Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:37:12 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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



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?

Bob, the only so called evidence AGAINST the BaTh was De Sitter's work.
We know now why that is wrong.


--
bz

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

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

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

.....
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.

Of course. 'Most stars' are not even visible with the naked eye. Most stars
are in distant galaxies.

You like computer programs, enjoy, this one shows motion of stars.
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos/apps/ShowMotion.html

a google search for cepheid "with high proper motion"
turns up some very interesting hits.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979MNRAS.189..377P

and
18055+0230STF2272 A complicated multiple system with high proper motion


and http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/ftp/cats/cats.bib seems to have quite a few
high proper motion stars.


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

.....
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?


.....
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.

.....
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?

.....
Too long.

Too many questions left unanswered.

You could just snip everything but my questions and answer them, instead of
ignoring them.





--
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

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:34:29 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"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.

George, I don't have a firm view as to why my distances are always shorter than
the actual ones....but there must obviously be a simple explanation.
The fact that so many brightness curves are reproducable using BaTh is enough
to keep me convinced I'm right.

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.

There is no bug. Circular orbits can appear slightly elliptical and vice versa.

George


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

Most of our views on this are now in accord, I only
address the speed issue here and maybe pick up some
other minor points separately later.

First I'll take one paragraph from later on;


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)

I said before you could treat cos(A) as being always 1.
I was thinking there of the angle between the line of
sight and the line between the barycentres. Your angle
is between to have used the line of sight and the
velocity which of course is essential but if you make
it the angle between the velocity and a line joining
the barycentres then there will be a negligible error,
essentially the view from infinity, and it will work
at zero distance to allow comparison with the conventional
model.

Thanks to Jeff Root for pointing out my misunderstanding
of your definition.


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:35:50 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
....
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.

Yes.

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..

No. We are not using a grating. Individual pulses have
their time of arrival noted against an atomic clock.
Remember they are 2.95 ms apart so the 'wavelength' is
885 km.

The inverse of the time between arrivals is the pulse
repetion frequency. That frequency is what is turned
into the published orbital parameters and is what give
the 339 Hz +/- 30 mHz values.

So my graph shows the 'no extinction' case...because I say extinction
makes no
difference to the measured doppler shift.
....
There is no significant error...none at all for circular orbits.
Please explain why you think there is an error..
....
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?

I am saying that, for any significant extinction
distance, the red line should have a greater
variation than the blue line. To find the true
speed, you adjust the velocity parameter until the
red line matches the published velocity curve. What
we need to sort out is why I think the red should
be higher than the blue.

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.

Consider two pulses transmitted just before and just
after the neutron star passes behind the dwarf as seen
from Earth. This is the point of highest acceleration
and the second catches the first at the maximum rate.

First consider no extinction. The diagram shows the
earlier pulse 'a' already ahead of 'b' at the time
when b is emitted:

b a
b a
b a
*
a b
a b

The time between pulses goes to zero at the critical
distance. Now add extinction:

b a
b a
b a
b a
b a
b a
b a

The 'wavelength' settles down to a constant value but
it is less than the original. Note that this effect
is in addition to the normal Doppler change due to
velocity alone (but at the location we are considering
the radial speed is zero).

It is only that final pulse separation that we can
measure and which has been used to calculate the
27km/s value, and of course the published values assume
invariant speed. That means that if you want to compare
your program's output, specifically the blue line, with
published curves, you need to convert the received PRF
to a velocity _as_if_ the speed were always c, not
because of the physics but (if you like to think of it
this way) because that is the publishing convention.

In a nutshell, the shortened inter-pulse gap due to c+v
catch-up tricks us into thinking the orbital velocity
is higher than it really is. The red curve is the real
value and the blue curve is the "constant c" value
inferred from that shortened gap between pulses.

Does that make it clearer Henry?

If you follow that, you should appreciate that instead
of saying the extinction is 6 light hours, you could
keep your 0.7 light year figure but drop the orbital
speed to 27 m/s. Of course that's not tenable for a
variety of other reasons but it might illustrate the
point, almost all the apparent "Doppler" shift would
actually be due to the pulse catch-up effect.

For those parameters, the red curve would be 27983 m/s
but the blue curve would be only 27 m/s, and because
most of the red curve is due to the acceleration at
the time of emission, there would be a 90 degree phase
difference.

George

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:48:38 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

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

....
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.

Of course. 'Most stars' are not even visible with the naked eye. Most stars
are in distant galaxies.

You like computer programs, enjoy, this one shows motion of stars.
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos/apps/ShowMotion.html

a google search for cepheid "with high proper motion"
turns up some very interesting hits.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979MNRAS.189..377P

well bob, most people here have convinced me that there is little movement of
the 'fixed satrs'


and
18055+0230STF2272 A complicated multiple system with high proper motion


and http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/ftp/cats/cats.bib seems to have quite a few
high proper motion stars.


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

....
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?


....
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.

....
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?

....
Too long.

Too many questions left unanswered.

You could just snip everything but my questions and answer them, instead of
ignoring them.

Too long...

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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:34:29 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:
....
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.

George, I don't have a firm view as to why my distances are always shorter
than
the actual ones....but there must obviously be a simple explanation.

The simple explanation is that SR is correct. From
your point of view though, as light passes through
a plasma we know it is affected and that could cause
some change to the speed. The obvious explanation
would be that absorption and re-emission at each
atom encountered immediately changes the speed to c
relative to that atom, but that would eliminate any
effects so your problem is why the extinction distance
isn't the mean path length.

The fact that so many brightness curves are reproducable using BaTh is
enough
to keep me convinced I'm right.

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.

There is no bug.

See my other post for details.

Circular orbits can appear slightly elliptical and vice versa.

Perhaps, but whether the distortion caused by variable
speed exactly eliminates that caused by Kepler's Second
Law is something you should show mathematically, and I
don't believe you can do that. As a result I think you
will find there remains a slight distortion even for
your best fit.

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

Hmm but a genius in physics is unlikely to need to get
the dunces to integrate an exponential for him. Remember
your "challenge" that I solved in a few lines?

That is really your biggest problem, you don't seem to
have the familiarity with maths that you need to follow
a lot of the arguments. At the moment you seem to be
struggling with the wavelength to velocity conversion
for your blue line for example. Anyway, see if my latest
attempt to explain it lets the penny drop and we'll see
where that takes your program.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in news:erjqgg$hvk$1
@news.freedom2surf.net:

Consider two pulses transmitted just before and just
after the neutron star passes behind the dwarf as seen
from Earth. This is the point of highest acceleration
and the second catches the first at the maximum rate.



Should not the points of maximun relative velocity for energy from the
neutron star should be when the neutron star is along a line perpendicular
to the line of sight AND passing through the center of the dwarf?

In other words, when the neutron star is furthest from passing behind or in
front of the dwarf (as seen from earth).

Those are the times when the neutron star is going away from us or
approaching us at maximum velocity.

You said:

E------------------D N (where N is slightly above or below the line of
sight from earth through D)

I say:
N+
|
E------------------D
or |
N-


Or did I misunderstand what you said?



--
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

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

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:48:38 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

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

....
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.

Of course. 'Most stars' are not even visible with the naked eye. Most
stars are in distant galaxies.

You like computer programs, enjoy, this one shows motion of stars.
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos/apps/ShowMotion.html

a google search for cepheid "with high proper motion"
turns up some very interesting hits.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979MNRAS.189..377P

well bob, most people here have convinced me that there is little
movement of the 'fixed satrs'


Fixed satrs! I like that
[quote]
Satres God of time and necessity. painted as an old man carrying a
sickle and an hourglass. same as the Roman god Saturn.
[unquote]

Amazing that 'most people here' could convince you of something that is NOT
true while many here have tried and failed to convince you of what is true.

We are not talking of 'fixed stars' when we speak of stars with high proper
motion.

Did you even go look at the animation at the link I posted?

Still too many questions left unanswered. I don't need the answers.

YOU are the one that needs the answers, if you are to ever be able to
support your theories. I have been trying to help you see that those
questions need to be answered.

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

The paranoid's delusions make him feel important.

A fool may ask more questions than 10 wise men can answer, but just because
someone asks a question does not mean that he is a fool. If it takes 20
wise men to answer the fools questions, he will know as much as 20 wise men
about the subject in question.--bz (c) 2007






--
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

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"George Dishman" wrote in news:erjqgg$hvk$1
@news.freedom2surf.net:

Consider two pulses transmitted just before and just
after the neutron star passes behind the dwarf as seen
from Earth. This is the point of highest acceleration
and the second catches the first at the maximum rate.



Should not the points of maximun relative velocity for energy from the
neutron star should be when the neutron star is along a line perpendicular
to the line of sight AND passing through the center of the dwarf?

In other words, when the neutron star is furthest from passing behind or
in
front of the dwarf (as seen from earth).

Those are the times when the neutron star is going away from us or
approaching us at maximum velocity.

You said:

E------------------D N (where N is slightly above or below the line of
sight from earth through D)

I say:
N+
|
E------------------D
or |
N-


Or did I misunderstand what you said?

You are perfectly correct in your analysis but I think you
missed that I said the point of highest _acceleration_.

Two consecutive pulses emitted at points N+ and N- will
have almost identical velocities. I am saying the maximum
difference in velocities is when the positions are like this

~N+
E------------------D )
~ N-

The N+ pulse is emitted 1.5ms after the moment of alignment
and it then catches up to the earlier N- pulse which was
emitted 1.5ms before alignment.

The result is that the acceleration term is in quadrature
with the velocity term and the phase of the total relative
to the time of the peak of the Shapiro delay then places a
constraint on Henry's extinction distance.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
.....
You said:

E------------------D N (where N is slightly above or below the line of
sight from earth through D)

I say:
N+
|
E------------------D
or |
N-


Or did I misunderstand what you said?

You are perfectly correct in your analysis but I think you
missed that I said the point of highest _acceleration_.

AH. I saw acceleration but wasn't sure WHAT was being accelerated. Light,
the Neutron star in its orbit, or ....?

I read it as 'rate of change of distance to earth' and didn't see how it
had anything to do with the [un]bunching of the pulses from the star,
which should be max at the points I said.

Two consecutive pulses emitted at points N+ and N- will
have almost identical velocities. I am saying the maximum
difference in velocities

[between consecutive pulses; maximum rate of change of pulse rate]

is when the positions are like this




~N+
E------------------D )
~ N-

The N+ pulse is emitted 1.5ms after the moment of alignment
and it then catches up to the earlier N- pulse which was
emitted 1.5ms before alignment.

The result is that the acceleration term is in quadrature
with the velocity term and the phase of the total relative
to the time of the peak of the Shapiro delay then places a
constraint on Henry's extinction distance.

Correct. The first derivative of the distance formula, from E to N will
give the rate of change of the distance and the derivative of sine is
cosine and vice versa so it will be 90 degrees out of phase.

Ok. We are in agreement.





--
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