Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:05:20 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:34:48 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:32:16 +0100, "OG"
wrote:



that's what George and I are trying to determine.

The distance appear to be of the order of LightMinutes in the case of
pulsars
but Lyears for long period vriable stars. I reckon there are two
separate
effects, one local and one long distance.

Look I don't want to offend, but originally you seemed to be claiming
'unification' to be a transformative property of the various regions of
vacuum that light travelled through; now you seem to be asserting that it
is somehow a property of the source.

Do you have any knowlegde of basic physics?

Yes thanks, Feel free to explain it in your own words

This is my current view.

It is possible that a large amount of unification occurs near the source,
particularly if it is something heavy like a pulsar.

As light travels through space, a second type of unifying effect causes all
photons traveling in any one direction to gradually but by no meaans entirely
work towards a common speed.
The first effect may take place over LightMinutes or even shorter, the second
over LightYears.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:16:21 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Apr 2007 02:38:39 -0700, George Dishman

Sorry Henry, check the quotes above. I didn't mention
observers, you did.

...

Ah, so if the illustration is drawn moving at 0.9c
and all the pulses are moving at 0.1c as predicted
by aether theory, then you think that's the same as
SR and of course you don't need a scale because
seeing the speed being 0.1c would only be confusing.

George, no matter how fast you move wrt the screen, ...

Who is "you" Henry, you are trying to introduce observers again.

George, you moved the screen wrt other frames, I am merely moving the other
frames.....perfectly legitimate according to the PoR.

.. the pulses will still move
across the screen at the same speed.

Yeah, right.

Tell you what Henry, just include pulses going to the
left as well and assume the top left jar is moving at
0.9c relative to the aether and let's see what it looks
like.

You keep introducing observers. ...

Nope, not me. That's the second time you have done so, see
the quoted text above.

You still cannot provide a physical reason why pulses from differently moving
sources should end up traveling in unison.
It clearly requires an absolute spatial reference.


George


www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On 18 Apr 2007 06:07:36 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 18 Apr, 01:30, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:22:34 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Apr 2007 05:28:12 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

There is another effect too.

S1--------S2--------------------------------------------------------------*------------------O

----------S2--------S1----------------------------------------------------*------------------O

I think the BaTh says the speed of light from S2 towards O, is slower in the
bottom configuration than the top one.

In the top situation, the light is slowed slightly. The speed is
asymptotic to the value at infinity. Call that the terminal speed
Vt. If the escape velocity from the point of emission near S2
is Ve and the initial speed is Vi then:

Vt = sqrt( Vi^2 - Ve^2 )

The same applies to S1 but since the light starts farther from
it, the escape velocity is smaller and the effect much less.

In the lower diagram the same applies for both _assuming_
the orbit is circular. If it is elleiptical, S1 and S2 may be closer
or farther apart so the escape velocity for S1 will differ giving a
slight change in teminal speed.

Basically as one body orbits another in an elliptical orbit, the
energy can translate between kinetic and potential and if the
source is deeper in the potential well, it loses more speed
climbing out. However, since Ve c and the equation is
second order, you should find the effect is quite small and
the speed equalisation effect will further reduce it.

I'll get the computer to work through this accurately.

Amplitudes are more important but you have to get both
right for a match. There's no point claiming you have
succeeded if you predict 0.002 magnitudes of luminosity
and the observation is 2 magnitudes. ...

George, I have informed you many times that when matching a lightcurve, the
prime requirement is a match of the observed magnitude change.
A large part of my program is involved with making such a calculation. It is
not all that easy, either. You will soon discover that yourself.

OK, I wondered after I had posted if I should have approached
this the other way round.

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

gives a linear change (ratio) of 1.34299

Assuming roughly equal contributions from the peak and dip
means v/c = (1.34299 - 1) / (1.34299 + 1) = 0.146

The orbital velocity as _observed_ (not real) should be 43886 km/s,
not 300 km/s. In the terms we are used to, you might simulate
the blue velocity as 300km/s but it is the red velocity which is
this much higher figure and is what should be published. It is
146 times too large.

I have now explained that to you.
You are trying to apply VDoppler math to an ADoppler effect.

An elliptical orbit will change the speed as a function of phase
but the peak-to-peak variation should be close to 87773 km/s.

I expect you to be puzzled by this post but the solution is for
you to reinstate the red velocity curve with a scale so you can
see it for yourself.

The amplitude of my red curve was the same as that of the blue (the true curve)
except at very short distances.


George

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On 19 Apr, 01:00, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 06:07:36 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 18 Apr, 01:30, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:22:34 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Apr 2007 05:28:12 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

There is another effect too.

S1--------S2--------------------------------------------------------------**------------------O

----------S2--------S1----------------------------------------------------**------------------O

I think the BaTh says the speed of light from S2 towards O, is slower in the
bottom configuration than the top one.

In the top situation, the light is slowed slightly. The speed is
asymptotic to the value at infinity. Call that the terminal speed
Vt. If the escape velocity from the point of emission near S2
is Ve and the initial speed is Vi then:

Vt = sqrt( Vi^2 - Ve^2 )

The same applies to S1 but since the light starts farther from
it, the escape velocity is smaller and the effect much less.

In the lower diagram the same applies for both _assuming_
the orbit is circular. If it is elleiptical, S1 and S2 may be closer
or farther apart so the escape velocity for S1 will differ giving a
slight change in teminal speed.

Basically as one body orbits another in an elliptical orbit, the
energy can translate between kinetic and potential and if the
source is deeper in the potential well, it loses more speed
climbing out. However, since Ve c and the equation is
second order, you should find the effect is quite small and
the speed equalisation effect will further reduce it.

I'll get the computer to work through this accurately.

Good idea. note we are considering speed here. You could
also do a separate program for the Shapiro delay which is
a different but related effect.

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

gives a linear change (ratio) of 1.34299

Assuming roughly equal contributions from the peak and dip
means v/c = (1.34299 - 1) / (1.34299 + 1) = 0.146

The orbital velocity as _observed_ (not real) should be 43886 km/s,
not 300 km/s. In the terms we are used to, you might simulate
the blue velocity as 300km/s but it is the red velocity which is
this much higher figure and is what should be published. It is
146 times too large.

I have now explained that to you.
You are trying to apply VDoppler math to an ADoppler effect.

I am applying the conventional conversion. VDoppler is the same
as SR to first order and I believe it is usual to ignore second order
since v c. Start with the real velocity as your blue curve. Find
the TDoppler factor and use it for the luminosity variation as the
green curve. Then ask what velocity would produce that value if
there was only VDoppler and display that speed as the red curve.

If you get your head round this you'll see that this much higher
value is what you expect to be the _published_ velocity curve. It
is nothing like the true velocity.

An elliptical orbit will change the speed as a function of phase
but the peak-to-peak variation should be close to 87773 km/s.

I expect you to be puzzled by this post but the solution is for
you to reinstate the red velocity curve with a scale so you can
see it for yourself.

The amplitude of my red curve was the same as that of the blue (the true curve)
except at very short distances.

I'm sure you said you changed it after we discussed photon
compression. No matter, I think you understand what is needed
now, the red curve should have an amplitude about 140 times
the blue curve in this example, it should be linear and you could
either add a scale or have a box giving the min & max values or
peak-to-peak. I really wish you would add it, it would be a lot
easier than having to do the calculation above by hand for each
of your screenshots and it would be what you need to match to
the published velocity curves. Until you do that, I don't accept
you have achieved _any_ matches to anything.

George

On 19 Apr 2007 00:19:05 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 19 Apr, 01:00, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 06:07:36 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 18 Apr, 01:30, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:22:34 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Apr 2007 05:28:12 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

There is another effect too.

S1--------S2--------------------------------------------------------------**------------------O

----------S2--------S1----------------------------------------------------**------------------O

I think the BaTh says the speed of light from S2 towards O, is slower in the
bottom configuration than the top one.

In the top situation, the light is slowed slightly. The speed is
asymptotic to the value at infinity. Call that the terminal speed
Vt. If the escape velocity from the point of emission near S2
is Ve and the initial speed is Vi then:

Vt = sqrt( Vi^2 - Ve^2 )

The same applies to S1 but since the light starts farther from
it, the escape velocity is smaller and the effect much less.

In the lower diagram the same applies for both _assuming_
the orbit is circular. If it is elleiptical, S1 and S2 may be closer
or farther apart so the escape velocity for S1 will differ giving a
slight change in teminal speed.

Basically as one body orbits another in an elliptical orbit, the
energy can translate between kinetic and potential and if the
source is deeper in the potential well, it loses more speed
climbing out. However, since Ve c and the equation is
second order, you should find the effect is quite small and
the speed equalisation effect will further reduce it.

I'll get the computer to work through this accurately.

Good idea. note we are considering speed here. You could
also do a separate program for the Shapiro delay which is
a different but related effect.

I think it is basically the same.

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

gives a linear change (ratio) of 1.34299

Assuming roughly equal contributions from the peak and dip
means v/c = (1.34299 - 1) / (1.34299 + 1) = 0.146

The orbital velocity as _observed_ (not real) should be 43886 km/s,
not 300 km/s. In the terms we are used to, you might simulate
the blue velocity as 300km/s but it is the red velocity which is
this much higher figure and is what should be published. It is
146 times too large.

I have now explained that to you.
You are trying to apply VDoppler math to an ADoppler effect.

I am applying the conventional conversion. VDoppler is the same
as SR to first order and I believe it is usual to ignore second order
since v c. Start with the real velocity as your blue curve. Find
the TDoppler factor and use it for the luminosity variation as the
green curve. Then ask what velocity would produce that value if
there was only VDoppler and display that speed as the red curve.

If you get your head round this you'll see that this much higher
value is what you expect to be the _published_ velocity curve. It
is nothing like the true velocity.

.....but nobody except you and I has ever considered using the green brightness
curve to calculate the source velocity.

I see the big question as being "what does the observed spectral shift actually
indicate?". Are photons compressible or not? If they are 100% compressible,
like pulsar pulse time gaps, then the green curve should be the same as the
observed wavelength shifts.

I think there is a theory here waiting to be discovered.

An elliptical orbit will change the speed as a function of phase
but the peak-to-peak variation should be close to 87773 km/s.

I expect you to be puzzled by this post but the solution is for
you to reinstate the red velocity curve with a scale so you can
see it for yourself.

The amplitude of my red curve was the same as that of the blue (the true curve)
except at very short distances.

I'm sure you said you changed it after we discussed photon
compression. No matter, I think you understand what is needed
now, the red curve should have an amplitude about 140 times
the blue curve in this example, it should be linear and you could
either add a scale or have a box giving the min & max values or
peak-to-peak. I really wish you would add it, it would be a lot
easier than having to do the calculation above by hand for each
of your screenshots and it would be what you need to match to
the published velocity curves. Until you do that, I don't accept
you have achieved _any_ matches to anything.

George, if photons are incompressible, then ADoppler doesn't affect them. Their
spectral shifts wrt a particular observer remain the same no matter how far
they had to travel.
My red curve merely showed the phase position of photon arrival compared with
their phase of emission. There was no change in wavelength from the original
VDoppler.




George

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On 19 Apr, 09:17, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 00:19:05 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 19 Apr, 01:00, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 06:07:36 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 18 Apr, 01:30, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:22:34 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Apr 2007 05:28:12 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

There is another effect too.

S1--------S2--------------------------------------------------------------***------------------O

----------S2--------S1----------------------------------------------------***------------------O

I think the BaTh says the speed of light from S2 towards O, is slower in the
bottom configuration than the top one.

In the top situation, the light is slowed slightly. The speed is
asymptotic to the value at infinity. Call that the terminal speed
Vt. If the escape velocity from the point of emission near S2
is Ve and the initial speed is Vi then:

Vt = sqrt( Vi^2 - Ve^2 )

The same applies to S1 but since the light starts farther from
it, the escape velocity is smaller and the effect much less.

In the lower diagram the same applies for both _assuming_
the orbit is circular. If it is elleiptical, S1 and S2 may be closer
or farther apart so the escape velocity for S1 will differ giving a
slight change in teminal speed.

Basically as one body orbits another in an elliptical orbit, the
energy can translate between kinetic and potential and if the
source is deeper in the potential well, it loses more speed
climbing out. However, since Ve c and the equation is
second order, you should find the effect is quite small and
the speed equalisation effect will further reduce it.

I'll get the computer to work through this accurately.

Good idea. note we are considering speed here. You could
also do a separate program for the Shapiro delay which is
a different but related effect.

I think it is basically the same.

They are related but different. Basically you can integrate
the time along the path using dt/ds = 1/v to get the Shapiro
delay and note v is affected by the potential.

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

gives a linear change (ratio) of 1.34299

Assuming roughly equal contributions from the peak and dip
means v/c = (1.34299 - 1) / (1.34299 + 1) = 0.146

The orbital velocity as _observed_ (not real) should be 43886 km/s,
not 300 km/s. In the terms we are used to, you might simulate
the blue velocity as 300km/s but it is the red velocity which is
this much higher figure and is what should be published. It is
146 times too large.

I have now explained that to you.
You are trying to apply VDoppler math to an ADoppler effect.

I am applying the conventional conversion. VDoppler is the same
as SR to first order and I believe it is usual to ignore second order
since v c. Start with the real velocity as your blue curve. Find
the TDoppler factor and use it for the luminosity variation as the
green curve. Then ask what velocity would produce that value if
there was only VDoppler and display that speed as the red curve.

If you get your head round this you'll see that this much higher
value is what you expect to be the _published_ velocity curve. It
is nothing like the true velocity.

....but nobody except you and I has ever considered using the green brightness
curve to calculate the source velocity.

The penny still hasn't dropped - what everyone has always been doing
is measuring the actual shift which in your model is TDoppler, the
combination of both V and A parts, and then publishing "velocity"
curves
by using the equation that would be applicable if _only_ VDoppler
existed.
To do a comparison with those published curves, you need to plot that
false velocity - what I thought was your red curve.

I see the big question as being "what does the observed spectral shift actually
indicate?". Are photons compressible or not? If they are 100% compressible,
like pulsar pulse time gaps, then the green curve should be the same as the
observed wavelength shifts.

Yes, and a little consideration of Fourier analysis tells you that
must
be the case. You have it correct Henry, now just add the red curve to
the plot so we don't have to use a calculator to get the figures.

....
... No matter, I think you understand what is needed
now, the red curve should have an amplitude about 140 times
the blue curve in this example, it should be linear and you could
either add a scale or have a box giving the min & max values or
peak-to-peak. I really wish you would add it, it would be a lot
easier than having to do the calculation above by hand for each
of your screenshots and it would be what you need to match to
the published velocity curves. Until you do that, I don't accept
you have achieved _any_ matches to anything.

George, if photons are incompressible, then ADoppler doesn't affect them.

And nor does VDoppler, there would be no Doppler whatsoever because
they would be launched with the same "absolute wavelength" as you
called it regardless of speed.

Their
spectral shifts wrt a particular observer remain the same no matter how far
they had to travel.

No, their wavelengths stay the same.

My red curve merely showed the phase position of photon arrival compared with
their phase of emission. There was no change in wavelength from the original
VDoppler.

That's why it was wrong.

George

Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

Because they do drugs?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:02:57 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On 17 Apr 2007 02:37:11 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

That should also be the ratio of maximum radial velocity to minimum.

Almost, for v c it is the ratio of the max speed towards
us to the max speed away from us or (c+v)/(c-v).

Your figure for the linear change corresponds to a velocity
of over 43000 km/s instead of the 300 km/s measured.

Only if you apply the VDoppler equation.

That's right Henry. Try to get your head round this, please.
When astronomers take a series of spectra from a star in a
binary system they calculate the ratio of the frequency or
wavelength shift to the mean value for any spectral lines
and multiply by the speed of light to get the value that is
published as a velocity curve.

That's where the error lies.

It is not an error, it is a convention that you need to
understand regardless of how you think the shift is really
caused.

The figures I plugged in to get the right shaped curve and magnitude
change
produce the product for (true radial velocity x distance) of (0.00021 x
0.149).
The curve is the same if I make that (0000021x14.9LY) or (00000021x149Ly)

That's not in contention. The question is what you should
compare against the bottom right graph here

http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/res...bin_prog1a.gif

This gets us back to the question as to whether or not photons are
compressible.
What we have found so far is that VDoppler appears to be dominant in the
case
of pulsars but not for stars.

No, we have found it is dominant for pulsars and we don't
know for stars but we will in a moment.

It also appears that the green brightness curve is not an indication of
velocities of contact binary like EF Dra because they are too high if
VDoppler
equations are used.

No, that is only true if you _assume_ the ADoppler is dominant.
If don't make any assumption and instead reduce your speed
equalisation distance then you can match the velocity curve
without any problem. You then find that VDoppler is again
dominant just like the pulsars so there is no reason to
assume they are fundamentally different.

In the case of Cepheids, the green curve is precisely the right shape and
phase
of the typical OBSERVED velocity curves...yet the magnitude change is
again far
too high.

That's right but ...

It appear that 'photon compressibility' is VDoppler determined but
the curve shape matches ADoppler.

No, what appears is that it seems the equalisation distance is
small for Cepheids too and most of the luminosity variation
is intrinsic.

I admit I don't know what's going on here George. I'll have to think about
this....something interesting should come out of it.



The prime requisite in matching a star curve is getting the mag. change
right....

I take the attitude that getting the velocity curve right
is prime because you can always add other causes for
changes of luminosity but there is no other process that
can reduce a Doppler shift by three orders of magnitude
(in this case). Spectroscopic evidence is very reliable.

But it should NOT be reliable is photons are compressible and follow
ADoppler.
This is the dilemna.

What I mean is that you can rely on the measurement of the
shift. Photometry needs careful attention to comtaminating
light, getting accurate calibration, CCD pixel sensitivity
and so on but spectra have far fewer sources of systematic
errors, especially when only the relative shift is needed
and not an absolute wavelength measurement.

or in the case of pulsars, the max to min rate of pulse arrival.

Yes.

I'm not sure how to calculate the velocity curve forn this green
one.
I'll have
to think about it because it contains both A and V doppler. For
1913+16
it
appears to be mainly VDoppler.

The mix doesn't matter, just convert the _total_ frequency
shift into speed by reversing the VDoppler equation.

But George, the whole idea of the simulation is to avoid the need for
such
a
calculation.

No! The idea is to let the computer do as much of the
calculation as possible instead of having to do it
yourself on a calculator afterwards.

No! The idea is to feed in values of unknown parameters in order to
produce the
known results.... ie., those an observer 'sees'.

Sure, but let the machine do the work. I think your
problem above is that you are still thinking of the
actual speed (which is unobservable) and not what you
call the "willusion".

No I'm not..but there are problems as you can see.

For cepheids, the willusion has the shape of the green curve but the
amplitude
of the blue one IF SPECTRA IS TO BE BELIEVED.

No! Think about where you got the blue curve. The actual
speed doesn't need to be that at all, in fact we have no
idea what the true speed is. That's exactly the error I
pointed out, you are still thinking we know something
about the blue curve - we don't.

The only requirements are that it should be a Keplerian
orbit and the _TDoppler_ should match the published curve.

I've got to go now but I think that covers the key topic.
I'll look at the rest again later but please think
carefully about this aspect, you are still not seeing the
whole story.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:05:20 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:34:48 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:32:16 +0100, "OG"
wrote:



that's what George and I are trying to determine.

The distance appear to be of the order of LightMinutes in the case of
pulsars
but Lyears for long period vriable stars. I reckon there are two
separate
effects, one local and one long distance.

Look I don't want to offend, but originally you seemed to be claiming
'unification' to be a transformative property of the various regions of
vacuum that light travelled through; now you seem to be asserting that
it
is somehow a property of the source.

Do you have any knowlegde of basic physics?

Yes thanks, Feel free to explain it in your own words

This is my current view.

It is possible that a large amount of unification occurs near the source,
particularly if it is something heavy like a pulsar.

As light travels through space, a second type of unifying effect causes
all
photons traveling in any one direction to gradually but by no meaans
entirely
work towards a common speed.
The first effect may take place over LightMinutes or even shorter, the
second
over LightYears.

I'm not surpirsed you've avoided discussion of it - you don't really have
anything do you?
No idea what causes it
No idea 'what' happens when it takes place
The only reason it's there because c+v theory doesn't work without it.

Now then, leaving that aside; it seems from your discussion with GD that you
are running a simulator program that you can use to 'generate' light curves.
To do this you start with a c+v hypothesis and then adjust the binary
orbital parameters (and line of sight parameters) until the program comes up
with a curve that matches observations. You then claim that the light curve
is proof of the hypothesis.
Do you disagree with any of those statements?

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:05:42 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:02:57 +0100, "George Dishman"

Almost, for v c it is the ratio of the max speed towards
us to the max speed away from us or (c+v)/(c-v).

Your figure for the linear change corresponds to a velocity
of over 43000 km/s instead of the 300 km/s measured.

Only if you apply the VDoppler equation.

That's right Henry. Try to get your head round this, please.
When astronomers take a series of spectra from a star in a
binary system they calculate the ratio of the frequency or
wavelength shift to the mean value for any spectral lines
and multiply by the speed of light to get the value that is
published as a velocity curve.

Yes I know that George.

That's where the error lies.

It is not an error, it is a convention that you need to
understand regardless of how you think the shift is really
caused.

The figures I plugged in to get the right shaped curve and magnitude
change
produce the product for (true radial velocity x distance) of (0.00021 x
0.149).
The curve is the same if I make that (0000021x14.9LY) or (00000021x149Ly)

That's not in contention. The question is what you should
compare against the bottom right graph here

http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/DDO/res...bin_prog1a.gif

This gets us back to the question as to whether or not photons are
compressible.
What we have found so far is that VDoppler appears to be dominant in the
case
of pulsars but not for stars.

No, we have found it is dominant for pulsars and we don't
know for stars but we will in a moment.

The only evidence I have that it is dominant for pulsars is that it is the only
way I can match the curve of PSR1913+16 accurately. However, the way such
curves are statistically produced, leaves a great deal of room for error. Maybe
a constant light speed is even assumed in their making.

It also appears that the green brightness curve is not an indication of
velocities of contact binary like EF Dra because they are too high if
VDoppler
equations are used.

No, that is only true if you _assume_ the ADoppler is dominant.
If don't make any assumption and instead reduce your speed
equalisation distance then you can match the velocity curve
without any problem. You then find that VDoppler is again
dominant just like the pulsars so there is no reason to
assume they are fundamentally different.

This is true. I can match the shape and phase with VDoppler alone......well
almost.

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

VDoppler cannot produce a curve exactly like that of RT Aur, with the typical
cepheid curve in the 'rise' and the little peak at the top. The BaTh gets it
exactly right.

In the case of Cepheids, the green curve is precisely the right shape and
phase
of the typical OBSERVED velocity curves...yet the magnitude change is
again far
too high.

That's right but ...

It appear that 'photon compressibility' is VDoppler determined but
the curve shape matches ADoppler.

No, what appears is that it seems the equalisation distance is
small for Cepheids too and most of the luminosity variation
is intrinsic.

Right, I think I have a possible picture now. We have two possibilities. What
you just could be correct...and any variations from the pure Keplerian curve
are also intrinsic.

...OR....the bunching of groups of photons is mainly ADoppler - which explains
the matching of brightness curves - whilst individual photons are compressible
to only a small degree.
So, even though a brightness curve might match perfectly and vary by 1.5 or so
(linear), the actual spectral shift is diluted to only a very small fraction of
that value.
I'm wondering if there isn't a time dependent term in the 'compressibility
equation'. Does a second order effect come into play? (da/dt)

....The time interval between the emission of the 'ends of a photon' is much
smaller than that between the pulses of a pulsar. Therefore, for a source in
orbit, the velocity difference is much larger across the pulse that across the
photon.

So the pulse gap should compress relatively much more that will the photon.

I admit I don't know what's going on here George. I'll have to think about
this....something interesting should come out of it.



The prime requisite in matching a star curve is getting the mag. change
right....

I take the attitude that getting the velocity curve right
is prime because you can always add other causes for
changes of luminosity but there is no other process that
can reduce a Doppler shift by three orders of magnitude
(in this case). Spectroscopic evidence is very reliable.

But it should NOT be reliable is photons are compressible and follow
ADoppler.
This is the dilemna.

What I mean is that you can rely on the measurement of the
shift. Photometry needs careful attention to comtaminating
light, getting accurate calibration, CCD pixel sensitivity
and so on but spectra have far fewer sources of systematic
errors, especially when only the relative shift is needed
and not an absolute wavelength measurement.

....well ther is still argument as to whether gratings are sensitive to
'wavelength' (absolute distance between wavecrests) or 'frequency' (rate of
wavecrest arrival)


No! The idea is to let the computer do as much of the
calculation as possible instead of having to do it
yourself on a calculator afterwards.

No! The idea is to feed in values of unknown parameters in order to
produce the
known results.... ie., those an observer 'sees'.

Sure, but let the machine do the work. I think your
problem above is that you are still thinking of the
actual speed (which is unobservable) and not what you
call the "willusion".

No I'm not..but there are problems as you can see.

For cepheids, the willusion has the shape of the green curve but the
amplitude
of the blue one IF SPECTRA IS TO BE BELIEVED.

No! Think about where you got the blue curve. The actual
speed doesn't need to be that at all, in fact we have no
idea what the true speed is. That's exactly the error I
pointed out, you are still thinking we know something
about the blue curve - we don't.

The only requirements are that it should be a Keplerian
orbit and the _TDoppler_ should match the published curve.

Yes, I understand what you are saying.

But in the simulation we DO know the correct blue curve...because that's what
we start with. We need a model that produces a brightness curve that is correct
in both shape and mag. change but which also accommodates the compressible
photon concept to a small extent.

I've got to go now but I think that covers the key topic.
I'll look at the rest again later but please think
carefully about this aspect, you are still not seeing the
whole story.

Have a think about what I said above.
Should individual photons compress as much as the gaps between groups of
photons or pulses?

George


www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.