
There is only one such line

That is a very minor objection. I raise it only because
you described the rotation to horizontal as though it were
part of your analysis process, but it isn't.

Well it isn't.... ....and you don't really have to rotate your eyes to find
it.....but it allows one to visualise the process a lot more easily.

I think you are getting the picture as to why edge on orbits are all the
program needs tp match a particular curve.



I have tried to explain before that I have redefined pitch
and yaw to make the programming of this stuff possible. My
method is 100% correct and effective. For the purpose of
brightness variation and measurement, one angle can be
eliminated by simply 'rotating the horizontal', ie.,
one's head.

The thing is, you are not starting with the ellipse at an
angle, so there is no angle to eliminate. If you started
with measurements of the actual orientation of the projected
ellipse in the sky, then it would be convenient to rotate
it so that a particular axis is horizontal WRT the observer.
But you are not starting with measurements of the actual
orientation of the projected ellipse, so there is nothing
to rotate. Instead, you are constructing an ellipse from
scratch, and not specifying orientation. (No reason to.)

Correct.

Every orbit, eliptical or circular can be described in this
way. ...an edge on orbit multiplied by cos(pitch)...or
'inclination' as you call it.

Rotating one's head to change the orientation of an apparent
ellipse is trivial, and has no effect on the maths used.

No..but people like Androcles still think in terms of the three angles that
apply to flying aeroplanes.

If the actual shape is a circle, then the axis found is
the major axis of the projected ellipse. In that case,
of course, there is no need for a third rotation in yaw.

Yes, circles are trivial....but aways start with hte ede on configuration.

If the actual shape is an ellipse, then the axis found will
usually be at an angle to the major axis. In that case, it
appears that your resulting pitch angle will generally be
somewhat larger than the conventional inclination. I have
not anayzed this fully and am not certain of the result.

That's correct...and my yaw angle is NOT affected by pitch when in fact the
real yaw angle of an orbit does vary with pitch. ...but all I want are the
radial velocity values.

The conventional inclination is the angle between the line
of sight and the plane of the orbit, while your 'pitch' is
the angle that the orbit would need to rotate around a line
in the plane of the orbit and perpendicular to the line of
sight in order to become edge-on. I'm not certain, but it
appears that that angle would usually be larger than the
conventional inclination.

The only difference this makes that is obvious to me is the
one you are already aware of: It changes the value for yaw.
I have not attempted to analyze that at all.

My method is quite legiimate. It didnt just appear overnight. It took me many
years to find a simple enough method to use in the program.

To verify what I am saying, I suggest you make a paper
cutout of an ellipse, stick it at some odd angle onto the
end of a rod and hold it up in front of you. If you rotate
the rod (representing the LOS) you will see that at one
particular angle there will be an axis in the orbit plane
that lies perpendicular to the LOS and parallel to the line
between your eyes (the new horizontal).

In that position, the orbit can be rotated around THAT AXIS
through an angle (my 'pitch') into an edge on position. I
define YAW as the angle between the major axis of the ellipse
and the LOS when the orbit is in that edge on position. My
'zero yaw angle' is also defined differently ...for
programming reasons.

Thus, both acceleration and velocity can be simply multiplied
by cos(pitch) to reduce their component in the direction of
the observer. The effect is to simply reduce the height of my
predicted brightness curves but not their **shapes**, which
are determined solely by eccentricity and yaw angle.

Do you mean that the effect (a reduction in height of your
brightness curves) is a purely mathematical manipulation for
convenience in your program, or that you predict an actual
reduction in brightness? If the latter, what you are saying
is that the brightness is reduced from what is expected given
the inclination derived from observation.

I first find the right yaw and eccentricity settings that will produce the
required shape. I then adjust the other parameters until the
ln(maximum/minimum)/0.921 (brighness) equals the observed magnitude change.
However, adjusting distance, velocity or pitch has the same effect. If distance
is known, I can get a value or the product (velocitty x pitch angle)...but we
cannot be confident about Hipparcos distances because of extinction.

In general, pitch is a factor in determining brightness.
A factor does not always reduce the resulting value. You
say that multiplying by cos(pitch) reduces the brightness
because you *want* and *need* the brightness to be reduced
in this particular case in order for your program to
produce results which match the observations.

I don't worry about pitch.
The value I use for velocity automatically includes it.

Pitch is a factor in brightness, not a brightness-reduction
mechanism. It cannot be ignored or left out of the equation
without rendering the resulting value meaningless.

It is included even if its value is not known.

Note: It is not possible to resolve the pitch angle from
a point source of light and I know of no method that can
determine the pitch component involved in a measured
velocity. So my radial velocity figures automatically
represent (orbital velocity x cos(pitch).

Conventional analysis gets the inclination of J1909-3744
to better than two significant digits, via two separate
methods, which exactly agree with each other.

The problem is, I have shown that the calculated velocity figures for
J1909-3744 are about about 4 orders of magnitudes out. This pulsar is barely
moving ..and only in a very small orbit.


Leonard


Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.

"Leonard Kellogg" wrote in message
oups.com...

Henri Wilson wrote:

[grammatical errors corrected to improve readability]

Hold a circle (or an ellipse) in front of you at any angle.
Rotate your head until you find an axis in the plane of the
circle that is horizontal to the line between your eyes,
and is also perpendicular to the LOS. (one always exists)
ALL the radial velocities and the accelerations around the
orbit are then multiplied by the same factor, cos(pitch),
where the pitch angle refers to the rotation around the
above axis.

Rotating one's head is irrelevant. The rotation that you
describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis. That is convienient but has no
effect on the process of multiplying radial velocities and
accelerations around the orbit by a factor of cos(pitch).

You said this previously and I do not understand why George
did not point out its irrelevancy at that time.

Do I understand your terminology correctly as saying that
the "pitch" of an orbit is zero when seen edge-on and 90
degrees when seen face-on?

If so, your term "pitch" means the same as "inclination",
which is the term everyone else uses in astronomy. Though
it is often measured as angular deviation from face-on
rather than from edge-on. That is how it is used in arXiv
astro-ph/0507420.pdf (Table 1, "Orbital inclination, i")

To double-check that we are talking about the same thing,
see the illustration of "yaw", "pitch", and "roll" near the
top of this page:

Leonard, I think Henry has just swapped some definitions
for convenience. His cos(pitch) is the same as the usual
sin(inclination). I'm less clear about his yaw but I'm
fairly sure it is directly related to the longitude of
the ascending node.

George