Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:11:33 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Jerry" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Mar 14, 8:47 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 14 Mar, 12:46, "Jerry" wrote:
...
Here is a 1969 publication by Bappu et al.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

Excellent, thanks. Given the importance of Cepheids,
I'm a surprised there aren't more recent studies, or
is that just the latest you know of?

A little googling found this excellent reference:
Physical properties of the Cepheids RT Aurigae and SZ Tauri
Authors: Gieren, W. P.
Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361),
vol. 148, no. 1, July 1985, p. 138-144.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00141.000.html

Got it, thanks.

I also found several additional likely references in subscriber-
access journals. I'll check on them the next time that I visit
the main campus library.

Thanks for the data Jerry, it will be intersting to
see what numbers Henry can come up with to fit those,
though it is already clear he will get a poor fit at
best.

By futzing around with his parameters, Henri can "sort of" match
the shape of the RT Aur radial velocity curve (to the point
where Henri will claim a decent match, but no objective observer
would agree), but even Henri will admit that he can't match the
phasing relative to the luminosity curve.

Henry should enter the values from the above paper
and get his program to calculate the residuals.
Anything else is just handwaving. Now that you have
found the reference, he really has no excuse not to.

The radial velocity curve is virtually the same as the brightness curve.

You and I now know that George. ...and that's what I get.


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 Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:41:31 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 14 Mar 2007 06:47:41 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 14 Mar, 12:46, "Jerry" wrote:
On Mar 13, 2:35 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 12 Mar, 22:11, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
Actually the data is from 1908

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c..._query?1908Lic...

If the above link is truncated, you can search for the paper:
"The orbits of the Cepheid variables Y Sagittarii and RT Aurigae :
with a discussion of the possible causes of this type of stellar
variation", by John Charles Duncan, 1908

A real bit of history then.

This is a more recent curve from an amateur:

http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/AST/RTAUR.html

There is far more detail in that which shows how far
the capabilities have come, and I suspect you'll get
even better data if you do some serious searching.
Note the amount of detail in the variations.

Yes, instrumentation has advanced a wee bit in the last century...

Here is a 1969 publication by Bappu et
al.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

Excellent, thanks. Given the importance of Cepheids,
I'm a surprised there aren't more recent studies, or
is that just the latest you know of?

Thanks for the data Jerry, it will be intersting to
see what numbers Henry can come up with to fit those,
though it is already clear he will get a poor fit at
best.

George, you know that the curves presented here are all based on
Einsteiniana.

No Henry, the curves are all MEASURED VALUES. Just switch
the velocity scale to wavelength.

George, the measured values are actually ADoppler shifts. They are interpreted
using VDoppler equations.
Every velocity curve ever presented is very wrong.

You also know that my predicted velocity curve is virtually the same as
the
brightness curve.

Yes, but ..

THAT IS EXACTLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CURVE SHOWN IN THIS PAPER.

no, the MEASURED brightness and velocity curves _differ_.

Yes, they might to a small extent. ...probably by just enough to match the RT
Aur data.

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 14 Mar 2007 17:22:21 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 14, 5:44 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 05:46:40 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:


Here is a 1969 publication by Bappu et al.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969MNRAS.142..295B

Oh look who's managed to take time off from her studies!

Spring break.

Of course, you being on the other side of the world have
upside down seasons...

....it's pretty similar all year round where I live. Typically, winter, 7-17C,
summer 17-27C.

.....did your 'keyword detector' pick up the word "jerry"...or RT Aur?

Anyway, as George said, the paper is nonsense.

No, the paper is NOT nonsense. George was referring to the
WEBSITE. The cited paper is quite good, for a century ago...

The mb-soft.com website is maintained by a borderline crank,
whose essays on various topics range from some being quite
interesting, to others being quite looney.

Jerry, George, who doesn't exactly support the BaTh but at least has a
sufficiently open mind to sensibly discuss it , has been a great help to me.
Two minds are far better than twice one when it comes to answering scientific
questions and we have already made some sensational discoveries. Frankly I
don't know how much longer George will be able resist accepting the obvious
truth.

If you are going to continue with your 'know-it-all, narrow minded, religious
preaching' approach, I will just lump you in with the rest of the relativist
ratpack and ignore you.

ALL THE VELOCITY CURVES EVER PRODUCED USING SPECTRAL DOPPLER SHIFTS ARE
PROBABLY VERY WRONG.

Jerry


"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 Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:32:47 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Jerry" wrote in message oups.com...

Of course, you being on the other side of the world have
upside down seasons...

.....did your 'keyword detector' pick up the word "jerry"...or RT Aur?

Anyway, as George said, the paper is nonsense.

No, the paper is NOT nonsense. George was referring to the
WEBSITE. The cited paper is quite good, for a century ago...

The mb-soft.com website is maintained by a borderline crank,
whose essays on various topics range from some being quite
interesting, to others being quite looney.

Jerry

Jeery being the minor crank.
Dunno about borderline, though. Fully fledged, more like.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

Where did you find that? Why the rotation? Is it precessing or something?

Incidentally, with George's help I have found that orbit pitch can be
legitimately included in brightness curve simulations, ...much easier if my
definition of Yaw angle is used.. Light speed unification might not be
necessary after all....although some extinction might still occur.

YOU have always used pitch as an excuse ...but you never knew why it worked.
ALL your orbits had to be face on....not so with the latest discovery.

"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 15 Mar 2007 01:26:03 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 14 Mar, 23:10, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 01:26:51 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 13 Mar, 23:35, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 01:24:19 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 12 Mar, 22:11, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

The phase difference between the blue and green curves appears to
remain the
same 90deg for distances of 0.2LYs and 200LYs.

Our previous estimate was about 6 light hours so
at 0.2 light years the acceleration dominates
completely.

Well I don't get any change of phase.

OK, I'll wait for you to fix that bug too.

...
Whatever it is, it still tells you the phase which
is all we are using it for.

George, there is an anomaly in the data when it is interpreted in the
conventional way. Shapiro delay appears to account for it.
I'm not prepared to accept that explanation.

Suit yourself, all I am asking you to accept is that
an elliptical orbit with its major axis aligned with
our line of sight is symmetrical about that axis. It
means the anomaly can't be on one side or the other.

You keep complaining that you don't have enough
information to analyse the system but at the same
time ignore an artefact that answers your question
whatever causes the effect. It is sad that you should
be looking for excuses for failure before you even
make the attempt.

It might be an option. We will see.
More important data would be a brightness curve of the dwarf.

Other factors enter into the
picture when the BaTh is used.

According to the BaTh, there will be a slowing of
light as it escapes the gravitational influence of the pair.

At some distance from the system there will be a
slowing which is close to the effect of a point
mass, the separation of the two bodies becomes
negligible. The Shapiro delay is how the slowing
varies relative to that mean effect as a function
of the phase.

I don't think it will make any significant difference to my brightness
curves
except maybe when a very heavy star is involved.

Absolutely none whatsoever, nor will it have any
significant effect on the velocity curve. It is a
very small delay of the signal only.

yep.

I already have a program that predicts redshift due to gravitational
slowing of
light. It can accommodate the slowing from a whole galaxy. The source
can be
positioned anywhere inside that galaxy.
I suppose I can modify this and include it in my variable star program.
It
could provide interesting results when heavy stars are involved.

Nope, that would be of no use at all. Consider a simple
circular orbit of the pulsar P around the barycentre B
as seen by an observer O very far away (not to scale):


B

P x P' O

| |
|- D -|

Light from the two locations P and P' would be launched
with the same speed towards the observer, c' = c+0.7v,
because I've drawn them at 45 degrees to the LoS. The
light from P would be expected to take D/c' longer to
reach us.

That's a strange drawing George.
The barycentre should be where x is.
Anyway I know what you mean.

I don't think you do. Let me add the location of the
companion dwarf as C and draw the two situations
separately. Here's the first:


C


B

P O


The companion is lighter so it's farther from B. Here
is the second situation quarter of an orbit later:


C


B

P O

Of course the observer sholud be farr off to the
right of your screen

P

B O

P'

Point x is midway between P and P' where the light path
is perpendicular to line x-B. In ballistic theory the
gravity of the star accelerates the light between P and
x and then slows it between x and P' so that the speed
at P' is the same as light emitted at P'. Everything
from there to O is the same. The time it takes the light
to get from P to P' is therefore slightly _less_ than
D/c' because the mean speed is slightly higher than c'.
The Shapiro effect is the difference between that time
and D/c'.

Yes I'm aware of this. The average speed is faster than c' between P and
P'.

Right so the signal arrives earlier, it is not a delay.
The gravitational redshift is identical in each case as
is the eventual speed.

....
That was before we fixed the bug in your program.
Now we have found another. Once we get through the
pulsar analysis and you have learnt how to get
definite answers out of the data, we can have a
look at RT Aur and see how good your match is, but
at the moment you don't seem to have the VDoppler
term in your program so your phase is screwed.

Well I have given it some more thought.

Consider a pulsar in an edge-on circular orbit.

Pulses from the near and far sections of the orbit move towards you at c
and
that from the edges at c+v and c-v.

Bunching of pulses is a maximum at maximum acceleration, ie., for pulses
emitted from the far section of the orbit. It is minimum for those emitted
at
the near, or 'convex' section.

However, the 'bunched section' moves towards the observer at a slower
speed
than does the group of pulses from the edges.
Now, my original method does not take this into account, although the red
velocity curve it generates actually shows the arrival velocities.

The velocities affect the 'y' position but the changed
time of arrival affects the 'x' position. However, any
change in that from one pulse to the next also affects
the _relative_ separation hance looks like a modification
to the velocity.

I cannot yet see how your 'pulses separation' method does NOT include the
VDoppler.

It SHOULD include it but if as you say above your program
does not take this into account, that could explain why it
is missing the VDoppler effect.

I think it might be where you decided to ignore the
orbit crossing time. That's not a problem but the
rate of change of the time gives the VDoppler so
you need to make sure that's accounted for.

What I will do today is write a new program showing how the pulses
actually
move wrt each other as they travel away from the source. I have already
done
this in my 'lightfronts' section but I will modify the presentation so
that it
shows the positions of about 300 pulses emitted around one orbit.

If that helps you understand how the effects combine, do
so but getting the VDoppler accurately into your prediction
is the aim, you won't get an accurate phase shift without it.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:47:58 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:02:46 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:


The obvious approach to smoothing and combining measurements
over more than one cycle would be to take a Fourier transform,
identifiy the fundamental, set all the bins other than that
and the harmonics to zero and reverse transform. The pattern
would then repeat perfectly of course but would contain all
the original information folded into each cycle. It might be
worht contacting the author, if he gave you the amplitude and
phase of the harmonics it would be fairly straightforward to
reconstruct the curve and calculate the residuals.

Here is my simulation. Not bad...

Pretty good.

I had to fiddle with about ten parameters to
match it.

I thought you only had speed, period, eccentricity, pitch,
yaw, and extinction distance? The first two are directly
discernible from the curves leaving only four for the shape.

I also had to adjust both the comparative brightness and orbit speed of
the
'outer star'. Both values are about 0.4 of the inner star. ...which
provides an
indication of the relative masses. I achieved an even closer match when I
included a third object wirth a 90 degree phase shift.

You can't do that, it's an unstable configuration. You
could get away with one at a Lagrange point but there
is a limit on the mass ratios.

I don't know the
significance of this yet but the overtone is clearly not in phase with the
fundamental in the published curve. That needs an explanation.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/forjerry.jpg

e=0.35, Yaw= -140

This was produced with a first harmonic plus a second small oscillation
that
has a 90 deg phase shift. If I added a second harmonic, I could probably
get a
very good fit.

Of course, you can create any possible shape with sufficient
harmonics but Keplerian orbits produce limits, that is the
anture of the test. You can't just add more factors.

Everything I add is strictly in accordance with the BaTh. I cannot simply
add
any old curve to produce the one I want. There are strict limitations
particularly for elliptical orbits.

Yes, and a third object is not allowed !

It would apply, but the predictions would be different
because the acceleration due to expansion and contraction
would also be significant.

That's the motion I was referring to. I understand there is still no
decent
expanation for the brightness variation of cepheids.

I think there are subtleties but the basic operation is
undertsood.

In every paper I have read about cepheids the authors state straight out
that
they have no model that can explain the brightness variations .


The BaTh provides one.

Nah, not a chance.

You cannot run away from the truth much longer George.

We'll see.

..but at least you have been prepared to discuss the BaTh sensibly and
have
already contributed greatly to my own understanding of what is happening.

Sure, observations must rule, not opinions.

The pain fact is, the spectral shifts we observe are derived from
ADoppler.
Astonomers have always tried to interpret these using VDOPPLER!!!!

Phase Henry, phase.

The consequence is that few if any of the published velocity curve we see
are
likely to be anywhere near the true ones. This is quite sensational.

Couple this with the fact that orbit pitch can be included in ADoppler but
not
in VDoppler interpretations and we can maybe forget about extinction
altogether.

Get the VDoppler into the program then and let's find out.

George

On Mar 15, 5:35 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:11:33 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Henry should enter the values from the above paper
and get his program to calculate the residuals.
Anything else is just handwaving. Now that you have
found the reference, he really has no excuse not to.

The radial velocity curve is virtually the same as the
brightness curve.

You and I now know that George. ...and that's what I get.

If that's what you get, your program is far out of touch
with reality.

Jerry

On Mar 15, 6:00 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

ALL THE VELOCITY CURVES EVER PRODUCED USING SPECTRAL DOPPLER
SHIFTS ARE PROBABLY VERY WRONG.

That's your way of hiding from the fact that your program fails
to produce the correct velocity curves.

Utterly pathetic.

Jerry

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:18:00 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Mar 2007 01:26:03 -0700, "George Dishman"


Nope, that would be of no use at all. Consider a simple
circular orbit of the pulsar P around the barycentre B
as seen by an observer O very far away (not to scale):


B

P x P' O

| |
|- D -|

Light from the two locations P and P' would be launched
with the same speed towards the observer, c' = c+0.7v,
because I've drawn them at 45 degrees to the LoS. The
light from P would be expected to take D/c' longer to
reach us.

That's a strange drawing George.
The barycentre should be where x is.
Anyway I know what you mean.

I don't think you do. Let me add the location of the
companion dwarf as C and draw the two situations
separately. Here's the first:


C


B

P O


The companion is lighter so it's farther from B. Here
is the second situation quarter of an orbit later:


C


B

P O

Of course the observer sholud be farr off to the
right of your screen

Oh all right. I thought you were trying to draw something else.
Same result anyway.


P

B O

P'

Point x is midway between P and P' where the light path
is perpendicular to line x-B. In ballistic theory the
gravity of the star accelerates the light between P and
x and then slows it between x and P' so that the speed
at P' is the same as light emitted at P'. Everything
from there to O is the same. The time it takes the light
to get from P to P' is therefore slightly _less_ than
D/c' because the mean speed is slightly higher than c'.
The Shapiro effect is the difference between that time
and D/c'.

Yes I'm aware of this. The average speed is faster than c' between P and
P'.

Right so the signal arrives earlier, it is not a delay.
The gravitational redshift is identical in each case as
is the eventual speed.

that's right.

That was before we fixed the bug in your program.
Now we have found another. Once we get through the
pulsar analysis and you have learnt how to get
definite answers out of the data, we can have a
look at RT Aur and see how good your match is, but
at the moment you don't seem to have the VDoppler
term in your program so your phase is screwed.

Well I have given it some more thought.

Consider a pulsar in an edge-on circular orbit.

Pulses from the near and far sections of the orbit move towards you at c
and
that from the edges at c+v and c-v.

Bunching of pulses is a maximum at maximum acceleration, ie., for pulses
emitted from the far section of the orbit. It is minimum for those emitted
at
the near, or 'convex' section.

However, the 'bunched section' moves towards the observer at a slower
speed
than does the group of pulses from the edges.
Now, my original method does not take this into account, although the red
velocity curve it generates actually shows the arrival velocities.

The velocities affect the 'y' position but the changed
time of arrival affects the 'x' position. However, any
change in that from one pulse to the next also affects
the _relative_ separation hance looks like a modification
to the velocity.

I cannot yet see how your 'pulses separation' method does NOT include the
VDoppler.

It SHOULD include it but if as you say above your program
does not take this into account, that could explain why it
is missing the VDoppler effect.

I'm working on it. I'll eventually find what's happening.

I think it might be where you decided to ignore the
orbit crossing time. That's not a problem but the
rate of change of the time gives the VDoppler so
you need to make sure that's accounted for.

What I will do today is write a new program showing how the pulses
actually
move wrt each other as they travel away from the source. I have already
done
this in my 'lightfronts' section but I will modify the presentation so
that it
shows the positions of about 300 pulses emitted around one orbit.

If that helps you understand how the effects combine, do
so but getting the VDoppler accurately into your prediction
is the aim, you won't get an accurate phase shift without it.

It will be done....but it isn't as simple as one would think.



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, 16 Mar 2007 00:22:44 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:47:58 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:

I also had to adjust both the comparative brightness and orbit speed of
the
'outer star'. Both values are about 0.4 of the inner star. ...which
provides an
indication of the relative masses. I achieved an even closer match when I
included a third object wirth a 90 degree phase shift.

You can't do that, it's an unstable configuration. You
could get away with one at a Lagrange point but there
is a limit on the mass ratios.

I wasn't suggesting that an object was in orbit 90 out. As far as we know that
is indeed impossible. ...but there could be other reasons...tidal effects(?)
The fact that it was 90 and not 80 or 100 made me wonder.

I was wondering about the material that is falling into the neutron star.
If it is spinning, its speed would drop of with distance. If it wasn't spinning
the pulsar would be slowing down.

I don't know the
significance of this yet but the overtone is clearly not in phase with the
fundamental in the published curve. That needs an explanation.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/forjerry.jpg

e=0.35, Yaw= -140

This was produced with a first harmonic plus a second small oscillation
that
has a 90 deg phase shift. If I added a second harmonic, I could probably
get a
very good fit.

Of course, you can create any possible shape with sufficient
harmonics but Keplerian orbits produce limits, that is the
anture of the test. You can't just add more factors.

Everything I add is strictly in accordance with the BaTh. I cannot simply
add
any old curve to produce the one I want. There are strict limitations
particularly for elliptical orbits.

Yes, and a third object is not allowed !

Of course it is....many star curves clearly involve a third or more object.

I don't think you have fully realised the complexity of this whole issue
George.




The BaTh provides one.

Nah, not a chance.

You cannot run away from the truth much longer George.

We'll see.

..but at least you have been prepared to discuss the BaTh sensibly and
have
already contributed greatly to my own understanding of what is happening.

Sure, observations must rule, not opinions.

The pain fact is, the spectral shifts we observe are derived from
ADoppler.
Astonomers have always tried to interpret these using VDOPPLER!!!!

Phase Henry, phase.

The consequence is that few if any of the published velocity curve we see
are
likely to be anywhere near the true ones. This is quite sensational.

Couple this with the fact that orbit pitch can be included in ADoppler but
not
in VDoppler interpretations and we can maybe forget about extinction
altogether.

Get the VDoppler into the program then and let's find out.

It takes 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.