Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Mar 26, 4:23 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 06:02:51 -0700, "PD" wrote:

On Mar 24, 4:02 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Your problem is that you accept the 'data'....when it is completely wrong.

This remark right here is what separates you from scientists, Henri.
At this point, and in accordance with your remark, you are espousing
religion, not science. A very small, cultish religion, mind you, but a
religion nonetheless.

The point I have made is far too subtle for you Draper.
Go away.


When have you *ever* said anything that has had an effect on me in any
way, Ralph?

PD

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:18:52 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:12:26 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

Stupid old wabo, I've been modelling variables since 1987, of course I know.

The thing is, our brightness curves are also the true velocity curves....or
they would be if only one star was contributing to the curves.

The luminosity is out of phase with velocity.

The phasing is far more complicated than you think..

Don't be so ****ing stupid. The phasing is more complicated than
*YOU* don't think, it isn't more complicated than *I* KNOW.
Gawd, you **** me off sometimes, you think others are as ignorant
as you.



Astronomers have
used doppler shifts of incoming light to calculate orbital velocities.


Of course. Why shouldn't they?


This is
where they have been going wrong for years.

The problem, H, is phase. Let's say a star is in a perfectly circular
orbit, seen edge-on. When it is coming directly toward us the
light gets here earlier than it should, and when it s moving directly
away the light gets here later than it should. That means we see
an elliptical orbit from the timing of max velocity and min velocity,
yet the orbit was a perfect circle. Max luminosity occurs when
the star is approaching.

The change in 'luminosity' due to velocity is generally negligible.
The change in 'brightness' is what we are discussing.

luminosity:
Pronunciation: "lü-m&-'nä-s&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : the quality or state of being luminous b : something luminous
2 a : the relative quantity of light b : relative brightness of something
3 : the relative quantity of radiation emitted by a celestial source (as a star)

The change in 'luminosity' and the change in 'brightness'
are the same thing, you dumb cluck.

What the **** is wrong with you?

Listen, moron, the luminosity curve and the velocity curve
are different animals, but they are related.

Now, are you discussing the velocity or the luminosity?


It is caused by the bunching and rarification [snip]

I know ****ing well what causes the change in luminosity that
you call 'brightness'. I modelled it long before you ever did.
I thought we'd at last got around to velocity curves after
8 years of your struggling and waffling and crazy theorizing.
Sheesh, you are stupid.



So while astronomers get the right velocities, they get them at
the wrong time. I thought you already knew this.

No A.

Ok, so you don't know it and now you have another crazy
theory of your own.
It must be time to put you back on the killfile.

They get completely wrong velocities.

****ing moron.



Astronomers observe ADoppler shifts and then treat them with VDoppler equations
......and get hugely exaggerated velocity figures.

STUPID ****ing moron.

It was only through arguing with
George about pulsars that I realised the mistake.
As you know, pulses bunch together as they travel due to c+v.

Of course.


Astronomers have treated this bunching as Einsteinian doppler shift and arrived
at completely exaggerated velocity values....so when you see a published
velocity curve...don't believe it.

Well, ok, that would make the *acceleration* wrong, and
it is from the acceleration that we determine longitude of
periastron. The velocity is still directly related to the doppler.

This is where George corrected me....and contributed somewhat to his own
downfall.
I was previously working on the assumption that INDIVIDUAL photons did not
experience the same kind of 'bunching' as the pulses. It was only by analysing
pulsar pulse that I found the alternative possibility.

You couldn't analyze a ****in' pizza and tell if it had cheese in it.
Questioning Doppler now, sheesh.

According to our theory, pulses emitted as the neutron star [snip]

Does it ever occur to you that neutrons do not emit photons?

It's just that the velocity is stretched and contracted along
the time axis, and that is ... tada... a function of distance.
Remember that the SLOPE of a velocity/time graph is
acceleration. So the max and min velocity values are correct,
but the velocity curve should appear more sinusoidal than it does.

No.

**** off, ****head.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:25:33 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:18:52 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

The thing is, our brightness curves are also the true velocity curves....or
they would be if only one star was contributing to the curves.

The luminosity is out of phase with velocity.

The phasing is far more complicated than you think..

Don't be so ****ing stupid. The phasing is more complicated than
*YOU* don't think, it isn't more complicated than *I* KNOW.

The phase of the maximum varies with distance becasue of the size of the delay
between pulse emissions.
It stars out at exactly 90 ahead of the TRUE velocity and moves to a lesser
value with time. It also depends on the eccentricity of the orbit..
However the velocity that astronomers wrongly determine is exactly in phase
with the brightness curve. That's because they actually USE the brightness
curve to determine doppler shift.


Gawd, you **** me off sometimes, you think others are as ignorant
as you.

If you knew how to program properly you could see the effect yourself.


The change in 'luminosity' due to velocity is generally negligible.
The change in 'brightness' is what we are discussing.

luminosity:
Pronunciation: "lü-m&-'nä-s&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : the quality or state of being luminous b : something luminous
2 a : the relative quantity of light b : relative brightness of something
3 : the relative quantity of radiation emitted by a celestial source (as a star)

The change in 'luminosity' and the change in 'brightness'
are the same thing, you dumb cluck.

What the **** is wrong with you?

No they aren't.
However we are both wrong.

'Brightness' is luminous flux PER UNIT AREA.
Luminosity is what we are really measuring.

Listen, moron, the luminosity curve and the velocity curve
are different animals, but they are related.

Which velocity curve are you talking about?
I'm perfectly aware that the brightness curve is 90 ahead of the TRUE veocity
curve...but the fact is, maximum pulse bunching occurs at the same phase as
does maximum wavelength reduction. in fact the degree of bunching and the
wavelength reduction are the same for light emitted at any point around the
orbit.
Can you see now where astronomers have gone completely wrong?
'Bunching' greatly magnifies the real doppler shift.

This is more easily understood if you consider pulsars, which emit real pulses
at regular intervals around their orbits.


Now, are you discussing the velocity or the luminosity?

it is really luminosity but brightness is easier to write.

It is caused by the bunching and rarification [snip]

I know ****ing well what causes the change in luminosity that
you call 'brightness'. I modelled it long before you ever did.
I thought we'd at last got around to velocity curves after
8 years of your struggling and waffling and crazy theorizing.
Sheesh, you are stupid.

You still don't get it.
in the case of a pulsar, the individual pulses move either closer together or
further apart as they travel. When they arrive at Earth, the rate at which htey
arrive is wrongly taken as a doppler measure of the source speed. They are
wrong because they use constant c rather than c+v...in fact VERY wrong.

So while astronomers get the right velocities, they get them at
the wrong time. I thought you already knew this.

No A.

Ok, so you don't know it and now you have another crazy
theory of your own.
It must be time to put you back on the killfile.

If you follow the conversation I'm having with Geoerge, you might learn
something important.

They get completely wrong velocities.

****ing moron.

****ing raidio engineers don't knwo that brightness and luminosity are
different.

Astronomers observe ADoppler shifts and then treat them with VDoppler equations
......and get hugely exaggerated velocity figures.

STUPID ****ing moron.

****ing old pom..


This is where George corrected me....and contributed somewhat to his own
downfall.
I was previously working on the assumption that INDIVIDUAL photons did not
experience the same kind of 'bunching' as the pulses. It was only by analysing
pulsar pulse that I found the alternative possibility.

You couldn't analyze a ****in' pizza and tell if it had cheese in it.
Questioning Doppler now, sheesh.

According to our theory, pulses emitted as the neutron star [snip]

Does it ever occur to you that neutrons do not emit photons?

Don't come in here late and start swinging! I have been questioning how pulsar
pulse are emitted. I reckon they've gottten that all wrong too because they
have entirely the wrong speeds and orbit radii.

It's just that the velocity is stretched and contracted along
the time axis, and that is ... tada... a function of distance.
Remember that the SLOPE of a velocity/time graph is
acceleration. So the max and min velocity values are correct,
but the velocity curve should appear more sinusoidal than it does.

No.

**** off, ****head.

Silly old pom...



"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 Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:25:33 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:18:52 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

The thing is, our brightness curves are also the true velocity curves....or
they would be if only one star was contributing to the curves.

The luminosity is out of phase with velocity.

The phasing is far more complicated than you think..

Don't be so ****ing stupid. The phasing is more complicated than
*YOU* don't think, it isn't more complicated than *I* KNOW.

The phase of the maximum varies with distance becasue of the size of the delay
between pulse emissions.

ALL right...you fluked the wrong explanation....BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY..... AND STILL DON'T.




It stars out at exactly 90 ahead of the TRUE velocity and moves to a lesser
value with time. It also depends on the eccentricity of the orbit..

ALL wrong...you ****ed the wrong explanation....BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHY..... AND STILL DON'T.


However the velocity that astronomers wrongly determine is exactly in phase
with the brightness curve. That's because they actually USE the brightness
curve to determine doppler shift.

****ing hopeless, ignorant tord.



Gawd, you **** me off sometimes, you think others are as ignorant
as you.

If you knew how to program properly you could see the effect yourself.

Arrogant pile of ignorant ****. **** off.
*plonk*

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:24:18 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:25:33 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

The luminosity is out of phase with velocity.

The phasing is far more complicated than you think..

Don't be so ****ing stupid. The phasing is more complicated than
*YOU* don't think, it isn't more complicated than *I* KNOW.

The phase of the maximum varies with distance becasue of the size of the delay
between pulse emissions.

ALL right...you fluked the wrong explanation....BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY..... AND STILL DON'T.

My above statement is correct.

It stars out at exactly 90 ahead of the TRUE velocity and moves to a lesser
value with time. It also depends on the eccentricity of the orbit..

ALL wrong...you ****ed the wrong explanation....BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHY..... AND STILL DON'T.

Sorry, I was talking about circular orbits only here.

However the velocity that astronomers wrongly determine is exactly in phase
with the brightness curve. That's because they actually USE the brightness
curve to determine doppler shift.

****ing hopeless, ignorant tord.

Admittedly my above statement migh have made me sound like that. It certainly
doesn't apply to elliptical orbits.

For those, the phasing between brightness and TRUE velocity can be almost
anything between 0 and 360, depending on the yaw angle.
The main principle in all this is that brighness peaks are made up of light
that was emitted when the star was in the 'concave' section of the orbit wrt
the observer....ie., the far side, where maximum acceleration occurs TOWARDS
the observer.

The phasing moves considerably with distance.

Gawd, you **** me off sometimes, you think others are as ignorant
as you.

If you knew how to program properly you could see the effect yourself.

Arrogant pile of ignorant ****. **** off.
*plonk*

silly old pom. You are as confused as George.
You both seem to think an orbit is like a spinning wheel with lights fastened
at regular distances around its rim.

George seems to have disappeared since I drew his attention to his error.




"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.

Androcles wrote:

Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

No, you just don't seem to understand that the velocity measured is
nothing to do with movement of the star as a whole for Cepheids.

The velocity profile varies for different elements.
And it's nothing to do with an analemma either way.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:40:56 +0100, OG wrote:

Androcles wrote:

Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

No, you just don't seem to understand that the velocity measured is
nothing to do with movement of the star as a whole for Cepheids.

You don't seem to have the faintest idea of what we're talking about...not that
Androcles does either.

Whether or not cepheids are really huff-puff stars doesn't matter. We say their
brightness variations are due to c+v effects caused by their surfaces moving in
and out. A brightess curve produced that way is likely to be similar to that
for a star in elliptical orbit.

The error astronomers have been making is due to the fact that, according to
BaTh, 'ADoppler shift' of spectral lines increases with distance...yet they
have been assuming this is VDoppler shift, which in fact doesn't contribute a
significant effect in BaTh.
Thus the calculated velocity curves for any star are likely to be high by many
orders of magnitude.

(ADoppler and VDoppler are terms that George and I have been using to
discriminate between the bunching of pulsar pulses due to velocity and
acceleration of the source star as it orbits)



The velocity profile varies for different elements.
And it's nothing to do with an analemma either way.


"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 Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:34:03 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
George, when you can, have a look at
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ellip_circle.jpg

This shows how an elliptical orbit can produce a near perfect sine wave under
certain condition whilst the circular orbit produces nothing like one for
exactly the same parameter values.

Yaw angle is -90 (periastron closest to observer).

The white curve is an exact sinewave.

"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 28 Mar, 08:10, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:34:03 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

George, when you can, have a look at

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

This shows how an elliptical orbit can produce a near perfect sine wave under
certain condition whilst the circular orbit produces nothing like one for
exactly the same parameter values.

Yaw angle is -90 (periastron closest to observer).

The white curve is an exact sinewave.

You might like to consider how the elliptical orbit's
curve will change with distance. For example can you
do the same at a distance where VDoppler and ADoppler
are of equat magnitude (the 45 degree case for a
circular orbit).


In recent measages you seem to have been switching
between saying VDoppler doesn't exist at all and saying
it exists but is negligible presumably because it is
much smaller than ADoppler. I have held off replying to
see if you would clarify that (and also I was out last
night and we had visitors at the weekend). I've also
been tinkering with a GUI and might do a simulation for
comparison with yours but I have a couple of other
projects I'm working on too so I may not spend too much
time duplicating what you've already done. Does your
program actually include VDoppler or not?

George

On 28 Mar 2007 02:16:59 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 28 Mar, 08:10, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:34:03 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

George, when you can, have a look at

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

This shows how an elliptical orbit can produce a near perfect sine wave under
certain condition whilst the circular orbit produces nothing like one for
exactly the same parameter values.

Yaw angle is -90 (periastron closest to observer).

The white curve is an exact sinewave.

You might like to consider how the elliptical orbit's
curve will change with distance.

For small changes in magnitude I cannot tell the difference between the output
for a circular orbit and one with a small eccentricity.

The shape of the 'sinewave' produced for an elliptical orbit certainly changes
with distance, as expected. However it is certainly interseting to note that a
perfect sine wave 'bunching curve' can be produced by a star in an elliptical
orbit.

There is probably an algebraic reason for this ...but I don't think I'll bother
to find out what it is.

For example can you
do the same at a distance where VDoppler and ADoppler
are of equat magnitude (the 45 degree case for a
circular orbit).

George, I think what you are calling VDoppler is what you would get if you
placed a large number of equally spaced lights around a spinning wheel (Edge
on). Those on the sides would be 'VDoppler bunched' or separated.
This is not the situation we are examining. The pulses are emitted in sequence
and not all at the same instant..and not at exactly the same point.

In recent measages you seem to have been switching
between saying VDoppler doesn't exist at all and saying
it exists but is negligible presumably because it is
much smaller than ADoppler.

I have finally realised there is no VDoppler in the classical sense (as in the
case of the spinning wheel, above)

What the program measures is the rate at which pulses arrive. The ones on the
edge are emitted under constant velocity conditions and arrive at *very nearly*
the rate at which they are emitted. There is a very small difference due to the
fact that consecutive pulses are not emitted at the same point. I have
incorporated that by adding an Rsin(x) term to the star distance. It is
generally negligible.

I have held off replying to
see if you would clarify that (and also I was out last
night and we had visitors at the weekend). I've also
been tinkering with a GUI and might do a simulation for
comparison with yours but I have a couple of other
projects I'm working on too so I may not spend too much
time duplicating what you've already done. Does your
program actually include VDoppler or not?

George, I think your model is something like a spinning wheel with many lights
equally spaced around its rim. VDoppler shift will occur in that model, if you
assume constant light speed to the observer from all sources. The correct model
is a spinning wheel that has one *flashing* light on its rim. There is a subtle
difference. Conventional VDoppler does not occur in this case.
The shift in the former is (c+v)/c. In the latter it is something like
(D-Rsin(xt))/D and very soon disappears.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

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.