Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 20 Feb 2007 05:51:35 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:24 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 19:30:44 -0800, "PD" wrote:





On Feb 19, 7:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 06:09:20 -0800, "PD" wrote:

Of course I am.
I start with the postulate that w = c and end up with an equation that seems to
CAUSE w to always be c.

Well, of course if you are setting out to show that w will always be
c, then of course you are being circular. But the point of the
derivation is to find a rule for combining velocities of *anything*,
not just light. It is that *rule* that is the desired result, not the
claim that w will always be c (that is, of course, what was assumed).
Then the rule is tested against things *other than* light. Sure
enough, it has worked absolutely everywhere it has been tested. This
tells you the rule appears to be generally true. Since the derivation
says this generality is a *direct* result of w always being c, then
the claim that w is always c is given support.

The rule has never been proved.

You simply delude that it has.

Of course it has. I mentioned several examples. I could certainly
point you to some reading where you can find out about it in detail.
Would you like some references, Henri?

Or is it better if you just clamp your hands over your ears and
holler, "La-la-la-la-la! I don't believe it and you can't make me! La-
la-la-la-la!"

Draper, when I see astronomers floundering around in the dark, trying to
explain what they see with way out theories based on Einsteiniana, I laugh my
****ing head off.
You are no better.


I don't see how what astronomers do with their time has anything to do
with the experimental verification of the rule of combining velocities
in, say, particle interactions.

Now, would you like some reading material about that experimental
verification, Henri? Or are their experimental measurements also "way
out" and "based on Einsteiniana"?

i hear the physics mafia is recruiting suicide bombers....why don't you have a
go Draper...

PD

On Feb 20, 5:45 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 20 Feb 2007 05:51:35 -0800, "PD" wrote:





On Feb 20, 12:24 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 19:30:44 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 19, 7:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 06:09:20 -0800, "PD" wrote:

Of course I am.
I start with the postulate that w = c and end up with an equation that seems to
CAUSE w to always be c.

Well, of course if you are setting out to show that w will always be
c, then of course you are being circular. But the point of the
derivation is to find a rule for combining velocities of *anything*,
not just light. It is that *rule* that is the desired result, not the
claim that w will always be c (that is, of course, what was assumed).
Then the rule is tested against things *other than* light. Sure
enough, it has worked absolutely everywhere it has been tested. This
tells you the rule appears to be generally true. Since the derivation
says this generality is a *direct* result of w always being c, then
the claim that w is always c is given support.

The rule has never been proved.

You simply delude that it has.

Of course it has. I mentioned several examples. I could certainly
point you to some reading where you can find out about it in detail.
Would you like some references, Henri?

Or is it better if you just clamp your hands over your ears and
holler, "La-la-la-la-la! I don't believe it and you can't make me! La-
la-la-la-la!"

Draper, when I see astronomers floundering around in the dark, trying to
explain what they see with way out theories based on Einsteiniana, I laugh my
****ing head off.
You are no better.

I don't see how what astronomers do with their time has anything to do
with the experimental verification of the rule of combining velocities
in, say, particle interactions.

Now, would you like some reading material about that experimental
verification, Henri? Or are their experimental measurements also "way
out" and "based on Einsteiniana"?

i hear the physics mafia is recruiting suicide bombers....why don't you have a
go Draper...


Is this your way of responding to physics content? "Don't want to hear
it?"

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 20 Feb 2007 02:18:17 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Henry, I have already done that several times. In
round figures the PRF is 339 Hz and that is varied
by +/- 30.5 mHz. The exact numbers are in my previous
posts.

The velocity curve that would be published is just
a sine wave (near zero eccentricity) with an
amplitude of c * 0.0305 / 339 = 27983 m/s.

That should be the same
as my 'brightness curve'. I can't make sense of the curve published by
Jacoby
et al
....
OK
The frequency variation correspondes to a magnitude change of about 0.2.
(CMIIW)

I think you used Hz instead of mHz, it is a brightness
ratio of 1.00018 which corresponds to a magnitude change
of about 0.0001955. Your approach is right though.

and: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/J1909-3744b.jpg
mag change ~0.2
Period = 0.0042 years
max velocity=0.0000933c.

To obtain curve b, I have to plug in a distance of less than 1 LY....more
like
0.7 LYs.
This order of 'extinction length' is quite consistent with those I have
derived
from short period contact binaries.

In curve b, the magnitude change is smaller and a sine-like red velocity
curve
corresponds with an e ~ 0.06, yaw -90.
A circular orbit results in a clearly skewed red curve.
So my theory says the orbit is NOT circular at all.

OK, that's exactly the sort of difference in prediction I have
been interested in. Pop in the right brightness and let's see
what you get now. My guess is your 'extinction length' will
need to go down by a factor of 1000 to 0.0007 light years or
about 6 light hours !!!!

George

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:46:34 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


I am trying to figure out why we don't see multiple images. Light
traveling through similar regions will do nothing to prevent that. So
what is the relevance?

I htink you have i mind optical effects. that's different..

If BaTh predicts optical effects (it does)
and we do not see those optical effects (we don't)
then BaTh is invalidated.

So far it only preddicts hte shapes of star brightnes curves.....and we
DO see them..
It hasn't failed...

You ignore the effect that I have repeatedly mentioned, that the light must
come from the direction 'where the star was when the light was
emitted'[modified by aberration]. So WH variable stars with large proper
motion MUST result in the fast photons coming from a different location in
the sky than the slow photons. This would make the image waltz back and forth
in time with the orbit RATHER than showing up as variations in brightness.

c+v predicts this effect. SR/GR does not.

If you can show that the effect occurs, you will go a long way to making c+v
a viable theory.

If it is never observed, c+v is falsified.



Bob, my program doesn't produce a range of sines and add them together
to get a result.
It simulates c+v light, that's all.

Henri, your program 'simulates c+v light' emitted by a moving source
along a single line of sight.

You stick a 'bundle of photons' into a 'packet of photons'. You compute
the speed of that bundle by calculating the relative velocity of the
source wrt earth along that line of sight(you use trig[cosines {sines
shifted by 90 degrees}] to do this).

You then allow those packets to travel the distance to earth and
calculate the total photons at any particular point along the way at any
particular time.

What you are doing is equivalent to summing three different scaled sine
functions. The scaling proportional to the distance traveled and the
velocity.

not quite.
One term (travel time) is D/(1+vcos)...very different......

Not so different. It is still a trig function.

The phase of each of the three functions represents the eccentricity,
and the tilts of the orbit in two different planes.

Not so Bob.
I only use edge on orbits. That's all I require.

Then pitch is ignored by the program?



[hint, I have just given you a method to figure out the answer the 'what
formula does your program use' questions.]

You are totally confused.

I suspect we disagree upon who is confused.

They approach 'c+u' photons.

You introduce u as a new variable. What is its significance?

Ther speed wrt their source is changing continuously. Every swirl in
space has a different speed wrt the source and light passing through
tends toward the equilibrium EM speed in that swirl....so u might be
anything...

This theory would imply that stars beyond gas clouds that are moving
with high velocities wrt earth would have their images displaced in the
direction of the motion of the gas clouds.

They probably are.

If they were, there would be visible effects.


The telescope filled with moving water showed that there would be such
an effect when moving through dense media. This is consistent with SR as
well as with BaTh.

It would be very interesting if you could show that photons moving
through a gas cloud RETAINED the velocity that they had in the cloud,
even when they leave that cloud. BaTh would predict the retention of
that velocity.

The might be a tiny RI correction. Also it might move straight into
another 'cloud' with a different relative speed.

After all, how can those photons know to slow back down(or speed back
up) just because they have entered empty space?

RI. Try it with a glass plate.

Photons leaving a glass plate do NOT slow down, they return to the velocity
they had before they entered the plate (c).

You, on the other hand, need for them to change speed, permanently, AND for
different photons to change speed differently. Some must slow down and others
must speed up. THAT requires a special kind of magic.

They would then be that much earlier (or later) when they arrive here
than other photons emitted by the same source that missed going through
the gas cloud they went through. And their image would be displaced from
the image drawn by those photons.

The movements are too small to cause that kind of effect. It would
happen anyway, BaTh or no BaTh.

BaTh would exacerbate the effect. The fast photons would bunch together and
come from one location. The slow photons would bunch together and come from a
different location in the sky. Intermedia velocity photons would come from
yet another location, between the two.

Double star systems with high proper motion would appear quite different than
they do.


The idea is to feed in the known values of those parameters...if they
can be obtained.

If that produces results that differ from known brightness curves, you
modify the parameters or your program until the curves look more
realistic.

Bob, the shapes are right. It is only the distance that is in
question...and that shows a consistent error....too consistent to be
coincidence.

The shapes might be right IF the line of sight to the system did not change.
If the line of sight changes between when slow and when fast photons are
emitted, then your shapes can not be right.

That is the way that model builders work. There is nothing wrong with
that.

Once a match is found, you try to figure out why you had to modify the
parameters.

Only ONE parameter.

pitch, yaw, eccentricity, period, phase difference, observer distance,
brightness, max velocity(ratio), radius, max velocity, R(inner circle)

I count 11 parameters, then there is extinction and overtones.

Looks like more than one parameter to me, by an order of magnitude.

Since your program is just summing, phasing and scaling sine waves,
any waveform it produces can clearly be produced by summed, phased and
scaled sine waves.

Yes it's called fourier analysis.

The decomposition of the curve is.
Building the original curve from sines has a different name.

My program doesn't rely on that.

In effect, it does the same thing.

No bob, you are totally confused.

How many parameters?

Astronomers are still completely mystified by the behavior of
cepheids. That's becasue they are indoctrinated with Einsteiniana.

I don't think 'completely mystified' is a correct description. There are
models that are consistent with everything we know that are very good at
reproducing their behavior.

None of the models can produce the right kind of brightness curves.

'right kind'?
What would be the 'right kind' and how are the curves you produce BETTER than
those produced by other models?

Then we can not see BaTh variable stars in distant galaxies. All
variables there are eclipsing or cephied or some other but not BaTh?

I know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...

Cepheid variables are used to determine the distance of many galaxies.

Since there is no other way of accurately checking, you know you can say
that with confidence.

Cepheid variables are observed in distant galaxies. That contradicts your 'I
know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...'

Any way you are wrong. The brightness pattern settles down to
virtually its asymptotic state at the extinction distance. The curves
will remain the same beyond that distance.

You were the one that said 'no brightness variation is to be expected
[beyond the critical distance].'

Did you mean that once past that distance the 'variability' pattern is
'set' and will not change?

Don't worry about it. The critical distance is not important because
extinction always cuts in well before it.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'critical distance'?
Why should I not worry about it when you say something that is contradictory
to something else you (or reality) has said?

I suggest you NOT follow the advice you give others. If you encounter a
contradiction, WORRY about it!

Therein lurks the possiblity for discovery and greatness.

and D calculating that light emitted by A may be approaching B at a
speed different from c, you are incorrect.

No I'm not.
That has been made clear by many SRians here. Light can be assessed to
be approaching another object at other than c.

By SR, from the viewpoint of the receiver of the photons, the photons
are always traveling at c, from the moment emitted until they are
receive.

That is not important for the BaTh.

When you are are making claims about what SR says, it is very important that
you NOT distort what SR says.

The third party observer, D, must use the same formula that B uses when
calculating what B will see when the photons arrive from A.

Not important.

It is vital. Your argument falls apart when you say things wrong.


D may, of course, look at things from D's viewpoint and see that the
photons from A will arrive sooner (or later) at B because A is in motion
wrt B, but when D computes what B will see, s/he must compute things as
seen from B's viewpoint.

...if D correctly computes what B will see, he will know that B will
measure OWLS as not being c.

Not in an SR/GR universe. You claimed that SRians said something that would
NOT be correct under SR. EIther 1) they said something wrong or 2) you
misunderstood what they said.

That's all my program requires.

Your program is NOT consistent with SR because it has the photons
leaving the source at c'=c+v and traveling toward the earth at that
velocity for some time wrt the viewer on earth.

That is consistent with BaTh but NOT with SR.

Good, That's what it is supposed to be doing.

It would be good if the program ALSO showed an understanding of SR/GR and its
predictions so that the discrepancies could be studied.


which they often are.
Agreed. but if they are not then we could not tell if it was a single
star or a double star if their orbit was perpendicular to the line of
sight to earth.

Correct. that still leaves about 80% that WILL show two spectra.

Those should ALL be Wilson variables. Most are not. Bad for BaTh.

Not so. I told you why. velocities are generally far too small.

Why? Many of them have velocities similar to those you use in your Wilson
variable simulations. And they are far enough away that we should be seeing
the brightness variations predicted by your progra, but we do not. Why?


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.




--
bz 73 de N5BZ k

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

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

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:45:59 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A straw man.
Also, not true.


In any case, I was not talking about the speed of light but the speed of
particles moving near the speed of light ('v1 and v2 are a significant
fraction of the speed of c').

Build your own particle accelerator, using the predictions of BaTh and
see if you can get particles to move faster than c as is implied by
v_effective =(v1+v2) rather than v_effective = composition(v1,v2).

If we lived in a universe where BaTh worked, v1+v2 would work. It MUST
so that c+v will work unless you say that c+v ONLY applies to massless
particles and THEN you must explain how the massive particles 'know'
they must go slower than c when they are surrounded by photons moving
faster than c as they would be if c'=c+v worked.

You must play by the rules of the game.
Everything must be consistent with c'=c+v. You must deal with all the
implications, you can not pick and choose which you want to deal with.

Rubbish

Rubbish?

How can you pick and choose effects while ignoring other predictable
effects and claim to be a follower of science, as describe it in your book?

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.




--
bz 73 de N5BZ k

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" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 20 Feb 2007 03:10:39 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 19 Feb, 23:56, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 00:41:06 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 19 Feb, 04:44, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:36:42 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:59:26 -0000, "George Dishman"
But you cannot ever get that because the variable
speed messes up the Doppler equation. As with any
modelling technique, you put in your initial guess
of the actual parameters, the program caclulates
the observed signals and then you iterate until
the predicted observables match that actuals.

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

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

That's all I need.

Yes but you have to process it appropriately. Your
program is not doing that at present.

It's near enough to do what I want at present..

No, it is wrong by a factor of 11000 at 8 light years.
Of course that's only a test but the number is going
to be badly wrong at any range of interest.

George, velocity and distance are conjugate.

If the velocity is 10% high then my distance will be10% low.
This is no big deal. I don't know where you are getting your figures.

I did explain Henry, at the critical distance the
gap between pulses is zero so your program should
report a value of c for the observed velocity curve
but the peak is the same height as the true value
which you entered as 0.0009. That's wrong by a
factor of 11000.

.. although I will have to take
Yaw angle into acount eventually..

Does that matter at the moment for a circular
orbit?

No there is no error in a circular orbit.
However as I have shown, this is NOT a circular orbit according to BaTh.
It has
an e ~ 0.06 with periastron furthest from observer.

The maximum OBSERVED radial velocity will differ only slighly from the
maximum
PERIPHERAL velocity. However the phasing will be nearly 90 out!!!! So I'm
going
to have to compensate for this when I compare phases.
I can do this fairly easily..and will do so soon.

OK.

I think this might explain why my curves for RT Aur were a fair way out in
phase.
Thakyou for your help George. You might have added another nail in
Albert's
coffin.

Not until you fix the velocity magnitude error :-)

....
The final distance between adjacent pulses will vary according to their
initial
velocity relative to the barycentre. Some will move closer together,
others
further apart.

They will also move closer and farther due to their
initially different speeds but that part will become
constant as the speeds equalise.

Yes..but their spacing overall will retain a periodic bunching.
It is not CONSTANT all the way along.

I think that's what I just said. It isn't constant
and reduces or grows until the speeds equalise
after which they remain unchanged regardless of
distance. Your method doesn't take the effect of
the initial speed difference into account. Your
trick of using the brightness curve instead in
your other mail is an effective workaround for
the moment though.

George, unless I have access to a curve showing variation in pulse
arrival
times I cannot help you much.

I've given you that repeatedly. The frequency varies by
30.5 mHz either side of 339 Hz.

OK.

Reading the papers about this pulsar is quite confusing for me

Indeed, but the basic information you need is trivial
for me. Some of the more specialised terms are less
clear but the basic orbit is simple.

It turns out that this might not be true.

Understood, what I mean is that it is simple to
understand the published basic orbital parameters
and reverse them back to find what was observed.
After that, you have to try to match the observation
with the Ritzian analysis and I fully expect your
orbital parameters to differ from those determined
by conventional means. In fact that's the point,
it is not a useful test if both theories give the
same results.

The Shapiro delay is what makes the system special.
It allows the inclination to be determined which
leads to highly accurate determination of a lot
of other parameters.

Well the whole picture changes when you use c+v....as it does with most of
astrophysics. It becomes more simple and logical.

We'll see :-)

The BaTh interpretation would be quite different from
theirs.

It would, so stop looking for excuses and let's see what
your program says.

It is done.

Your method was fine but you misread the number,
try again.

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

No, set it to 2.3*10^-7 if anything, but you
don't need an explicit extinction term. Just
treat your program as an observer at infinity
and distance is the characteristic extinction
length.

Hahaha!
See, your claim that the orbit is circular is based on a perfectly
sinelike
'red curve'. The BaTh shows that the OBSERVED sinewave velocity curve
requires
an orbit with e ~ 0.6 or more depending on observer distance.

Yes, that's the sort of difference I am expecting.
I assume your program deals with Kepler's second
law?

Yes I can do that.
I only introduced the 'extinction' facility in order to try to obtain a
value
for its rate.

Essentially your distance parameter is already that.

Yes. For a mag change of 0.2, I get a distance of about 0.7 LY

OK but the mag change is 0.0002, the frequency deviation
is mHz, not Hz.


George, this is a circular orbit and there is no difference between my
and your
value of maximum velocity. I have tried to explain that extinction will
not
affect measured doppler and its interpretation.

Extinction in itself wouldn't but the initial speed
difference does affect the Dopppler. Faster pulses
catch up to slower ones for a while before extinction
matches their speeds. That means the pulses are closer
together giving the _false_ impression of a higher
speed. Your blue curve is the true speed, the red
curve should be the _apparent_ speed deduced from
the closed-up pulses. It should be _higher_ than the
blue curve.

No. The program averages the ORIGINAL pulse speeds that arrive in set time
intervals.

Yes, that's the error. The _published_ speed curve
will be based on the inverse period, the time
between pulse arrivals so that's what you need
to put into the simulation to make the curve
comparable.

The red curve is generated in this way:

For the purpose of counting the arrival of pulses, the orbit period is
divided
into 500 divisions, which form the elements of an array. The program
adds all
the pulses that arrive in that division to make up the value of that
array
element. It also follows each pulse individually so that it records the
speed
at which the pulse left the source barycentre. It averages the
velocities of
all the pulse that are placed into each array element.

That will give the wrong answer. The pubilished velocity
data uses the conventional Doppler formula so the speed is

v = c * (df / f)

where df is the frequency shift

To find that, you can use the time between arrivals which
is just the period, or the inverse of the frequency.

But you are using constant 'c'!!!. I'm using c+v...Naturally I will get a
different answer.

I only use constant c to reverse the published orbit
to get the observations. The orbit is determined
that way so i have to use that to reverse the process.
Once we know what was observed, then I expect your
program to use c+v to calculate the arrival times
and then the standard Doppler effect equation to get
what would be a published curve from that.

Introducing extinction doesn't really change anything.

It stops the period changing after some distance, the
way you have it at the moment is fine.

That's not good way to put it.
Nothing happens to the period no matter how extinction operates.

We seem to be at cross purposes. Without the extinction,
the period would continue to change forever as the fast
pulses catch up to and move past the slow ones. Extinction
slows and eventually stops that effect but the catch-up
that has already happened is not removed. Don't you have
an animation of this?

Just calculate
the Doppler shift from your pulse arrival times and you
will get the right answer.

Just stick c+v into your formula George and YOU will get right answer.

Published curves don't use c+v Henry. If we are to
compare your prediction with velocity curves, you
need to convert them from the pulse period in the
same way that everyone else does.

..Oh, and you might need a computer program to do it because v varies with
time.

The Doppler equation uised by astronomers doesn't and
that's all you are replicating.

It shouldn't make much difference at low eccentricities and doesn't
affect
brightness curve shape anyway. ..just the distance.

It will have a small effect but for our circular
orbit, it is irrelevant. Can I ask that you lay
that aside on your to-do list until we finish
looking at J1909-3744.

It is done.
It supports the BaTh observation that extinction distance is inversely
velocity
dependent...which is odd when you think about it.

Impossible actually, it can depend on the nature
of the medium but not the orbit.

I don't want to calculate the velocity. I want to read about it in a
table or
graph.

Little children learn they don't always get what they
want. The published tables give the period and time
difference and I have done the calculation to turn that
into frequencies for you. All you need to do is fix the
bug in your program and then find the orbital parameters
and extinction that matches the observation.

you are using constant c.

To get the frequency, yes.

I'm using c+v.

Yes, for the next stage.

George

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:59:41 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 20 Feb 2007 02:18:17 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Henry, I have already done that several times. In
round figures the PRF is 339 Hz and that is varied
by +/- 30.5 mHz. The exact numbers are in my previous
posts.

The velocity curve that would be published is just
a sine wave (near zero eccentricity) with an
amplitude of c * 0.0305 / 339 = 27983 m/s.

That should be the same
as my 'brightness curve'. I can't make sense of the curve published by
Jacoby
et al
...
OK
The frequency variation correspondes to a magnitude change of about 0.2.
(CMIIW)

I think you used Hz instead of mHz, it is a brightness
ratio of 1.00018 which corresponds to a magnitude change
of about 0.0001955. Your approach is right though.

Yes i did use hz onstead of mhz. Sory about that.

and: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/J1909-3744b.jpg
mag change ~0.2
Period = 0.0042 years
max velocity=0.0000933c.

To obtain curve b, I have to plug in a distance of less than 1 LY....more
like
0.7 LYs.
This order of 'extinction length' is quite consistent with those I have
derived
from short period contact binaries.

In curve b, the magnitude change is smaller and a sine-like red velocity
curve
corresponds with an e ~ 0.06, yaw -90.
A circular orbit results in a clearly skewed red curve.
So my theory says the orbit is NOT circular at all.

OK, that's exactly the sort of difference in prediction I have
been interested in. Pop in the right brightness and let's see
what you get now. My guess is your 'extinction length' will
need to go down by a factor of 1000 to 0.0007 light years or
about 6 light hours !!!!

I cannot give you an exact figure because of way magnitude is calculated...but
it is less than 1 lightday.

.....Not imposible since it is a neutron star.

I think other factors are operating here.




George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:59:41 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:

The frequency variation correspondes to a magnitude change of about 0.2.
(CMIIW)

I think you used Hz instead of mHz, it is a brightness
ratio of 1.00018 which corresponds to a magnitude change
of about 0.0001955. Your approach is right though.

Yes i did use hz onstead of mhz. Sory about that.

No problem, easily done.

and: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/J1909-3744b.jpg
mag change ~0.2
Period = 0.0042 years
max velocity=0.0000933c.

To obtain curve b, I have to plug in a distance of less than 1
LY....more
like
0.7 LYs.
This order of 'extinction length' is quite consistent with those I have
derived
from short period contact binaries.

In curve b, the magnitude change is smaller and a sine-like red velocity
curve
corresponds with an e ~ 0.06, yaw -90.
A circular orbit results in a clearly skewed red curve.
So my theory says the orbit is NOT circular at all.

OK, that's exactly the sort of difference in prediction I have
been interested in. Pop in the right brightness and let's see
what you get now. My guess is your 'extinction length' will
need to go down by a factor of 1000 to 0.0007 light years or
about 6 light hours !!!!

I cannot give you an exact figure because of way magnitude is
calculated...but
it is less than 1 lightday.

....Not imposible since it is a neutron star.

There you are Henry, we have derived an upper limit
on the extinction distance from the published data.
Now you understand what I was driving at, and
hopefully you also realise I really did understand
your model all along :-)

While some stars may have more or less dense plasma
around them, in general the distance should be around
that sort of level for all and shorter for stars with
a dense plasma. Note that it is much less than the
distance to the heliopause for the Sun.

I think other factors are operating here.

There are no "other factors" in Ritzian theory to
operate aside from those already in your program.
You still need to fix that bug in the velocity
curve though.

George

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:35:50 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 20 Feb 2007 03:10:39 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:



It's near enough to do what I want at present..

No, it is wrong by a factor of 11000 at 8 light years.
Of course that's only a test but the number is going
to be badly wrong at any range of interest.

George, velocity and distance are conjugate.

If the velocity is 10% high then my distance will be10% low.
This is no big deal. I don't know where you are getting your figures.

I did explain Henry, at the critical distance the
gap between pulses is zero so your program should
report a value of c for the observed velocity curve
but the peak is the same height as the true value
which you entered as 0.0009. That's wrong by a
factor of 11000.

I think I know what you are trying to say here George.

At the critical distance, SOME pulses arrive together not ALL of them. that is
because a cincave section of the orbit is such tat a large group of pulses will
arrive at a distant point over a very short time interval.
They will have started out with a range of speeds; that's why some catch up
with the others.

After extinction, they will all be traveling at about c wrt the source BUT
their wavelengths will have changed so that their source speeds will still
appear to be the correct ones, when measured with a grating at the observer
distance..

So my graph shows the 'no extinction' case...because I say extinction makes no
difference to the measured doppler shift.

.. although I will have to take
Yaw angle into acount eventually..

Does that matter at the moment for a circular
orbit?

No there is no error in a circular orbit.
However as I have shown, this is NOT a circular orbit according to BaTh.
It has
an e ~ 0.06 with periastron furthest from observer.

The maximum OBSERVED radial velocity will differ only slighly from the
maximum
PERIPHERAL velocity. However the phasing will be nearly 90 out!!!! So I'm
going
to have to compensate for this when I compare phases.
I can do this fairly easily..and will do so soon.

OK.

I said the wrong thing there. The phasing is correct as shown on my program.
The maximum velocity will be slightly out though because the OBSERVED maximum
will not be the peripheral maximum unless my Yaw angle is exactly zero.
I'm still working on this. It isn't a serious flaw.
Incidentally, I have further modified my program so the red and blue curves can
be vertically separated for clarity.


I think this might explain why my curves for RT Aur were a fair way out in
phase.
Thakyou for your help George. You might have added another nail in
Albert's
coffin.

Not until you fix the velocity magnitude error :-)

There is no significant error...none at all for circular orbits.
Please explain why you think there is an error..

The final distance between adjacent pulses will vary according to their
initial
velocity relative to the barycentre. Some will move closer together,
others
further apart.

They will also move closer and farther due to their
initially different speeds but that part will become
constant as the speeds equalise.

Yes..but their spacing overall will retain a periodic bunching.
It is not CONSTANT all the way along.

I think that's what I just said. It isn't constant
and reduces or grows until the speeds equalise
after which they remain unchanged regardless of
distance.

OK we agree on that.

Your method doesn't take the effect of
the initial speed difference into account.

Don't be silly George, Of course it does. That's the whole basis of the
calculation.
The radial speed at each point around the orbit is c + vcos(A)

Your
trick of using the brightness curve instead in
your other mail is an effective workaround for
the moment though.

George, unless I have access to a curve showing variation in pulse
arrival
times I cannot help you much.

I've given you that repeatedly. The frequency varies by
30.5 mHz either side of 339 Hz.

OK.

Reading the papers about this pulsar is quite confusing for me

Indeed, but the basic information you need is trivial
for me. Some of the more specialised terms are less
clear but the basic orbit is simple.

It turns out that this might not be true.

Understood, what I mean is that it is simple to
understand the published basic orbital parameters
and reverse them back to find what was observed.
After that, you have to try to match the observation
with the Ritzian analysis and I fully expect your
orbital parameters to differ from those determined
by conventional means. In fact that's the point,
it is not a useful test if both theories give the
same results.

Interestingly, according to BaTh, the observed velocity curve at distance from
a star in perfectly circular orbit will be skewed. The amount of skew will
depend on distance.
The orbit that WILL produce a perfect sinewave velocity curve will have an
eccentricity up to about 0.2 and periastron about nearest to us.
For instance, the settings e=0.1, yaw = -90, distance = 70, period 1 yr,
velocity 0.0005 produces a near sinewave at observer, whereas the curve at
source is quite skewed.


The Shapiro delay is what makes the system special.
It allows the inclination to be determined which
leads to highly accurate determination of a lot
of other parameters.

Well the whole picture changes when you use c+v....as it does with most of
astrophysics. It becomes more simple and logical.

We'll see :-)

The BaTh interpretation would be quite different from
theirs.

It would, so stop looking for excuses and let's see what
your program says.

It is done.

Your method was fine but you misread the number,
try again.

Yes.

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

No, set it to 2.3*10^-7 if anything, but you
don't need an explicit extinction term. Just
treat your program as an observer at infinity
and distance is the characteristic extinction
length.

Hahaha!
See, your claim that the orbit is circular is based on a perfectly
sinelike
'red curve'. The BaTh shows that the OBSERVED sinewave velocity curve
requires
an orbit with e ~ 0.6 or more depending on observer distance.

Yes, that's the sort of difference I am expecting.
I assume your program deals with Kepler's second
law?

No, it uses Newton's equation and actually verifies Kepler's laws.

Yes I can do that.
I only introduced the 'extinction' facility in order to try to obtain a
value
for its rate.

Essentially your distance parameter is already that.

Yes. For a mag change of 0.2, I get a distance of about 0.7 LY

OK but the mag change is 0.0002, the frequency deviation
is mHz, not Hz.

Yes OK , the extinction distance is 1 Lday.
Not impossible, it is a neutron star, after all.




No. The program averages the ORIGINAL pulse speeds that arrive in set time
intervals.

Yes, that's the error. The _published_ speed curve
will be based on the inverse period, the time
between pulse arrivals so that's what you need
to put into the simulation to make the curve
comparable.

George, the velocity will range from ~27000 +/-~0.01% m/s
Do you agree?

The red curve is generated in this way:

For the purpose of counting the arrival of pulses, the orbit period is
divided
into 500 divisions, which form the elements of an array. The program
adds all
the pulses that arrive in that division to make up the value of that
array
element. It also follows each pulse individually so that it records the
speed
at which the pulse left the source barycentre. It averages the
velocities of
all the pulse that are placed into each array element.

That will give the wrong answer. The pubilished velocity
data uses the conventional Doppler formula so the speed is

v = c * (df / f)

where df is the frequency shift

To find that, you can use the time between arrivals which
is just the period, or the inverse of the frequency.

But you are using constant 'c'!!!. I'm using c+v...Naturally I will get a
different answer.

I only use constant c to reverse the published orbit
to get the observations. The orbit is determined
that way so i have to use that to reverse the process.
Once we know what was observed, then I expect your
program to use c+v to calculate the arrival times
and then the standard Doppler effect equation to get
what would be a published curve from that.

Do you agree with the above velocity curve?


Introducing extinction doesn't really change anything.

It stops the period changing after some distance, the
way you have it at the moment is fine.

That's not good way to put it.
Nothing happens to the period no matter how extinction operates.

We seem to be at cross purposes.

We often are.

Without the extinction,
the period would continue to change forever as the fast
pulses catch up to and move past the slow ones. Extinction
slows and eventually stops that effect but the catch-up
that has already happened is not removed. Don't you have
an animation of this?

Beyond the critical distance, multiple images form and the brightness curve
goes haywire. It can appear like a high frequency variation but is hard to
analyse..
Below the critical distance the period of the brightness curve is not affected
by the degree of extinction.


Just calculate
the Doppler shift from your pulse arrival times and you
will get the right answer.

Just stick c+v into your formula George and YOU will get right answer.

Published curves don't use c+v Henry. If we are to
compare your prediction with velocity curves, you
need to convert them from the pulse period in the
same way that everyone else does.

It's a straight out doppler conversion, surely.


..Oh, and you might need a computer program to do it because v varies with
time.

The Doppler equation uised by astronomers doesn't and
that's all you are replicating.

It shouldn't make much difference at low eccentricities and doesn't
affect
brightness curve shape anyway. ..just the distance.

It will have a small effect but for our circular
orbit, it is irrelevant. Can I ask that you lay
that aside on your to-do list until we finish
looking at J1909-3744.

It is done.
It supports the BaTh observation that extinction distance is inversely
velocity
dependent...which is odd when you think about it.

Impossible actually, it can depend on the nature
of the medium but not the orbit.

I know.
It might also depend on the mass of the star...which is directly related to the
orbit period.

I don't want to calculate the velocity. I want to read about it in a
table or
graph.

Little children learn they don't always get what they
want. The published tables give the period and time
difference and I have done the calculation to turn that
into frequencies for you. All you need to do is fix the
bug in your program and then find the orbital parameters
and extinction that matches the observation.

you are using constant c.

To get the frequency, yes.

I'm using c+v.

Yes, for the next stage.

George

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:33:43 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:46:34 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


I am trying to figure out why we don't see multiple images. Light
traveling through similar regions will do nothing to prevent that. So
what is the relevance?

I htink you have i mind optical effects. that's different..

If BaTh predicts optical effects (it does)
and we do not see those optical effects (we don't)
then BaTh is invalidated.

So far it only preddicts hte shapes of star brightnes curves.....and we
DO see them..
It hasn't failed...

You ignore the effect that I have repeatedly mentioned, that the light must
come from the direction 'where the star was when the light was
emitted'[modified by aberration]. So WH variable stars with large proper
motion MUST result in the fast photons coming from a different location in
the sky than the slow photons. This would make the image waltz back and forth
in time with the orbit RATHER than showing up as variations in brightness.

The main purpose of this thread was to ascertain whether or not there was
enough star movement to cause this kind of effect.
the general cinsensus is that most stars are too far away for this to happen.


c+v predicts this effect. SR/GR does not.

If you can show that the effect occurs, you will go a long way to making c+v
a viable theory.

If it is never observed, c+v is falsified.



Bob, my program doesn't produce a range of sines and add them together
to get a result.
It simulates c+v light, that's all.

Henri, your program 'simulates c+v light' emitted by a moving source
along a single line of sight.

You stick a 'bundle of photons' into a 'packet of photons'. You compute
the speed of that bundle by calculating the relative velocity of the
source wrt earth along that line of sight(you use trig[cosines {sines
shifted by 90 degrees}] to do this).

You then allow those packets to travel the distance to earth and
calculate the total photons at any particular point along the way at any
particular time.

What you are doing is equivalent to summing three different scaled sine
functions. The scaling proportional to the distance traveled and the
velocity.

not quite.
One term (travel time) is D/(1+vcos)...very different......

Not so different. It is still a trig function.

The phase of each of the three functions represents the eccentricity,
and the tilts of the orbit in two different planes.

Not so Bob.
I only use edge on orbits. That's all I require.

Then pitch is ignored by the program?



[hint, I have just given you a method to figure out the answer the 'what
formula does your program use' questions.]

You are totally confused.

I suspect we disagree upon who is confused.

They approach 'c+u' photons.

You introduce u as a new variable. What is its significance?

Ther speed wrt their source is changing continuously. Every swirl in
space has a different speed wrt the source and light passing through
tends toward the equilibrium EM speed in that swirl....so u might be
anything...

This theory would imply that stars beyond gas clouds that are moving
with high velocities wrt earth would have their images displaced in the
direction of the motion of the gas clouds.

They probably are.

If they were, there would be visible effects.


The telescope filled with moving water showed that there would be such
an effect when moving through dense media. This is consistent with SR as
well as with BaTh.

It would be very interesting if you could show that photons moving
through a gas cloud RETAINED the velocity that they had in the cloud,
even when they leave that cloud. BaTh would predict the retention of
that velocity.

The might be a tiny RI correction. Also it might move straight into
another 'cloud' with a different relative speed.

After all, how can those photons know to slow back down(or speed back
up) just because they have entered empty space?

RI. Try it with a glass plate.

Photons leaving a glass plate do NOT slow down, they return to the velocity
they had before they entered the plate (c).

You, on the other hand, need for them to change speed, permanently, AND for
different photons to change speed differently. Some must slow down and others
must speed up. THAT requires a special kind of magic.

They would then be that much earlier (or later) when they arrive here
than other photons emitted by the same source that missed going through
the gas cloud they went through. And their image would be displaced from
the image drawn by those photons.

The movements are too small to cause that kind of effect. It would
happen anyway, BaTh or no BaTh.

BaTh would exacerbate the effect. The fast photons would bunch together and
come from one location. The slow photons would bunch together and come from a
different location in the sky. Intermedia velocity photons would come from
yet another location, between the two.

Double star systems with high proper motion would appear quite different than
they do.


The idea is to feed in the known values of those parameters...if they
can be obtained.

If that produces results that differ from known brightness curves, you
modify the parameters or your program until the curves look more
realistic.

Bob, the shapes are right. It is only the distance that is in
question...and that shows a consistent error....too consistent to be
coincidence.

The shapes might be right IF the line of sight to the system did not change.
If the line of sight changes between when slow and when fast photons are
emitted, then your shapes can not be right.

That is the way that model builders work. There is nothing wrong with
that.

Once a match is found, you try to figure out why you had to modify the
parameters.

Only ONE parameter.

pitch, yaw, eccentricity, period, phase difference, observer distance,
brightness, max velocity(ratio), radius, max velocity, R(inner circle)

I count 11 parameters, then there is extinction and overtones.

Looks like more than one parameter to me, by an order of magnitude.

Since your program is just summing, phasing and scaling sine waves,
any waveform it produces can clearly be produced by summed, phased and
scaled sine waves.

Yes it's called fourier analysis.

The decomposition of the curve is.
Building the original curve from sines has a different name.

My program doesn't rely on that.

In effect, it does the same thing.

No bob, you are totally confused.

How many parameters?

Astronomers are still completely mystified by the behavior of
cepheids. That's becasue they are indoctrinated with Einsteiniana.

I don't think 'completely mystified' is a correct description. There are
models that are consistent with everything we know that are very good at
reproducing their behavior.

None of the models can produce the right kind of brightness curves.

'right kind'?
What would be the 'right kind' and how are the curves you produce BETTER than
those produced by other models?

Then we can not see BaTh variable stars in distant galaxies. All
variables there are eclipsing or cephied or some other but not BaTh?

I know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...

Cepheid variables are used to determine the distance of many galaxies.

Since there is no other way of accurately checking, you know you can say
that with confidence.

Cepheid variables are observed in distant galaxies. That contradicts your 'I
know we see pulsars in distant galaxies..but nothing much else...'

Any way you are wrong. The brightness pattern settles down to
virtually its asymptotic state at the extinction distance. The curves
will remain the same beyond that distance.

You were the one that said 'no brightness variation is to be expected
[beyond the critical distance].'

Did you mean that once past that distance the 'variability' pattern is
'set' and will not change?

Don't worry about it. The critical distance is not important because
extinction always cuts in well before it.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'critical distance'?
Why should I not worry about it when you say something that is contradictory
to something else you (or reality) has said?

I suggest you NOT follow the advice you give others. If you encounter a
contradiction, WORRY about it!

Therein lurks the possiblity for discovery and greatness.

and D calculating that light emitted by A may be approaching B at a
speed different from c, you are incorrect.

No I'm not.
That has been made clear by many SRians here. Light can be assessed to
be approaching another object at other than c.

By SR, from the viewpoint of the receiver of the photons, the photons
are always traveling at c, from the moment emitted until they are
receive.

That is not important for the BaTh.

When you are are making claims about what SR says, it is very important that
you NOT distort what SR says.

The third party observer, D, must use the same formula that B uses when
calculating what B will see when the photons arrive from A.

Not important.

It is vital. Your argument falls apart when you say things wrong.


D may, of course, look at things from D's viewpoint and see that the
photons from A will arrive sooner (or later) at B because A is in motion
wrt B, but when D computes what B will see, s/he must compute things as
seen from B's viewpoint.

...if D correctly computes what B will see, he will know that B will
measure OWLS as not being c.

Not in an SR/GR universe. You claimed that SRians said something that would
NOT be correct under SR. EIther 1) they said something wrong or 2) you
misunderstood what they said.

That's all my program requires.

Your program is NOT consistent with SR because it has the photons
leaving the source at c'=c+v and traveling toward the earth at that
velocity for some time wrt the viewer on earth.

That is consistent with BaTh but NOT with SR.

Good, That's what it is supposed to be doing.

It would be good if the program ALSO showed an understanding of SR/GR and its
predictions so that the discrepancies could be studied.


which they often are.
Agreed. but if they are not then we could not tell if it was a single
star or a double star if their orbit was perpendicular to the line of
sight to earth.

Correct. that still leaves about 80% that WILL show two spectra.

Those should ALL be Wilson variables. Most are not. Bad for BaTh.

Not so. I told you why. velocities are generally far too small.

Why? Many of them have velocities similar to those you use in your Wilson
variable simulations. And they are far enough away that we should be seeing
the brightness variations predicted by your progra, but we do not. Why?


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.



Too long.