Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Feb 23, 9:34 am, bz wrote:
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote :
Bob, the only so called evidence AGAINST the BaTh was De Sitter's work.
We know now why that is wrong.

Incorrect. There is a LOT more evidence against BaTh.

http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php

That is not the text that appears on that main
index page. I suspect you found this paper on a link
somewhere on that page, but that it was in a frame
so the URL displayed still showed the main page.

However, I found the paper you quoted he

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Phillips.html

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in
ups.com:

On Feb 23, 9:34 am, bz wrote:
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote
:
Bob, the only so called evidence AGAINST the BaTh was De Sitter's
work. We know now why that is wrong.

Incorrect. There is a LOT more evidence against BaTh.

http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php

That is not the text that appears on that main
index page. I suspect you found this paper on a link
somewhere on that page, but that it was in a frame
so the URL displayed still showed the main page.

However, I found the paper you quoted he

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Phillips.html

Thanks! I hate frames!


- Randy






--
bz

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

On 23 Feb 2007 01:45:05 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 23 Feb, 09:07, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:11:56 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:23:57 -0000, "George Dishman"


Electromagnetic. Magnetic alone doesn't propagate.

The pulsar is a rotating magnet. How the electric component comes into the
picture is not certain.

Look up "near field", the effects significant in
antenna design and RFI problems. However, for the
pulsar the magnetic field just provides the energy
and some mechanism in the plasma probably produces
the actual radiation. The details aren't clear yet
AFAIK.

It could easily be generated in radiation belts around
the whole binary system. That might act as a local EM reference frame

You still haven't learned what "reference frame" means.

Don't be silly George. I am using the term loosely here.

The actual reference frame is that of the barycentre. I'm saying there is a
surrounding 'field' of some description that is virtually at rest wrt the
barycentre and which tends to unify the speed of all light inside the region to
'c' WRT the region. I say 'tends to' becuase its effect must obviously taper
off with distance from the centre.
When I said the field 'constitutes a local reference frame' I mean 'the field
defines the same frame as the barycentre' and can be used as a reference for
light speed. It is just as legitimate to say 'speed wrt the barycentre' as
'speed wrt the field'. They have the same meaning.

and unify
the emitted light speeds.

We are assuming its speed wrt Earth varies between about c+/- 0.00009.

No, we are taking as a given that the time between
pulse arrivals varies by about 90 parts per million.
Some of that variation is due to the velocity but
some will be due to c+v pulses catching up to c-v
pulses a little in the time before extinction
equalises their speeds.

...and that results in exactly the same doppler shift as your own model.

What do you mean by my "own model", SR or my
corrections to your Ritzian version?

SR.

The only basic difference is that for small values of v, one uses the equation
(c+v)/c and the other c/(c-v).

It isn't inverse square, it is inverse exponential,
but either way most will be in that sort of time
frame.

I was talking about whatever it is that causes the unification. I was
speculating that its effect must drop off with distance from the star....that's
over and above the exponential approach to equilibrium.

OK.

This is perfectly in accordance with my concept of an EM FOR surrounding
large
mass centres. It is not a plain 'gravity' effect. That happens separately
and
shows up as Shapiro delay.

"Frame of reference" is a mathematical construct of
no relevance to the topic. Think of it as meaning a
coordinate system whose origin is the pulsar, nothing
more. Coordinates don't affect light.

Not according to SR....

Yes, in SR

The origin of this frame is the barycentre of the pair.

The origin of a frame is whatever origin you use
for the measured values.

I didn't mean 'origin' as in 0,0 on a graph.
I meant the frame owes its existence to the fact that there is a definable
centre of mass for the whole system.

My light speeds can be specified relative to the barycentre....or to the
surrounding 'field' at rest with the barycentre...same frame.. .


Instead, calculate the sine wave and then plot the
difference between the perfect sine wave and your
curve. That is the "residual" which you will find
in the published papers. Give the value for the
maximum of that curve.

Why would I want to calculate it when the computer can do it for me ..

Oh Henry, obviously I meant you get your program
to do the calculation and add another curve to the
plots!

OK.

and give
answers for a broad range of parameter values? You're not up to date George.

George you solved the wrong problem.

The integral is of hte form Total time= intgrl [1/(1+Ae^-kt)].dt
(c=1)

A solution is: t +log(1+Ae^-kt) between 0 and t.

I found a simple way to closely approximate the integral using the sum of
a GP
instead...it is also faster to run.

the terms are
1/(1+0.00009),1/(1+0.00009X),1/(1+0.00009X2),1/(1+0.00009X3).........1/(1+0*.00009X^n)
Since the 0.00009 is small, this can be closely approximated with:
(1-0.00009),(1-0.00009X),(1-0.00009X2)...........................(1-0.00009*X^n)
The sum is (n+1) -(1-0.00009)*(X^n-1)/(X-1) wherer n is the number of
light
days and X is the unification rate (eg., 0.99995 per Lday)

The single calculation t = vR/c^2 will be even quicker ;-)

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.

Now you're starting to sound like geesey....

You are still using an iterative method when a direct
calculation would do the job. It suggests you aren't
really comfortable with this level of maths.

George, I DO use an equation. ...the sum of the above GP.
The problem is, every sample point around the orbit has a different value for
v.

I am suggesting you only need to calculate t = vR/c^2
for the value of v at each point rather than your
iterative sum at each point.

Sorry, I'm not with you.
What's R? It has dimensions of length.
I can't see an extinction RATE anywhere there.


We'll see when you un-normalise the curves, I hadn't
realised you did that and thought you meant the physics
made their height the same.

Their heights ARE almost the same for small magnitude variations.
Without extinction, the amplitude of the red curve cannot be any greater than
that of the blue one.

That is where you are wrong, without extinction the
red curve increases with distance until the peaks
reaches c at the critical distance. With extinction
the red curve starts rising above the blue but is
asymptotic to a constant curve and will be close to
that at several times the extinction distance.

George I think we are talking about different things again.

I'll explain what the two curves represent.
The blue one is the true c+v lightspeed wrt a flat plane normal to the observer
LOS and close to the source. (We can ignore travel time across the orbit).

The program assumes that hypothetical pulses of equal brightness are emitted at
regular time intervals by the source as it orbits. At the observer distance,
these pulses arrive in different concentrations, due to bunching.
The program divides the orbit period into 500 equal time intervals and counts
the number of pulses that arrive at the observer in each interval. This is a
direct indicator of apparent brightness variation.

The red curve is derived by averaging the true SOURCE velocities of all the
pulses that arrive in each particular interval. The maximum of the blue curve
is c+v. So the maximum of the red curve can never be higher than that.

Certainly there are points on the red curve that are higher than those of the
blue at the same phase....but that's not the issue.




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.

Henri Wilson wrote:

No you've got it all wrong George.
The BLUE curve is the actual one.

Several conflicting descriptions of the red and blue curves
have been given. Could you state definitively what each
curve represents?

Leonard

On 23 Feb 2007 02:48:36 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 23 Feb, 09:39, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:59:59 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:17:35 -0000, "George Dishman"
Thanks to Jeff Root for pointing out my misunderstanding
of your definition.

You are still completely misunderstanding the whole thing.

I did misunderstand which angle your were describing
previously. Consider this where B is the barycentre
of the system, P is the pulsar, D is the Dwarf and E
is the Earth:

D
B E
P

I was saying you could neglect the angle P-E-B. Obviously
you still need to take the direction of the pulsar velocity
into account.

Yes OK.

The benefit was just that you then get the conventional
value as a simple confidence check by setting the distance
to zero.

I have checked.

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.

That's due to normal doppler 'bunching'.

No, it is what is observed. It results from a combination
of the normal bunching due to the varying distance from
Earth and also the catch-up effect.

There's NO 'catch up effect' in YOUR theory.

I know Henry, the program is supposed to simulate
the physics of ballistic theory.

BaTh bunching is virtually the same.

I told you, the program deliberately normalises the heights of the two
curves
to make shape comparison easier. If you like I will get it to plot a true
amplitude comparison.

That would help but what we need is the numerical
values.

Why? So you can plot them just as the computer does?

I can print out the values if you like.

Just the value at the peak. The purpose is to allow
the parameters to be adjusted until this value reads
27km/s so we know when we have a match.

I told you that the red curve is an average speed of the light that arrives in
a set time interval. I htink you can imagine the effect bunching has on that.

I don't want to imagine, I want the comuter to
do that for me.

......Explained in my other message.


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.

George, George....
Consider what happens to pulses emitted when the pulsar is at the sides of
the
orbit. ..where there is NO aceleration. They are also equally spaced for
the
whole journey.

Yes, at those points you only get the velocity effect
but at any other location in the orbit the spacing is
affected by both the velocity _and_ the acceleration.

BUT THE SPACING IS NOT THE SAME AS THAT BETWEEN THE FORMER ONES a and b.

In other words, the normal doppler pattern is there whether you use BaTh
or
constant c.

The normal Doppler is there of course, I haven't disputed
that, but it isn't the whole story. The pulse spacing is
also affected by what I describe above and you need to take
that into account AS WELL to get the full answer.

The program takes everything into account.
Why don't you experiment with it?

I have, it gives the wrong value because you only take
the bunching due to c+v vs c-v into account on the
brightness curve, not the velocity curve. The predicted
velocity is derived from the time between pulses so you
need to take into account there too.

Ah, I think I know what you are saying now.
You are claiming that the closer the bunching, the shorter the wavelength...and
the higher the observed doppler shift.

Yes that should be true for the pulsar...but it is not true in my program.....

So what is the difference?
The difference is that it is the change in the actual width of the pulsar
pulses in each bunch that is analogous to what my program does.
Do you see what I mean?
In reality, the width of the pulsar pulses varies by the same doppler fraction
as does the distance between pulses. (~90 parts per million)
So you have to average the WIDTHS of pulses and NOT their spacing to generate
your equivalent of my red curve.

The bunching itself is an indicator of brightness variation.

You have to include the difference in emission times of course.

Yes.

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).

Yes assume that is zero.

Only at that point, I agree with your description above
that velocity plays a part elsewhere.

I'm becoming a bit confused as to what we are actually talking about now.

At any point arond the orbit, pulses are being
sent with a time gap of 2.95 ms. That gap is
reduced at the receiver for two reasons:

a) the velocity of the pulsar towards the receiver
means that consecutive pulses travel different
distances. That is the normal Doppler effect.

b) if the pulses are transmitted at different speeds
then faster pulses can 'catch up' to slower ones
reducing the gap (or 'fall behind' if the second
pulse is slower increasing the gap) and hence the
time between reception depends on how much of this
effect happens before extinction equalises the
speeds. This effect is not taken into account
in published velocity curves so the published
values will be higher or lower than the simple
Doppler value.

That effect is not indicative of source velocity.


Part (a) is dependent on the radial component of velocity
at the time of transmission, part (b) depends on the
acceleration at the same time and of course both vary
round the orbit. Your program includes effect (a) but
not effect (b).

You'll have to rethink this in light of what I have said.


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.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:34:00 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

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.

Incorrect. There is a LOT more evidence against BaTh.

http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php

[quote]
In 1953, however, Parry Moon and Domina Spencer analyzed a number of visual
binaries to see whether the phenomenon predicted by Bergmann would even be
visible in the first place.7 They assumed the Ritz hypothesis8, but their
computations showed that Bergmann's predicted multiple images for binaries
would not, in fact, be observed. (They do not elaborate on de Sitter's
prediction of spurious eccentricities, and they do not mention whether they
reexamined his data or not.) Hence, they concluded that visual binaries
proved absolutely nothing about the constancy of the velocity of light.

[emphasis mine]In the same article, Moon and Spencer performed a similar
analysis of spectroscopic binaries and of Cepheid variables.9 They
concluded that the Ritz hypothesis would produce spurious spectral lines,
but no such phenomenon was observed.[end emphasis]
....
is Fox's criticism-that the observations of de Sitter and Bergmann did not
take the Ewald and Oseen extinction effect into account-still valid?
Definitely not, for by 1964 direct evidence for the validity of Einstein's
postulate on the velocity of light was provided by a number of
experimenters: D. Sadeh; T.A. Filippas and J.G. Fox; and T. Alvager et
al.14 All of these experimenters measured the velocity of gamma rays which
had been emitted by decaying subatomic particles moving at nearly the speed
of light. In every case, the velocity of the gamma rays equaled that of the
normal velocity of light in free space. In no case did the velocity of the
gamma rays behave as proposed by Ritz.

In addition to the above Earth-based experiments, in 1977 K. Brecher used
radiation from pulsars (rotating neutron stars which emit radiation in a
periodic manner) to show that the speed of light was independent of the
motion of the source.15 Neither Brecher's experiment nor the ones mentioned
in the preceding paragraph were subject to Fox's criticism. Hence,
observations of both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena have shown
once and for all that Ritz's hypothesis is invalid. .... [unquote]

Yes. We know all about these exeriments and their wrong conclusions.


--
bz

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



"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.

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

bz said:
.....
In addition to the above Earth-based experiments, in 1977 K. Brecher
used radiation from pulsars (rotating neutron stars which emit radiation
in a periodic manner) to show that the speed of light was independent of
the motion of the source.15 Neither Brecher's experiment nor the ones
mentioned in the preceding paragraph were subject to Fox's criticism.
Hence, observations of both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena
have shown once and for all that Ritz's hypothesis is invalid. ....
[unquote]

Yes. We know all about these exeriments and their wrong conclusions.


Then, when you said
Bob, the only so called evidence AGAINST the BaTh was De Sitter's work.
you were not being candid.






--
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 23 Feb 2007 13:14:05 -0800, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

No you've got it all wrong George.
The BLUE curve is the actual one.

Several conflicting descriptions of the red and blue curves
have been given. Could you state definitively what each
curve represents?

Yes. George is totally confused...(isn't every relativist?)

The blue curve is the true velocity of the source wrt the observer.

The red one is the velocity curve that a distant observer would calculate as
true using doppler shift measured with a grating.

How wrong can one be?


Leonard

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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 23 Feb 2007 13:14:05 -0800, "Leonard Kellogg"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

No you've got it all wrong George.
The BLUE curve is the actual one.

Several conflicting descriptions of the red and blue curves
have been given. Could you state definitively what each
curve represents?

Yes. George is totally confused...(isn't every relativist?)

The blue curve is the true velocity of the source wrt the observer.

Exactly the way I used it every time except once. What's
your problem Henry, you can't cope with the physics so
you have to go to town on a typo?

The red one is the velocity curve that a distant observer would calculate
as
true using doppler shift measured with a grating.

That it what it is supposed to be but Henry has an error
in his calculation at the moment.

How wrong can one be?

Your program is out by a factor of about 11000 for the
test case we tried.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 23 Feb 2007 02:48:36 -0800, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 23 Feb, 09:39, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:59:59 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:17:35 -0000, "George Dishman"
....
I can print out the values if you like.

Just the value at the peak. The purpose is to allow
the parameters to be adjusted until this value reads
27km/s so we know when we have a match.

I told you that the red curve is an average speed of the light that
arrives in
a set time interval. I htink you can imagine the effect bunching has on
that.

I don't want to imagine, I want the computer to
do that for me.

.....Explained in my other message.

I'm not sure which message you are referring to, I haven't
seen one saying anything about showing that numerical
value on the screen but maybe I missed it.

....
The normal Doppler is there of course, I haven't disputed
that, but it isn't the whole story. The pulse spacing is
also affected by what I describe above and you need to take
that into account AS WELL to get the full answer.

The program takes everything into account.
Why don't you experiment with it?

I have, it gives the wrong value because you only take
the bunching due to c+v vs c-v into account on the
brightness curve, not the velocity curve. The predicted
velocity is derived from the time between pulses so you
need to take into account there too.

Ah, I think I know what you are saying now.

Yes you do vbg!! Put it in your diary, it has taken weeks
for you to see this but the penny has at last dropped :-)

You are claiming that the closer the bunching, the shorter the
wavelength...and
the higher the observed doppler shift.

Yes Henry. The frequency is the pulse repetition rate
which is what is used to determine the speed, so the
"wavelength" is the distance between consecutive pulses.

Yes that should be true for the pulsar...but it is not true in my
program.....

Right, that's the program error I have been describing
to you all these weeks :-) At least now you know what
the problem is.

So what is the difference?
The difference is that it is the change in the actual width of the pulsar
pulses in each bunch that is analogous to what my program does.
Do you see what I mean?
In reality, the width of the pulsar pulses varies by the same doppler
fraction
as does the distance between pulses. (~90 parts per million)

Correct, the pulse width is about 1.5% of the period and
that factor remains constant as the pulses travel.

So you have to average the WIDTHS of pulses and NOT their spacing to
generate
your equivalent of my red curve.

As you say, the width varies by the same fraction as the
gap so it doesn't matter whether you take the ratio of
the observed width to mean width or of the observed gap
to the mean gap, they should give the same apparent speed.

If that was your intention it should have worked but the
curve on the screen doesn't tie up with that and I suspect
if you showed the numerical value of the peak it would be
too low. That's why I have been saying there is a bug in
your software.

The bunching itself is an indicator of brightness variation.

Yes, but it also affects the _apparent_ Doppler shift so
affects the apparent speed as well, that's the speed
calculated by astronomers which is based only on the PRF
and which you show as the red curve.

I'm becoming a bit confused as to what we are actually talking about
now.

At any point arond the orbit, pulses are being
sent with a time gap of 2.95 ms. That gap is
reduced at the receiver for two reasons:

a) the velocity of the pulsar towards the receiver
means that consecutive pulses travel different
distances. That is the normal Doppler effect.

b) if the pulses are transmitted at different speeds
then faster pulses can 'catch up' to slower ones
reducing the gap (or 'fall behind' if the second
pulse is slower increasing the gap) and hence the
time between reception depends on how much of this
effect happens before extinction equalises the
speeds. This effect is not taken into account
in published velocity curves so the published
values will be higher or lower than the simple
Doppler value.

That effect is not indicative of source velocity.

Correct, but it does affect the velocity which an astronomer
would calculate from the pulse timing. Remember you already
have " The blue curve is the true velocity of the source
wrt the observer." so we are here talking about " The red
one is the velocity curve that a distant observer would
calculate as true using doppler shift ...".

Those quotes are from your other post. It is the latter curve
calculated from the pulse rate that I have been telling you
is wrong. Now you understand why.

Part (a) is dependent on the radial component of velocity
at the time of transmission, part (b) depends on the
acceleration at the same time and of course both vary
round the orbit. Your program includes effect (a) but
not effect (b).

You'll have to rethink this in light of what I have said.

I don't need to rethink, you have now understood and stated
the problem. What you need to do now is make the program
produce the correct red curve and preferably show the peak
velocity value as text like your min/max brightness.

George