Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 16 Feb 2007 22:14:51 -0800, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

The method I use is to reduce the difference between actual
speed and c by a fixed factor per unit distance.

If the initial speed relative to the barycentre of the binary
is say, 1.00015c, then I multiply the 0.00015 by the extinction
rate each light day of travel.

speed relatively to what ? Ether ?

I plainly stated the reference for speed....the binary barycentre..

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. Theoretically
the source could be the only object in the universe.
The best reference for a change in speed is the source itself.

Since I am discussing the unification of light speed from the star over a
complete orbit, I am suggesting that its barycentre is the most practical
reference to use. It is not the only reference one could use.

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 of why... but this seems to happen in varying amounts
according to the BaTh.


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.

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.

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.

Leonard

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:43:52 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in

....
That depends on the geometry. Currently, all your action occurs along a
single, one dimensional line, and you 'scale' things, using trig, to
'emulate' an orbit with tilts in three space, but you make no allowance
for different 'line of sight' paths that the photons would need to
travel.

I know what you are saying and have considered it myself. particularly
in the case of long period orbits where the conditions along the LOS
could be quite different for light emitted, say, one year apart.

give it due consideration.

If it were significant, I doubt if we would get such clear images of very
distant galaxies.

I have thought about this myself...if it happens at all it should
affect stars with a large orbit diameter and long period more than say
'contact binaries'.

Yes, and it would effect those close to us more than those very distant.

Thus it would effect those with high parallax more than those with low
parallax.

Finally, it would effect systems with high proper motion more than those
with low proper motion.

Yes..but I still don't think it's worth worrying about. Mind you, it
could explain some of the erratic behavior often seen in recorded
brightness curves.

I doubt it, I am not talking about brightness curves here, I am talking
about the image of the star jumping back and forth.

I gather you are likening this to what we often see in the atmosphere due to
lensing in temperature gradients. I don't think that would happen in space.
Like I said, we would see everything so clearly.

The faster photons arrive from the direction 'more close to current actual
location in the sky of the star' (which we can't see because the light from
there has not arrived here yet.)

The slower photons come from where the star was when those photons were
emitted.

A star with a high proper motion should look like an airplane at night with
{blinking} red and green lights on the wing tips. The lights being seen as
streaks of different colored light from different locations in the sky.

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 also believe that the extinction rate itself decreases with distance
from the source star. That is, most takes place in the vicinity of the
source....maybe in the first couple of LYs of travel.

Use a half life model. Most will be gone within 10 half lives.

I do use a 'half distance' model.

Which is 'equivalent' to a half life model IF the velocity is constant.

So, what is the 'half distance' or 'half life' of c+v and c-v photons?

And are they the same?

No they still live.
By using 'unification rate', I largely overcome the problem.

I merely vary the rate per lightday until I get about the right (hipparcos)
distance.

Why should photons traveling at .8 c speed up at exactly the same rate that
photons traveling at 1.2 c slow down?

But if they don't 'unify at the same rate' then one or the other would
predominate (and speed up or slow down the 'c' photons). This should cause
some strange effects.

If the orbit is eccentric, there will be more photons emitted that are in
one or the other of the sub/super luminal states. This will produce an
unbalance. Even if you can invent a method of taking energy from the c+v
photons and giving it to the c-v photons, there will be problems because
there will be less of one kind than of the other.

This, in itself is a severe problem for the Ritz model.

Problem or not, something causes my required distances to be consistently
shorter than the hipparcos ones.....and the effect is period dependent....

There could be an entirely different explanation....but 'extinction' seems the
most plausible.

And why don't those nearby systems with planets show Wilson
Variability in brightness along with the doppler shift and wobble that
they display?

The light from these stars still travels throgh similar quality
space, even if it emitted months later.

That does NOT answer the question.

I'm not going to worry about it.

You must IF your theory is ever going to be acceptable.

Bob, right now my main concern is trying to find decent data to work with.
I wont achieve anything if I just talk about it with you and George...even
though your comments are often helpful.

You might say that the light has not traveled far enough yet for it to
bunch up, but then you are contradicting the idea that the velocities
unify rapidly.

It all depends on the star's orbit velocity.

If so, then all doppler binaries, with orbital velocities similar to
those which give the Wilson Curves that match the cephieds, should show
similar variations in brightness.

I dont have enough data to make any definite claims about unification as
yet....except that is appears to happen according to the BaTh.

More like: without adding the magic of unification, BaT fails.
'Magic' because it is difficult to justify speeding up slow photons while
slowing down fast one and still maintain coherent images of the source.

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.

Of course there are many stars that DO vary intrinsically and maybe I'm
trying to match those with a theory that doesn't apply.

Well said!

Well obviously a proportion of binaries must be eclipsing. ...but a greater
proportion could be explained purely by the BaTh since it produces very similar
curves.
Also it is hard *but not impossible) to explain the presence of harmonics in a
brightness curve on purely 'orbit grounds'....so maybe many stars ARE
huff-puffing.

If it is a large orbit with velocities below 0.00001 c, very little
bunching or brightness change will be expected over quite large
distances.

For instance a star in a 1 year orbit moving at 0.00001 c should vary
by only about 0.04 magnitudes at 300 LYs distance without taking into
account any extinction.
At 500 LYs the figure is about 0.065 mag variation.

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.

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.

There could be other reasons for it.
....face-on orbits for instance.

I did say 'with the right orbital plane'.

Face on orbits would show no doppler shift in either model. We probably do
not even know they are double stars unless they are optically separable.

We can usually tell by the type of spectrum if two stars are contributing to a
'point source'.

On 16 Feb 2007 13:38:35 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 16, 2:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:24:16 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:11:59 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
False! Remember that c + any velocity equals c in relativity.
No theat's not relativity. That's a WIlsonian example of circular logic:

Let w always = c, by postulate.

Therefore
w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
= (c+v)/(1+v/c)
= (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2)
The speed-transformation equation u + w = (u + w)/(1 + uw/c^2)
is a consequence of the postulates of SR.
Would you please explain what's circular about that?

In the case of light, the postulate say its speed wrt an observer is always c
even if the source is moving at v.

The addition equation say if an object moves at u wrt a frame that is moving at
v wrt another frame then the object moves at w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2) wrt the
second frame.

In the case of light, the postulate claims w = c ALWAYS.
So replace u with c and you get w = c = (v+c)/(1+vc/c^2)

I showed that this can be achieved by merely using a trivial circular maths
trick.

How pathetic....

Your stupidities have finally ceased to amaze me.
They are as can be expected from an imbecile.

Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...


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

The rule for combining velocities is not, nor was it ever, used to
assert that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference
frame. The only claim that is made is that the frame independence of
the speed of light is *consistent with* the rule for combining
velocities. Moreover, the experimental evidence in support of the rule
for combining velocities has nothing to do with measuring the speed of
light, but in fact measuring the speed of other particles in different
reference frames -- and it is there that measurements are completely
consistent with the velocity combination rule.

The frame-independence of the speed of light is taken as an unproven
*postulate* in special relativity. It is not necessary in science to
experimentally prove a postulate. One determines the implications of a
postulate (and just as you derived it, the velocity addition rule is
an example of an implication of this postulate) and then tests those
implications against experiment. If the implications match experiment,
and if the postulate is able to generate more successful implications
that match up to experiment than competing postulates, then this is
taken in science to be sufficient grounds for belief in the truth of
that postulate.

In this particular case, the postulate is the frame-independence of
the speed of light. One implication (of numerous implications) is the
rule for combining velocities. The rule for combining velocities has
been tested experimentally in a wide variety of circumstances (without
needing a direct test of the frame-independence of the speed of
light). And because this, and so many other implications, match
experiment so well, we take stock in the truth of the frame-
independence of the speed of light.

I hope this clears things up for you, Henri. At least a little.

You can stay in cuckoo land as long as you like as far as I'm concerned.


PD

On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 16, 5:00 pm, bz wrote:
"PD" wrote groups.com:



On Feb 16, 2:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) 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.

The rule for combining velocities is not, nor was it ever, used to
assert that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference
frame. The only claim that is made is that the frame independence of
the speed of light is *consistent with* the rule for combining
velocities. Moreover, the experimental evidence in support of the rule
for combining velocities has nothing to do with measuring the speed of
light, but in fact measuring the speed of other particles in different
reference frames -- and it is there that measurements are completely
consistent with the velocity combination rule.

The frame-independence of the speed of light is taken as an unproven
*postulate* in special relativity. It is not necessary in science to
experimentally prove a postulate. One determines the implications of a
postulate (and just as you derived it, the velocity addition rule is
an example of an implication of this postulate) and then tests those
implications against experiment. If the implications match experiment,
and if the postulate is able to generate more successful implications
that match up to experiment than competing postulates, then this is
taken in science to be sufficient grounds for belief in the truth of
that postulate.

In this particular case, the postulate is the frame-independence of
the speed of light. One implication (of numerous implications) is the
rule for combining velocities. The rule for combining velocities has
been tested experimentally in a wide variety of circumstances (without
needing a direct test of the frame-independence of the speed of
light). And because this, and so many other implications, match
experiment so well, we take stock in the truth of the frame-
independence of the speed of light.

....

Well said.


Well, thanks, but Henri will ignore it, since it doesn't feed his
fantasy.

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


PD

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:43:52 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:
.....
That depends on the geometry. Currently, all your action occurs along
a single, one dimensional line, and you 'scale' things, using trig, to
'emulate' an orbit with tilts in three space, but you make no
allowance for different 'line of sight' paths that the photons would
need to travel.

I know what you are saying and have considered it myself. particularly
in the case of long period orbits where the conditions along the LOS
could be quite different for light emitted, say, one year apart.

give it due consideration.

If it were significant, I doubt if we would get such clear images of
very distant galaxies.

I agree that there would be significant bluring if c'=c+v photons existed.

.....
Yes..but I still don't think it's worth worrying about. Mind you, it
could explain some of the erratic behavior often seen in recorded
brightness curves.

I doubt it, I am not talking about brightness curves here, I am talking
about the image of the star jumping back and forth.

I gather you are likening this to what we often see in the atmosphere
due to lensing in temperature gradients. I don't think that would happen
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.

The faster photons arrive from the direction 'more close to current
actual location in the sky of the star' (which we can't see because the
light from there has not arrived here yet.)

The slower photons come from where the star was when those photons were
emitted.

A star with a high proper motion should look like an airplane at night
with {blinking} red and green lights on the wing tips. The lights being
seen as streaks of different colored light from different locations in
the sky.

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.

.....
I do use a 'half distance' model.

Which is 'equivalent' to a half life model IF the velocity is constant.

So, what is the 'half distance' or 'half life' of c+v and c-v photons?

And are they the same?

No they still live.

I assumed they remain but become 'c' photons rather than c+v or c-v
photons.

By using 'unification rate', I largely overcome the problem.

I merely vary the rate per lightday until I get about the right
(hipparcos) distance.

Why should photons traveling at .8 c speed up at exactly the same rate
that photons traveling at 1.2 c slow down?

But if they don't 'unify at the same rate' then one or the other would
predominate (and speed up or slow down the 'c' photons). This should
cause some strange effects.

If the orbit is eccentric, there will be more photons emitted that are
in one or the other of the sub/super luminal states. This will produce
an unbalance. Even if you can invent a method of taking energy from the
c+v photons and giving it to the c-v photons, there will be problems
because there will be less of one kind than of the other.

This, in itself is a severe problem for the Ritz model.

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+b eta)+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.


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.

.....
I'm not going to worry about it.

You must IF your theory is ever going to be acceptable.

Bob, right now my main concern is trying to find decent data to work
with. I wont achieve anything if I just talk about it with you and
George...even though your comments are often helpful.

I try to help. Good to know that at least some of my comments have been
helpful.

.....
It all depends on the star's orbit velocity.

If so, then all doppler binaries, with orbital velocities similar to
those which give the Wilson Curves that match the cephieds, should
show similar variations in brightness.

I dont have enough data to make any definite claims about unification
as yet....except that is appears to happen according to the BaTh.

More like: without adding the magic of unification, BaT fails.
'Magic' because it is difficult to justify speeding up slow photons
while slowing down fast one and still maintain coherent images of the
source.

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.

Of course there are many stars that DO vary intrinsically and maybe
I'm trying to match those with a theory that doesn't apply.

Well said!

Well obviously a proportion of binaries must be eclipsing. ...but a
greater proportion could be explained purely by the BaTh since it
produces very similar curves.
Also it is hard *but not impossible) to explain the presence of
harmonics in a brightness curve on purely 'orbit grounds'....so maybe
many stars ARE huff-puffing.

That is all correct.
The question is how many are actually due to BaTh.
More and more it looks like less and less.

.....
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?

Either answer would seem to reduce the number of Wilson Variable stars
rather drastically.



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.

I keep looking for flaws in my favorite theories. I love to find such
flaws.


There could be other reasons for it.
....face-on orbits for instance.

I did say 'with the right orbital plane'.

Face on orbits would show no doppler shift in either model. We probably
do not even know they are double stars unless they are optically
separable.

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.






--
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

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. Theoretically the source could be the only object
in the universe. The best reference for a change in speed
is the source itself.

That is what I expected.

Since I am discussing the unification of light speed from
the star over a complete orbit, I am suggesting that its
barycentre is the most practical reference to use. It is
not the only reference one could use.

I agree. My questions were about the behavior of the light,
as you discuss next, rather than choice of reference.

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?

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.

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.

Leonard

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.

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?

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."

Leonard

On 17 Feb 2007 21:49:35 -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. Theoretically the source could be the only object
in the universe. The best reference for a change in speed
is the source itself.

That is what I expected.

Since I am discussing the unification of light speed from
the star over a complete orbit, I am suggesting that its
barycentre is the most practical reference to use. It is
not the only reference one could use.

I agree. My questions were about the behavior of the light,
as you discuss next, rather than choice of reference.

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 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.

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

Leonard

On Feb 17, 10:04 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 21:49:35 -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. Theoretically the source could be the only object
in the universe. The best reference for a change in speed
is the source itself.

That is what I expected.

Since I am discussing the unification of light speed from
the star over a complete orbit, I am suggesting that its
barycentre is the most practical reference to use. It is
not the only reference one could use.

I agree. My questions were about the behavior of the light,
as you discuss next, rather than choice of reference.

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 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.



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.


Ralph once again confuses "reference frame" and "medium".

[...]

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2007 00:38:58 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 15 Feb, 23:15, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 05:33:24 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 15 Feb, 12:48, bz wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote
oups.com:
On 14 Feb, 23:29, bz wrote:
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote

In that case which non-variable spectroscopic
binaries have you analysed and what wa the
predicted light curve?

George, like I said, the biggest problem for me is to find both velocity
and
brightness curves for the same star.

I asked about non-variable stars!

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...

The brightness curve looks like this:
----------------------------------------------------





Brightness curves for near circular orbits are pretty well the same so all
I
need is the magnitude change and maximum velocity.

If you can find some examples for me I will try to match them.

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 appears to be another factor contributing to light speed
unification
other than plain space density of matter.
Maybe this is related to the gravity field of the stars involved. I have
no
explanation as yet.

Gravity would slightly couteract the speed unification
effect but it is a second order effect so increases the
unification distance by about one part in ten thousand
typically, completely irrelevant as you don't know the
distance to within an order of magnitude yet.

I'm not trying to explain it at this stage. I just want to find a
consistent
pattern. Unification distance appears to be definitely related to orbit
period.

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.

If the speeds unify so fast on nearby stars (including Cepheids) that
we do
not see differences in aberation and stellar position for slow vs
fast
photons, then the speeds would unify too fast for brightness
variation to
be significant.

I think aberation and stellar position effects are
going to be too small to be noticeable even with
significant brightness variations, but the apparent
Doppler variations would then imply non-Keplerian
orbits. After all, once the fast photons catch the
slow ones, the Doppler goes to infinity as would
the inferred orbital speed ;-) Very rapid extinction
is the only way round that.

...not necessarily so 'rapid'.

Well 'rapid' is subjective. What I mean is very
much less than the parallax distance to the system.

for small period orbits, yes...but not so much for orbits over about a
year.

Once the light leaves the star, the only remnant of that
is the difference between the actual speed and c/n.

However the brightness is predicted to go to
infinity at the critical distance when the first double image would
occur.
Since this doesn't seem to happen and multiple images are not commonly
observed, I am prepared to accept that exinction rates are normally
fairly
high.

That's all I meant. Typically it must be no more
than a fraction of a light year.

No. It doesn't work like that. Something makes it period dependent.

It can only be the speed.

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.

George