Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:38:55 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

That is central to the Riztian/Wilsonian theory of variable stars.

Yes...and if you can give me one good reason why a pulse of light
emitted six month after another from an accelerating source should be
at rest wrt the former then I would like to hear it.

I would like to hear it too.

By the way, 'extinction' requires that that happen. It just requires
that the later photons travel for some distance before they become
'stationary' wrt earlier emitted light pulses. Right?

Yes, that is correct....and it follows that the shorter the period, the
more likely the two pulses travel through similar material in space.
...which is good for my theory.

But, BOTH theories require 'a pulse of light emitted six months after
another from an accelerating source' to be at rest wrt the former.

In essence, the two theories are identical except that SR requires that the
'extinction' distance be zero, or close to it.

Why should the extinction distance be anything other than zero?

As far as under SR, no inertial FoR is allowed to move at c. Composition
of c with any other velocity gives c. From the photon's viewpoint, birth
and death are simultanious. Photons are not allowed to carry clocks, or
the clocks do not tick when photons carry them.

Yes, that's why I ignore Einstein's stupid theory altogether.

What happens to a fighter that gets into the ring without knowing anything
about his opponent's style? He gets knocked out.

You need to know SR BETTER than someone who has been studying it and
working in the field.



--
bz

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

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Henri Wilson replied to Leonard Kellogg:

well please spell it out in a way that we can all understand..

I thought I had. Re-read the longish paragraph above and
see if it makes sense. If it does, then try to explain to
yourself why it must be that way.

You state, "The more rapidly the light bunches, the shorter
the unification distance."

I would like that to be true but you don't state why it
should happen.

Yes. Your response is more to the point than you imagine.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to explain why it should
happen. It is only a minor aspect of a much greater whole,
and you need to comprehend the whole in order to be able
to see the parts. Try to make the most of what little I
and others can provide. George especially has given you
far more than I can, but you need to make use of it. Even
Androcles has given you useful knowledge, if only you will
put it to use.

You told George that the way the light curves of variable
stars are measured over a number of cycles and then averaged
together 'sounds pretty suspect'.

I replied:

It is an elementary school level problem.

It is like measuring your height once an hour during the
day for a week, then averaging the measurements together.
You measure your height immediately after arising, again
an hour later, and so on. After a week you sum all the
measurements made just after arising and divide the result
by seven, then you sum all the measurements made an hour
after arising and divide the result by seven, and so on.
When you graph the results you have a chart showing how
your height changes during the day.

The averaging process you say 'sounds pretty suspect' is
used every day in millions of businesses around the world.
It is even simpler and more basic than the fundamental
principles of algebra. Almost any sixth-grade student
could demonstrate it for you.

That's nothing at all like 'epoch matching'.

The epoch matching is integral to the process whether you
are graphing your height or the luminosity of a star. It
does depend on judgement but it is so intuitive that it
seems very strange that anyone would object to it.

This doesn't prove anything one way or another, but many
years ago I converted a computer program from Apple II
format to DOS at the request of the American Association
of Variable Star Observers. Its purpose was to assist
astronomers in epoch matching. It was a very simple
program and merely allowed one to do on a computer what
could be done by plotting observations on a sheet of
tracing paper and moving it side-to-side.

This is the problem. Accorbing to the BaTh, it appears that
the unification distance of light from short period binaries
is a lot less than that from long period ones. This may not
even be true but if it is, I want a physical explanation...
can you provide one?

Yes. George Dishman told you yesterday that he knows why
there is a connection between the period and the unification
distance. I know, too. He declined to say what that
connection is. I am going to decline, as well. However, I
gave you a clue on 18 February, which I repeated 20 March,
and will repeat again now:

The things which are closest at hand can sometimes be the
most difficult to see.

I gave you that clue specifically to help you discover the
connection between orbital period and unification distance.
Or more precisely, the connection between bunching rate
and unification distance.

Well, we know bunching rate is dependent on orbit speed

Be more precise. Exactly what is it dependent on?

What does the bunching rate depend on when the light is
emitted by a police LIDAR or RADAR speed measurement device
and reflected back to the detector by a moving vehicle?

What does the bunching rate depend on if the source is a
powerful lamp being swung around at high speed on the end
of a cord, by an astronaut in a spacesuit, light-years
away from us and the nearest star?

What does the bunching rate depend on if the source is a
distant searchlight out in space, aimed at us, bouncing
back and forth toward and away from us on a spring?

but the only assumption I would make about unification rate
at this stage is that it should be solely a property of the
space through which the light is traveling.

Although that assumption seems unassailable on its face,
it would be best not to make it. There are other
possibilities. You need to be aware of the range of
possibilities in order to see the whole picture.

It is hard to see how your claim can be correct because
during the process of unification, fast photons have to
slow down ...in which case bunching also slows.... just
as it would if you started with that situation.

This is another observation which is more to the point than
you are aware. It can help lead to the answer.

Still, there might be a more subtle connection...I hope
there is.

Be careful what you wish for.

The connection is actually quite obvious once you see it.
That will only come about when you comprehend the whole
picture of what you are trying to do and what you are in
fact doing.

Leonard

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:32:25 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


By the way, 'extinction' requires that that happen. It just requires
that the later photons travel for some distance before they become
'stationary' wrt earlier emitted light pulses. Right?

Yes, that is correct....and it follows that the shorter the period, the
more likely the two pulses travel through similar material in space.
...which is good for my theory.

But, BOTH theories require 'a pulse of light emitted six months after
another from an accelerating source' to be at rest wrt the former.

Well, the BaTh doesn't require 100% extinction. ..that's why I call it 'speed
unification'.

In essence, the two theories are identical except that SR requires that the
'extinction' distance be zero, or close to it.

Why should the extinction distance be anything other than zero?

Extinction wrt what? The source is the only reference.

I have already suggested that there are two distinctly different types of
extinction. One is local to the source and is responsible for unifying
molecular source velocities as well as light from short period binaries and
pulsars. This tends to unify all light to c wrt the barycentre of the binary
pair. ...but since that is usually moving rapidly - and accelerating - no such
unification is likely to be anything like 100%.
The more general unification takes place slowly over long distances...probably
due to electron density in space.
You already know my H-aether theory....in which space is likened to a massive,
very low density turbulent gas. Each swirl acts like a separate but weak EM
reference frame with it own natural light speed, based on a kind of weakened
form of Maxwell.. Light entering such a swirl adjusts speed up or down
accordingly..but never completely.

A light pulse emitted from an accelerating star six months after previous
pulse, can hardly experience 'local unification' with that pulse for the simple
reason that the previous one is no longer 'local' when the second one is
emitted.

As far as under SR, no inertial FoR is allowed to move at c. Composition
of c with any other velocity gives c. From the photon's viewpoint, birth
and death are simultanious. Photons are not allowed to carry clocks, or
the clocks do not tick when photons carry them.

Yes, that's why I ignore Einstein's stupid theory altogether.

What happens to a fighter that gets into the ring without knowing anything
about his opponent's style? He gets knocked out.

You need to know SR BETTER than someone who has been studying it and
working in the field.

No I'll just ignore it. It is no different from LET and that's quite
straightforward.




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

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

On 28 Apr 2007 08:47:39 -0700, Leonard Kellogg wrote:

Henri Wilson replied to Leonard Kellogg:

well please spell it out in a way that we can all understand..

I thought I had. Re-read the longish paragraph above and
see if it makes sense. If it does, then try to explain to
yourself why it must be that way.

You state, "The more rapidly the light bunches, the shorter
the unification distance."

I would like that to be true but you don't state why it
should happen.

Yes. Your response is more to the point than you imagine.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to explain why it should
happen. It is only a minor aspect of a much greater whole,
and you need to comprehend the whole in order to be able
to see the parts. Try to make the most of what little I
and others can provide. George especially has given you
far more than I can, but you need to make use of it. Even
Androcles has given you useful knowledge, if only you will
put it to use.

I certainly DO appreciate the advice and the criticism. I've already
acknowledged George's contribution even though he is still on the opposite
side.



The averaging process you say 'sounds pretty suspect' is
used every day in millions of businesses around the world.
It is even simpler and more basic than the fundamental
principles of algebra. Almost any sixth-grade student
could demonstrate it for you.

That's nothing at all like 'epoch matching'.

The epoch matching is integral to the process whether you
are graphing your height or the luminosity of a star. It
does depend on judgement but it is so intuitive that it
seems very strange that anyone would object to it.

This doesn't prove anything one way or another, but many
years ago I converted a computer program from Apple II
format to DOS at the request of the American Association
of Variable Star Observers. Its purpose was to assist
astronomers in epoch matching. It was a very simple
program and merely allowed one to do on a computer what
could be done by plotting observations on a sheet of
tracing paper and moving it side-to-side.

....but the method doesn't work for c+v light. Even using constant 'c' it is
barely accurate at all.

This is the problem. Accorbing to the BaTh, it appears that
the unification distance of light from short period binaries
is a lot less than that from long period ones. This may not
even be true but if it is, I want a physical explanation...
can you provide one?

Yes. George Dishman told you yesterday that he knows why
there is a connection between the period and the unification
distance. I know, too. He declined to say what that
connection is. I am going to decline, as well. However, I
gave you a clue on 18 February, which I repeated 20 March,
and will repeat again now:

The things which are closest at hand can sometimes be the
most difficult to see.

I gave you that clue specifically to help you discover the
connection between orbital period and unification distance.
Or more precisely, the connection between bunching rate
and unification distance.

Well, we know bunching rate is dependent on orbit speed

Be more precise. Exactly what is it dependent on?

What does the bunching rate depend on when the light is
emitted by a police LIDAR or RADAR speed measurement device
and reflected back to the detector by a moving vehicle?

What does the bunching rate depend on if the source is a
powerful lamp being swung around at high speed on the end
of a cord, by an astronaut in a spacesuit, light-years
away from us and the nearest star?

What does the bunching rate depend on if the source is a
distant searchlight out in space, aimed at us, bouncing
back and forth toward and away from us on a spring?

You obviously haven't been following George and my discussions about VDoppler
and ADoppler? (These are names which I invented for this purpose.)

If so you would know the answers to all these questions.

Progressive 'Bunching' with distance is caused solely by ADoppler. The VDoppler
type bunching is a one-off thing that is usually negligible for distant stars.

but the only assumption I would make about unification rate
at this stage is that it should be solely a property of the
space through which the light is traveling.

Although that assumption seems unassailable on its face,
it would be best not to make it. There are other
possibilities. You need to be aware of the range of
possibilities in order to see the whole picture.

I'm sure there are other factors.I just don't have many clues at present.
Mind you, I don't need much light speed unification to match most variable star
curves.

It is hard to see how your claim can be correct because
during the process of unification, fast photons have to
slow down ...in which case bunching also slows.... just
as it would if you started with that situation.

This is another observation which is more to the point than
you are aware. It can help lead to the answer.

You really don't know the answer, do you.

Still, there might be a more subtle connection...I hope
there is.

Be careful what you wish for.

The connection is actually quite obvious once you see it.
That will only come about when you comprehend the whole
picture of what you are trying to do and what you are in
fact doing.

I know what I'm doing. I'm using c+v to produce star brightness curves, the
basic shapes of which are determined by orbit eccentricity and yaw angle.

Having matched a curve and the observed brighntess variation, I then have a
figure for the product (effective distance x maximum radial velocity)

Usually, if the Hipparcos distance is used the velocity figure is too low,
particularly for short period stars.

Leonard



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

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

On Apr 28, 2:50 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

[...]

No I'll just ignore it. It is no different from LET and that's quite
straightforward.

Is it?

Remember how you said you don't understand relativity and do not wish
to because relativity is "bull****" ?

How can someone who doesn't understand relativity be able to claim he
knows what it is?


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

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

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

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:32:25 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


By the way, 'extinction' requires that that happen. It just requires
that the later photons travel for some distance before they become
'stationary' wrt earlier emitted light pulses. Right?

Yes, that is correct....and it follows that the shorter the period,
the more likely the two pulses travel through similar material in
space. ...which is good for my theory.

But, BOTH theories require 'a pulse of light emitted six months after
another from an accelerating source' to be at rest wrt the former.

Well, the BaTh doesn't require 100% extinction. ..that's why I call it
'speed unification'.

But Both theories....

In essence, the two theories are identical except that SR requires that
the 'extinction' distance be zero, or close to it.

Why should the extinction distance be anything other than zero?

Extinction wrt what? The source is the only reference.

You said 'stationary wrt earlier emitted light pulses'. BaT+extinction
requires that.

I have already suggested that there are two distinctly different types
of extinction. One is local to the source and is responsible for
unifying molecular source velocities as well as light from short period
binaries and pulsars. This tends to unify all light to c wrt the
barycentre of the binary pair. ...but since that is usually moving
rapidly - and accelerating - no such unification is likely to be
anything like 100%.

Especially since the barycentre moves after the photons are emitted.

The more general unification takes place slowly over
long distances...probably due to electron density in space.

Seems like the figures you and George were developing were rather
'shorter' than previously expected.

You already know my H-aether theory....in which space is likened to a
massive, very low density turbulent gas. Each swirl acts like a separate
but weak EM reference frame with it own natural light speed, based on a
kind of weakened form of Maxwell.. Light entering such a swirl adjusts
speed up or down accordingly..but never completely.

A light pulse emitted from an accelerating star six months after
previous pulse, can hardly experience 'local unification' with that
pulse for the simple reason that the previous one is no longer 'local'
when the second one is emitted.

Yet that is what BaTh + extinction requires.

6 light months is only a small percentage of the distance that most star
light travels before it reaches the earth.

As far as under SR, no inertial FoR is allowed to move at c.
Composition of c with any other velocity gives c. From the photon's
viewpoint, birth and death are simultanious. Photons are not allowed
to carry clocks, or the clocks do not tick when photons carry them.

Yes, that's why I ignore Einstein's stupid theory altogether.



What happens to a fighter that gets into the ring without knowing
anything about his opponent's style? He gets knocked out.

You need to know SR BETTER than someone who has been studying it and
working in the field.



--
bz

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

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

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


I'm sure there are other factors.I just don't have many clues at
present. Mind you, I don't need much light speed unification to match
most variable star curves.

I think you mean that you need rapid unification or not much BaTh to match
most variable star curves, don't you?



--
bz

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

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:31:52 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


I'm sure there are other factors.I just don't have many clues at
present. Mind you, I don't need much light speed unification to match
most variable star curves.

I think you mean that you need rapid unification or not much BaTh to match
most variable star curves, don't you?

No Bob.
The big error that have been consistently made involve the calculations of
velocities. Astronomers use VDoppler equations to analyse ADoppler spectral
shifts...and come up with groosly exaggerated orbit speeds.

The fact is, most variable stars are orbited by a large planet that causes them
to wobble around a barycentre with only a small velocity.
For all lonfg period variables, only a small amount of unification is required
although I cannot give an acurate figure because all I can produce in the
simulation is the product (distance x orbit speed). Increasing one and
decreasing the other by the same proportion gives the same result.
Using the Hipparcos distance results in velocities that appear to be too
small..

The speed I use is radial and for an edge on orbit...so it automaticallly
includes cos(pitch). The true orbital speed could be considerably higher than
the figure I choose.



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

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

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:25:21 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


Yes, that is correct....and it follows that the shorter the period,
the more likely the two pulses travel through similar material in
space. ...which is good for my theory.

But, BOTH theories require 'a pulse of light emitted six months after
another from an accelerating source' to be at rest wrt the former.

Well, the BaTh doesn't require 100% extinction. ..that's why I call it
'speed unification'.

But Both theories....

SR doesn't require anything except a bunch of fairies.

In essence, the two theories are identical except that SR requires that
the 'extinction' distance be zero, or close to it.

Why should the extinction distance be anything other than zero?

Extinction wrt what? The source is the only reference.

You said 'stationary wrt earlier emitted light pulses'. BaT+extinction
requires that.

This is what seems to happen...but I could be wrong....

Light leaving an orbiting star at any particular orbit phase must move at c wrt
the star. It has no other reference. However, all the light emitted in a
particular direction will tend toward a common speed. The rate of this
unification appears to vary inversely with the orbit period..or maybe more to
the point, with orbit speed.

I have already suggested that there are two distinctly different types
of extinction. One is local to the source and is responsible for
unifying molecular source velocities as well as light from short period
binaries and pulsars. This tends to unify all light to c wrt the
barycentre of the binary pair. ...but since that is usually moving
rapidly - and accelerating - no such unification is likely to be
anything like 100%.

Especially since the barycentre moves after the photons are emitted.

As it usually does, particulalry in the case of pulsars.

The more general unification takes place slowly over
long distances...probably due to electron density in space.

Seems like the figures you and George were developing were rather
'shorter' than previously expected.

George would like that to be true...but it only appears to be true for very
short period binaries.

You already know my H-aether theory....in which space is likened to a
massive, very low density turbulent gas. Each swirl acts like a separate
but weak EM reference frame with it own natural light speed, based on a
kind of weakened form of Maxwell.. Light entering such a swirl adjusts
speed up or down accordingly..but never completely.

A light pulse emitted from an accelerating star six months after
previous pulse, can hardly experience 'local unification' with that
pulse for the simple reason that the previous one is no longer 'local'
when the second one is emitted.

Yet that is what BaTh + extinction requires.

6 light months is only a small percentage of the distance that most star
light travels before it reaches the earth.

That's right.
Also, this type of unification is not likely to cause scattering and image
blurring, as some would have us believe.

As far as under SR, no inertial FoR is allowed to move at c.
Composition of c with any other velocity gives c. From the photon's
viewpoint, birth and death are simultanious. Photons are not allowed
to carry clocks, or the clocks do not tick when photons carry them.

Yes, that's why I ignore Einstein's stupid theory altogether.



What happens to a fighter that gets into the ring without knowing
anything about his opponent's style? He gets knocked out.

You need to know SR BETTER than someone who has been studying it and
working in the field.



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

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

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

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:25:21 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:
.....
SR doesn't require anything except a bunch of fairies.

In essence, the two theories are identical except that SR requires
that the 'extinction' distance be zero, or close to it.

Why should the extinction distance be anything other than zero?

Extinction wrt what? The source is the only reference.

You said 'stationary wrt earlier emitted light pulses'. BaT+extinction
requires that.

This is what seems to happen...but I could be wrong....

Light leaving an orbiting star at any particular orbit phase must move
at c wrt the star. It has no other reference. However, all the light
emitted in a particular direction will tend toward a common speed. The
rate of this unification appears to vary inversely with the orbit
period..or maybe more to the point, with orbit speed.

I have already suggested that there are two distinctly different types
of extinction. One is local to the source and is responsible for
unifying molecular source velocities as well as light from short
period binaries and pulsars. This tends to unify all light to c wrt
the barycentre of the binary pair. ...but since that is usually moving
rapidly - and accelerating - no such unification is likely to be
anything like 100%.

Especially since the barycentre moves after the photons are emitted.

As it usually does, particulalry in the case of pulsars.

The more general unification takes place slowly over
long distances...probably due to electron density in space.

Seems like the figures you and George were developing were rather
'shorter' than previously expected.

George would like that to be true...but it only appears to be true for
very short period binaries.

Which binaries give much longer extinction distances?

I didn't know that you had found any that required many light years for
extinction, with the "fixed" program.

You already know my H-aether theory....in which space is likened to a
massive, very low density turbulent gas. Each swirl acts like a
separate but weak EM reference frame with it own natural light speed,
based on a kind of weakened form of Maxwell.. Light entering such a
swirl adjusts speed up or down accordingly..but never completely.

A light pulse emitted from an accelerating star six months after
previous pulse, can hardly experience 'local unification' with that
pulse for the simple reason that the previous one is no longer 'local'
when the second one is emitted.

Yet that is what BaTh + extinction requires.

6 light months is only a small percentage of the distance that most star
light travels before it reaches the earth.

That's right.
Also, this type of unification is not likely to cause scattering and
image blurring, as some would have us believe.

Neither you nor I can explain why light would behave as BaTh or SR seems to
suggest it does.

An extinction distance of 6 light months or zero light seconds--
Both require 'something' that we don't understand.

In one case, it is a 'property of "something" in space'--
In the other case, it is a 'property of space'.

I don't know why you would find one idea any more incredable than the other.





--
bz

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

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap