Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 8 Mar 2007 02:10:36 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 8 Mar, 07:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 23:00:25 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

....that's not being sidetracked.
Halpha light has the same ABSOLUTE distance between 'wavecrests' no
matter how
it is produced.

Actually, that might be of interest, I'll keep the
comment in for later.

I wont make any claims to that effect if the source is accelerating.

I don't think there will be any disagreement other than
when there is an acceleration.

Unfortunately there is no way of using (distance x velocity) - which is
what my
program can simulate - to produce an extinction distance and a velocity.

The first question is what is the velocity if the
extinction is negligible. The distance you use is a
combination of the extinction and actual distances
so you get the zero-extinction result by setting the
program parameter to the actual distance. That has
been measured by parallax as 1.14kpc or 3520 light
years.

George, even with the HST that figure could be out by 1000LY either way.

First let me correct an error, I should have typed 3720,
not 3520. the error is +40/-30 parsec or about +/120 light
years, good enough for our purposes.

However at 3000LYs, the velocity would have to be very low, 0.000001c.

But I can't do this. The published velocity change, using classical
doppler, is
around 0.9 in 10000. My figure for linear brightness variation should be
twice
the same....about 0.00018.

Something about the method doesn't add up here. My selected velocity,
expressed
as a fraction of c, has to produce a linear brightness variation of twice
the
same fraction. (twice because amplitude is only half the swing)

Be careful, the brightness variation should be twice the
_red_ curve velocity, not the blue curve. These speeds
should be markedly different now.

I can do that.....I get a figure for extinction distance of about one
lightday
or less for a peripheral velocity of 0.0009c and a velocity change of
about the
same fraction.

I don't find that unreasonable...but I am not happy about the method.

That's one point in going through this process, you get
an apprecaiation of how the numbers pan out and sometimes
they can be surprising. Still, that's the reason for
checking the software, is there an error or are the results
genuinely counter-intuitive?

One step at a time Henry, us 3520 light years for the
distance and tell me what your orbital parameters are
for a red curve that is a perfect sine wave with an
amplitude of 27983 m/s.

Like I said George, a condition is that my predicted linear brightness
variation must be the same as twice the fractional velocity curve
amplitude .

The red curve, yes, not the blue curve.

Yes, George, I now understand where we are heading. You might have to
accept that the doppler calculated velocity curve is way out.

Of course! The first step should give you a stupidly low speed
which we then address by various methods.

A very heavy neutron star that is orbitted by a dwarf star would
conceivably
have quite a small peripheral velocity. It just wobbles around the
barycentre...which could be only a few diameters away.

Ah but there is an upper limit to the possible mass of
a neutron star.

who said? Einstein?

No, measurements in accelerators that tell us how much
pressure material can withstand before imploding.

George, when the BaTh takes over the whole of astronomy will have to be
rewritten.

Except that we already know it is wrong.

That's why you go one step at a time, first assume no
extinction.

I can't do that and still get the right match. Extinction for this pulsar
occurs in around 1 Lday....but there is more to this.

It sounds as though you are comparing the wrong velocity,
match the red value and the brightness to the observation
and the blue value will be much less.

I told you. I can produce (D * v) but not D or v.

You also told me " Yes, George, I now understand where we
are heading." but you don't seem to have really grasped it,
or maybe you didn't appreciate how the distance parameter
in your program can be used. Set it to the parallax distance
and you get v for the case of no extinction.

parallax distance is of no use at all.

It is the correct value to use for this first test.

I have to match my 'brightness variation' (which is now based on
bunching...and
bunching is used to determine velocity variation) so that linear variation
in
'brightness' = twice the velocity curve amplitude.

I have to work on this a bit more before I'm confident of the outcome.

If you want to see where this is headed, given that we know the
period, what would be the orbital diameter for the known mass
of the stars? Can we use that to rule out this solution and
consider changing the pitch instead? First let's get your
velocity written down - a first stake in the ground.

George, we don't know the mass of the stars. Even that has been derived
wrongly.

Sorry Henry, the rules of thermodynamics still apply
so mass can be obtained from absolute magnitude, radius
and temperature for the dwarf.

Only a rough estimate at that distance.

Certainly.

All we know with reasonable certainty are the orbit period and the
observed
bunching pattern of the pulses.

We know a lot more than those Henry, spectra carry a wealth
of information. Anyway, using just those what do you get
for the velocity?

Like I said, that is impossible.

I think you have momentarily lost track of which speed
you are matching.

Using this method, attributed to yourself, a condition is that the
velocity
expressed as a fraction of c has to equal half the 'brightness
change'...since
this 'brightness change' is really an indication of speed variation, in
this
case about 0.00018.

Yes, but you match the red curve and then tell me the blue
curve value.

George

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:45:30 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Mar 2007 02:10:36 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 8 Mar, 07:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 23:00:25 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

....that's not being sidetracked.
Halpha light has the same ABSOLUTE distance between 'wavecrests' no
matter how
it is produced.

Actually, that might be of interest, I'll keep the
comment in for later.

I wont make any claims to that effect if the source is accelerating.

I don't think there will be any disagreement other than
when there is an acceleration.

Unfortunately there is no way of using (distance x velocity) - which is
what my
program can simulate - to produce an extinction distance and a velocity.

The first question is what is the velocity if the
extinction is negligible. The distance you use is a
combination of the extinction and actual distances
so you get the zero-extinction result by setting the
program parameter to the actual distance. That has
been measured by parallax as 1.14kpc or 3520 light
years.

George, even with the HST that figure could be out by 1000LY either way.

First let me correct an error, I should have typed 3720,
not 3520. the error is +40/-30 parsec or about +/120 light
years, good enough for our purposes.

However at 3000LYs, the velocity would have to be very low, 0.000001c.

But I can't do this. The published velocity change, using classical
doppler, is
around 0.9 in 10000. My figure for linear brightness variation should be
twice
the same....about 0.00018.

Something about the method doesn't add up here. My selected velocity,
expressed
as a fraction of c, has to produce a linear brightness variation of twice
the
same fraction. (twice because amplitude is only half the swing)

Be careful, the brightness variation should be twice the
_red_ curve velocity, not the blue curve. These speeds
should be markedly different now.

I can do that.....I get a figure for extinction distance of about one
lightday
or less for a peripheral velocity of 0.0009c and a velocity change of
about the
same fraction.

I don't find that unreasonable...but I am not happy about the method.

That's one point in going through this process, you get
an apprecaiation of how the numbers pan out and sometimes
they can be surprising. Still, that's the reason for
checking the software, is there an error or are the results
genuinely counter-intuitive?

One step at a time Henry, us 3520 light years for the
distance and tell me what your orbital parameters are
for a red curve that is a perfect sine wave with an
amplitude of 27983 m/s.

Like I said George, a condition is that my predicted linear brightness
variation must be the same as twice the fractional velocity curve
amplitude .

The red curve, yes, not the blue curve.

Yes, George, I now understand where we are heading. You might have to
accept that the doppler calculated velocity curve is way out.

Of course! The first step should give you a stupidly low speed
which we then address by various methods.

A very heavy neutron star that is orbitted by a dwarf star would
conceivably
have quite a small peripheral velocity. It just wobbles around the
barycentre...which could be only a few diameters away.

Ah but there is an upper limit to the possible mass of
a neutron star.

who said? Einstein?

No, measurements in accelerators that tell us how much
pressure material can withstand before imploding.

George, when the BaTh takes over the whole of astronomy will have to be
rewritten.

Except that we already know it is wrong.

That's why you go one step at a time, first assume no
extinction.

I can't do that and still get the right match. Extinction for this pulsar
occurs in around 1 Lday....but there is more to this.

It sounds as though you are comparing the wrong velocity,
match the red value and the brightness to the observation
and the blue value will be much less.

I told you. I can produce (D * v) but not D or v.

You also told me " Yes, George, I now understand where we
are heading." but you don't seem to have really grasped it,
or maybe you didn't appreciate how the distance parameter
in your program can be used. Set it to the parallax distance
and you get v for the case of no extinction.

parallax distance is of no use at all.

It is the correct value to use for this first test.

I have to match my 'brightness variation' (which is now based on
bunching...and
bunching is used to determine velocity variation) so that linear variation
in
'brightness' = twice the velocity curve amplitude.

I have to work on this a bit more before I'm confident of the outcome.

If you want to see where this is headed, given that we know the
period, what would be the orbital diameter for the known mass
of the stars? Can we use that to rule out this solution and
consider changing the pitch instead? First let's get your
velocity written down - a first stake in the ground.

George, we don't know the mass of the stars. Even that has been derived
wrongly.

Sorry Henry, the rules of thermodynamics still apply
so mass can be obtained from absolute magnitude, radius
and temperature for the dwarf.

Only a rough estimate at that distance.

Certainly.

All we know with reasonable certainty are the orbit period and the
observed
bunching pattern of the pulses.

We know a lot more than those Henry, spectra carry a wealth
of information. Anyway, using just those what do you get
for the velocity?

Like I said, that is impossible.

I think you have momentarily lost track of which speed
you are matching.

Using this method, attributed to yourself, a condition is that the
velocity
expressed as a fraction of c has to equal half the 'brightness
change'...since
this 'brightness change' is really an indication of speed variation, in
this
case about 0.00018.

Yes, but you match the red curve and then tell me the blue
curve value.

George, before I continue, please tell me how YOU would derive the red curve.

I can't see any diffrence between YOUR red curve and my 'brightness curve'.

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 9 Mar, 01:16, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:45:30 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On 8 Mar 2007 02:10:36 -0800, "George Dishman" wrote:

On 8 Mar, 07:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 23:00:25 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

....that's not being sidetracked.
Halpha light has the same ABSOLUTE distance between 'wavecrests' no
matter how
it is produced.

Actually, that might be of interest, I'll keep the
comment in for later.

I wont make any claims to that effect if the source is accelerating.

I don't think there will be any disagreement other than
when there is an acceleration.

Unfortunately there is no way of using (distance x velocity) - which is
what my
program can simulate - to produce an extinction distance and a velocity.

The first question is what is the velocity if the
extinction is negligible. The distance you use is a
combination of the extinction and actual distances
so you get the zero-extinction result by setting the
program parameter to the actual distance. That has
been measured by parallax as 1.14kpc or 3520 light
years.

George, even with the HST that figure could be out by 1000LY either way.

First let me correct an error, I should have typed 3720,
not 3520. the error is +40/-30 parsec or about +/120 light
years, good enough for our purposes.

However at 3000LYs, the velocity would have to be very low, 0.000001c.

But I can't do this. The published velocity change, using classical
doppler, is
around 0.9 in 10000. My figure for linear brightness variation should be
twice
the same....about 0.00018.

Something about the method doesn't add up here. My selected velocity,
expressed
as a fraction of c, has to produce a linear brightness variation of twice
the
same fraction. (twice because amplitude is only half the swing)

Be careful, the brightness variation should be twice the
_red_ curve velocity, not the blue curve. These speeds
should be markedly different now.

I can do that.....I get a figure for extinction distance of about one
lightday
or less for a peripheral velocity of 0.0009c and a velocity change of
about the
same fraction.

I don't find that unreasonable...but I am not happy about the method.

That's one point in going through this process, you get
an apprecaiation of how the numbers pan out and sometimes
they can be surprising. Still, that's the reason for
checking the software, is there an error or are the results
genuinely counter-intuitive?

One step at a time Henry, us 3520 light years for the
distance and tell me what your orbital parameters are
for a red curve that is a perfect sine wave with an
amplitude of 27983 m/s.

Like I said George, a condition is that my predicted linear brightness
variation must be the same as twice the fractional velocity curve
amplitude .

The red curve, yes, not the blue curve.

Yes, George, I now understand where we are heading. You might have to
accept that the doppler calculated velocity curve is way out.

Of course! The first step should give you a stupidly low speed
which we then address by various methods.

A very heavy neutron star that is orbitted by a dwarf star would
conceivably
have quite a small peripheral velocity. It just wobbles around the
barycentre...which could be only a few diameters away.

Ah but there is an upper limit to the possible mass of
a neutron star.

who said? Einstein?

No, measurements in accelerators that tell us how much
pressure material can withstand before imploding.

George, when the BaTh takes over the whole of astronomy will have to be
rewritten.

Except that we already know it is wrong.

That's why you go one step at a time, first assume no
extinction.

I can't do that and still get the right match. Extinction for this pulsar
occurs in around 1 Lday....but there is more to this.

It sounds as though you are comparing the wrong velocity,
match the red value and the brightness to the observation
and the blue value will be much less.

I told you. I can produce (D * v) but not D or v.

You also told me " Yes, George, I now understand where we
are heading." but you don't seem to have really grasped it,
or maybe you didn't appreciate how the distance parameter
in your program can be used. Set it to the parallax distance
and you get v for the case of no extinction.

parallax distance is of no use at all.

It is the correct value to use for this first test.

I have to match my 'brightness variation' (which is now based on
bunching...and
bunching is used to determine velocity variation) so that linear variation
in
'brightness' = twice the velocity curve amplitude.

I have to work on this a bit more before I'm confident of the outcome.

If you want to see where this is headed, given that we know the
period, what would be the orbital diameter for the known mass
of the stars? Can we use that to rule out this solution and
consider changing the pitch instead? First let's get your
velocity written down - a first stake in the ground.

George, we don't know the mass of the stars. Even that has been derived
wrongly.

Sorry Henry, the rules of thermodynamics still apply
so mass can be obtained from absolute magnitude, radius
and temperature for the dwarf.

Only a rough estimate at that distance.

Certainly.

All we know with reasonable certainty are the orbit period and the
observed
bunching pattern of the pulses.

We know a lot more than those Henry, spectra carry a wealth
of information. Anyway, using just those what do you get
for the velocity?

Like I said, that is impossible.

I think you have momentarily lost track of which speed
you are matching.

Using this method, attributed to yourself, a condition is that the
velocity
expressed as a fraction of c has to equal half the 'brightness
change'...since
this 'brightness change' is really an indication of speed variation, in
this
case about 0.00018.

Yes, but you match the red curve and then tell me the blue
curve value.

George, before I continue, please tell me how YOU would derive the red curve.

I went over this last week. Personally I would solve it
analytically. From memory the Doppler equation I got was

f'/f = c/((da-c^2)(c-v_blue))

where d is the distance and a is the instantaneous radial
acceleration at the point of emission and v_blue is the
true instantaneous radial speed. The ratio f'/f is also
your brightness ratio, call that b:

b = f'/f

I would then calculate the velocity assuming by noting that
the published figures don't allow for the acceleration
effect which only happens in ballistic theory so

f'/f = c/(c-v)

or

v_red = c(1 - 1/b)

You show b on a log scale in magnitudes but v_blue and v_red
on a linear scale in m/s.

I can't see any diffrence between YOUR red curve and my 'brightness curve'.

For small values, they should be alsmost identical which
is why you were able to tell me the brightness ratio a
week or so ago. Even the log/lin scales look similar for
such small changes. The bit we are interested in at this
stage is the difference between the red and blue curves.
Both will be sine waves but what we need to know is the
relative amplitudes and the phase shift. I am expecting
you to say the blue curve is between 10m/s and 100m/s
when the blue is 27983 m/s and that they are 90 degrees
out of phase. A screen shot will let me know which way
you have drawn the scales.

George

George Dishman wrote:

The bit we are interested in at this
stage is the difference between the red and blue curves.
Both will be sine waves but what we need to know is the
relative amplitudes and the phase shift. I am expecting
you to say the blue curve is between 10m/s and 100m/s
when the blue is 27983 m/s and that they are 90 degrees
out of phase.

That last "blue" should be "red", of course.

Leonard

"Leonard Kellogg" wrote in message
ps.com...
George Dishman wrote:

The bit we are interested in at this
stage is the difference between the red and blue curves.
Both will be sine waves but what we need to know is the
relative amplitudes and the phase shift. I am expecting
you to say the blue curve is between 10m/s and 100m/s
when the blue is 27983 m/s and that they are 90 degrees
out of phase.

That last "blue" should be "red", of course.

Leonard


Doh! Thanks Leonard, yes just a typo again.

George

On 9 Mar 2007 02:00:12 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 9 Mar, 01:16, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:45:30 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:


First let me correct an error, I should have typed 3720,
not 3520. the error is +40/-30 parsec or about +/120 light
years, good enough for our purposes.

However at 3000LYs, the velocity would have to be very low, 0.000001c.

But I can't do this. The published velocity change, using classical
doppler, is
around 0.9 in 10000. My figure for linear brightness variation should be
twice
the same....about 0.00018.

Something about the method doesn't add up here. My selected velocity,
expressed
as a fraction of c, has to produce a linear brightness variation of twice
the
same fraction. (twice because amplitude is only half the swing)

Be careful, the brightness variation should be twice the
_red_ curve velocity, not the blue curve. These speeds
should be markedly different now.

I can do that.....I get a figure for extinction distance of about one
lightday
or less for a peripheral velocity of 0.0009c and a velocity change of
about the
same fraction.

I don't find that unreasonable...but I am not happy about the method.

That's one point in going through this process, you get
an apprecaiation of how the numbers pan out and sometimes
they can be surprising. Still, that's the reason for
checking the software, is there an error or are the results
genuinely counter-intuitive?

One step at a time Henry, us 3520 light years for the
distance and tell me what your orbital parameters are
for a red curve that is a perfect sine wave with an
amplitude of 27983 m/s.

Like I said George, a condition is that my predicted linear brightness
variation must be the same as twice the fractional velocity curve
amplitude .

The red curve, yes, not the blue curve.

Yes, George, I now understand where we are heading. You might have to
accept that the doppler calculated velocity curve is way out.

Of course! The first step should give you a stupidly low speed
which we then address by various methods.

A very heavy neutron star that is orbitted by a dwarf star would
conceivably
have quite a small peripheral velocity. It just wobbles around the
barycentre...which could be only a few diameters away.

Ah but there is an upper limit to the possible mass of
a neutron star.

who said? Einstein?

No, measurements in accelerators that tell us how much
pressure material can withstand before imploding.

George, when the BaTh takes over the whole of astronomy will have to be
rewritten.

Except that we already know it is wrong.



George, we don't know the mass of the stars. Even that has been derived
wrongly.

Sorry Henry, the rules of thermodynamics still apply
so mass can be obtained from absolute magnitude, radius
and temperature for the dwarf.

Only a rough estimate at that distance.

Certainly.

All we know with reasonable certainty are the orbit period and the
observed
bunching pattern of the pulses.

We know a lot more than those Henry, spectra carry a wealth
of information. Anyway, using just those what do you get
for the velocity?

Like I said, that is impossible.

I think you have momentarily lost track of which speed
you are matching.

Using this method, attributed to yourself, a condition is that the
velocity
expressed as a fraction of c has to equal half the 'brightness
change'...since
this 'brightness change' is really an indication of speed variation, in
this
case about 0.00018.

Yes, but you match the red curve and then tell me the blue
curve value.

George, before I continue, please tell me how YOU would derive the red curve.

I went over this last week. Personally I would solve it
analytically. From memory the Doppler equation I got was

f'/f = c/((da-c^2)(c-v_blue))

where d is the distance and a is the instantaneous radial
acceleration at the point of emission and v_blue is the
true instantaneous radial speed. The ratio f'/f is also
your brightness ratio, call that b:

b = f'/f

I would then calculate the velocity assuming by noting that
the published figures don't allow for the acceleration
effect which only happens in ballistic theory so

f'/f = c/(c-v)

or

v_red = c(1 - 1/b)

You show b on a log scale in magnitudes but v_blue and v_red
on a linear scale in m/s.

I can't see any diffrence between YOUR red curve and my 'brightness curve'.

For small values, they should be almost identical which
is why you were able to tell me the brightness ratio a
week or so ago. Even the log/lin scales look similar for
such small changes. The bit we are interested in at this
stage is the difference between the red and blue curves.
Both will be sine waves but what we need to know is the
relative amplitudes and the phase shift. I am expecting
you to say the blue curve is between 10m/s and 100m/s
when the blue is 27983 m/s and that they are 90 degrees
out of phase. A screen shot will let me know which way
you have drawn the scales.

Either I'm not getting the right picture here or this is a futile exercise.
The 'phase difference' between the red and blue curves varies with distance.
Over 1.5 Ldays it will go through 360 degres.
My original red curve applied only to 'incompressible photons', as you know.

I can give you relative phases of the red and blue curves wrt my 'brightness
curve', no more....but in that case, the red curve IS the brightness curve.

I'll have to think about this some more.... soon.

Incidentally, I have upgraded my progam to give a linear or log output and will
place it on the website when I iron out a few bugs..






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" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2007 02:00:12 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 9 Mar, 01:16, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:45:30 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:

First let me correct an error, I should have typed 3720,
not 3520. the error is +40/-30 parsec or about +/120 light
years, good enough for our purposes.

However at 3000LYs, the velocity would have to be very low,
0.000001c.

But I can't do this. The published velocity change, using classical
doppler, is
around 0.9 in 10000. My figure for linear brightness variation should
be
twice
the same....about 0.00018.

Something about the method doesn't add up here. My selected velocity,
expressed
as a fraction of c, has to produce a linear brightness variation of
twice
the
same fraction. (twice because amplitude is only half the swing)

Be careful, the brightness variation should be twice the
_red_ curve velocity, not the blue curve. These speeds
should be markedly different now.

I can do that.....I get a figure for extinction distance of about one
lightday
or less for a peripheral velocity of 0.0009c and a velocity change of
about the
same fraction.

I don't find that unreasonable...but I am not happy about the method.

That's one point in going through this process, you get
an apprecaiation of how the numbers pan out and sometimes
they can be surprising. Still, that's the reason for
checking the software, is there an error or are the results
genuinely counter-intuitive?

One step at a time Henry, us 3520 light years for the
distance and tell me what your orbital parameters are
for a red curve that is a perfect sine wave with an
amplitude of 27983 m/s.

Like I said George, a condition is that my predicted linear
brightness
variation must be the same as twice the fractional velocity curve
amplitude .

The red curve, yes, not the blue curve.

Yes, George, I now understand where we are heading. You might
have to
accept that the doppler calculated velocity curve is way out.

Of course! The first step should give you a stupidly low speed
which we then address by various methods.

A very heavy neutron star that is orbitted by a dwarf star would
conceivably
have quite a small peripheral velocity. It just wobbles around the
barycentre...which could be only a few diameters away.

Ah but there is an upper limit to the possible mass of
a neutron star.

who said? Einstein?

No, measurements in accelerators that tell us how much
pressure material can withstand before imploding.

George, when the BaTh takes over the whole of astronomy will have to
be
rewritten.

Except that we already know it is wrong.



George, we don't know the mass of the stars. Even that has been
derived
wrongly.

Sorry Henry, the rules of thermodynamics still apply
so mass can be obtained from absolute magnitude, radius
and temperature for the dwarf.

Only a rough estimate at that distance.

Certainly.

All we know with reasonable certainty are the orbit period and the
observed
bunching pattern of the pulses.

We know a lot more than those Henry, spectra carry a wealth
of information. Anyway, using just those what do you get
for the velocity?

Like I said, that is impossible.

I think you have momentarily lost track of which speed
you are matching.

Using this method, attributed to yourself, a condition is that the
velocity
expressed as a fraction of c has to equal half the 'brightness
change'...since
this 'brightness change' is really an indication of speed variation,
in
this
case about 0.00018.

Yes, but you match the red curve and then tell me the blue
curve value.

George, before I continue, please tell me how YOU would derive the red
curve.

I went over this last week. Personally I would solve it
analytically. From memory the Doppler equation I got was

f'/f = c/((da-c^2)(c-v_blue))

where d is the distance and a is the instantaneous radial
acceleration at the point of emission and v_blue is the
true instantaneous radial speed. The ratio f'/f is also
your brightness ratio, call that b:

b = f'/f

I would then calculate the velocity assuming by noting that
the published figures don't allow for the acceleration
effect which only happens in ballistic theory so

f'/f = c/(c-v)

or

v_red = c(1 - 1/b)

You show b on a log scale in magnitudes but v_blue and v_red
on a linear scale in m/s.

I can't see any diffrence between YOUR red curve and my 'brightness
curve'.

For small values, they should be almost identical which
is why you were able to tell me the brightness ratio a
week or so ago. Even the log/lin scales look similar for
such small changes. The bit we are interested in at this
stage is the difference between the red and blue curves.
Both will be sine waves but what we need to know is the
relative amplitudes and the phase shift. I am expecting
you to say the blue curve is between 10m/s and 100m/s
when the blue is 27983 m/s and that they are 90 degrees
out of phase. A screen shot will let me know which way
you have drawn the scales.

Either I'm not getting the right picture here or this is a futile
exercise.
The 'phase difference' between the red and blue curves varies with
distance.
Over 1.5 Ldays it will go through 360 degres.

That's not right if I understand what you are doing. If
you are varying the distance value, then they should be
in phase and equal heights for a very small distance and
rapidly change to nearly 90 degrees with a significant
increase in amplitude which then continues to grow with
the distance. The phase should be asymptotic to 90 degrees.

The brightness curve should be in phase but get more 'peaky'
as the amplitude rises when both are on the same scale
(linear or log).

My original red curve applied only to 'incompressible photons', as you
know.

Yes but that is definitely inappropriate for the pulsar PRF
as the pulses travel independently.

I can give you relative phases of the red and blue curves wrt my
'brightness
curve', no more....but in that case, the red curve IS the brightness
curve.

Yes they are virtually the same but it is the phase of the
red relative to the blue that is of interest.

I'll have to think about this some more.... soon.

Incidentally, I have upgraded my progam to give a linear or log output and
will
place it on the website when I iron out a few bugs..

OK. I might do one of my own if I get time.

George

On 9 Mar 2007 17:12:12 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 9 Mar 2007 02:00:12 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

For small values, they should be almost identical which
is why you were able to tell me the brightness ratio a
week or so ago. Even the log/lin scales look similar for
such small changes. The bit we are interested in at this
stage is the difference between the red and blue curves.
Both will be sine waves but what we need to know is the
relative amplitudes and the phase shift. I am expecting
you to say the blue curve is between 10m/s and 100m/s
when the blue is 27983 m/s and that they are 90 degrees
out of phase. A screen shot will let me know which way
you have drawn the scales.

Either I'm not getting the right picture here or this is a futile
exercise.
The 'phase difference' between the red and blue curves varies with
distance.
Over 1.5 Ldays it will go through 360 degres.

That's not right if I understand what you are doing. If
you are varying the distance value, then they should be
in phase and equal heights for a very small distance and
rapidly change to nearly 90 degrees with a significant
increase in amplitude which then continues to grow with
the distance. The phase should be asymptotic to 90 degrees.

I understand why you say this. The bunching due to BaTh is predominantly an
acceleration effect.
Maximum brightness (bunching) occurs at about minimum 'real' velocity (maximum
acceleration towards observer)
...so, if we use he observed values of 'bunching' and assume is is a pure
classical doppler effect we will get a 90 phase diference between red and blue.

That is essentially what I get. The brightness curve is 90 out wrt the blue
curve.

....but what would happen if you could 'label' each pulsar pulse with its source
velocity wrt Earth as it was emitted. You then follow it and monitor its
arrival time. You will find the red curve is in phase with the blue...even
though its shape will alter with distance.

The brightness curve should be in phase but get more 'peaky'
as the amplitude rises when both are on the same scale
(linear or log).

My original red curve applied only to 'incompressible photons', as you
know.

Yes but that is definitely inappropriate for the pulsar PRF
as the pulses travel independently.

Yes OK.

I can give you relative phases of the red and blue curves wrt my
'brightness
curve', no more....but in that case, the red curve IS the brightness
curve.

Yes they are virtually the same but it is the phase of the
red relative to the blue that is of interest.

Well if I use the brightness curve, the two are 90 out.

I'll have to think about this some more.... soon.

Incidentally, I have upgraded my progam to give a linear or log output and
will
place it on the website when I iron out a few bugs..

OK. I might do one of my own if I get time.

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" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2007 17:12:12 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On 9 Mar 2007 02:00:12 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
...
For small values, they should be almost identical which
is why you were able to tell me the brightness ratio a
week or so ago. Even the log/lin scales look similar for
such small changes. The bit we are interested in at this
stage is the difference between the red and blue curves.
Both will be sine waves but what we need to know is the
relative amplitudes and the phase shift. I am expecting
you to say the blue curve is between 10m/s and 100m/s
when the blue is 27983 m/s and that they are 90 degrees
out of phase. A screen shot will let me know which way
you have drawn the scales.

Either I'm not getting the right picture here or this is a futile
exercise.
The 'phase difference' between the red and blue curves varies with
distance.
Over 1.5 Ldays it will go through 360 degres.

That's not right if I understand what you are doing. If
you are varying the distance value, then they should be
in phase and equal heights for a very small distance and
rapidly change to nearly 90 degrees with a significant
increase in amplitude which then continues to grow with
the distance. The phase should be asymptotic to 90 degrees.

I understand why you say this. The bunching due to BaTh is predominantly
an
acceleration effect.
Maximum brightness (bunching) occurs at about minimum 'real' velocity
(maximum
acceleration towards observer)
..so, if we use he observed values of 'bunching' and assume is is a pure
classical doppler effect we will get a 90 phase diference between red and
blue.

Great, you understand the situation pefectly. Obviously
this is when there is no significant 'extinction' effect.

That is essentially what I get. The brightness curve is 90 out wrt the
blue
curve.

OK, I thought you said the phase continued to increase
beyond 90 degrees and in fact past 360 degrees as the
distance increased which would have been indicative of
a problem. Basically you are adding a fixed velocity
term and a distance-dependent acceleration term so the
ratio of the two gives the overall phase and as the
acceleration term becomes dominant, it approaches 90.

....
Incidentally, I have upgraded my progam to give a linear or log output
and
will place it on the website when I iron out a few bugs..

So now that we have confirmed the phase is OK, what does
your program give for the velocity from the blue curve
when the red matches the observations and distance is
3720 light years Henry? You seem to be saying you have
done the work and got a linear scale to read it off but
you haven't actually given me the number yet.

George

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:22:08 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 9 Mar 2007 17:12:12 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message


I understand why you say this. The bunching due to BaTh is predominantly
an
acceleration effect.
Maximum brightness (bunching) occurs at about minimum 'real' velocity
(maximum
acceleration towards observer)
..so, if we use he observed values of 'bunching' and assume is is a pure
classical doppler effect we will get a 90 phase diference between red and
blue.

Great, you understand the situation pefectly. Obviously
this is when there is no significant 'extinction' effect.

That is essentially what I get. The brightness curve is 90 out wrt the
blue
curve.

OK, I thought you said the phase continued to increase
beyond 90 degrees and in fact past 360 degrees as the
distance increased which would have been indicative of
a problem. Basically you are adding a fixed velocity
term and a distance-dependent acceleration term so the
ratio of the two gives the overall phase and as the
acceleration term becomes dominant, it approaches 90.

...
Incidentally, I have upgraded my progam to give a linear or log output
and
will place it on the website when I iron out a few bugs..

So now that we have confirmed the phase is OK, what does
your program give for the velocity from the blue curve
when the red matches the observations and distance is
3720 light years Henry? You seem to be saying you have
done the work and got a linear scale to read it off but
you haven't actually given me the number yet.

Like I said, I can only give you a figure for the product (blue velocity x
distance).

For instance, for an extinction distance of about 120 Ldays, and a red
velocity variation of 0.00019, the blue velocity is about 15m/s.

For 12 Ldays, the blue velocity is 150 m/s.

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.