On 26 Mar 2006 23:46:11 -0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:43:14 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> <[email protected]>
>> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]
>> I don't know how you got the top one. Mine doesn't do that.
>I downloaded your program in case it had changed
>recently, clicked red then yellow and that was all.
>The values are all listed on the left hand side.
You can just run it from site.
I am not having any trouble with it now.
>> The bottom type occurs when you have passed the critical distance and not
>> enough orbits are surveyed.
>> If you increase the orbit number, the correct curve is the flat part in the
>> middle. You will probably have to increase the output height. However I don't
>> see much point in going beyond the critical distance because I don't believe
>> brightness curves change beyond a certain distance.... because of the speed
>> unification factor.
>The curves do settle down after some distance but you
>keep saying it is many light years (tens or hundreds?)
>and the critical distance for the pulsar is about 3.6 LY.
>> This is one discovery I have made.
>Didin't Sekerin already suggest speed 'extinction'?
>> When so many observed brightness curves are
>> matchable with the BaTh yet many distances are well below the Hipparcos
>> one must conclude that considerable 'extinction' is definitely occuring.
>Or that Ritz is wrong. The fact that you cannot define
>a single extinction distance, or at least a reasonably
>small range of values, suggests the latter is more
Ah, ..but this process is not ordinary extinction, in the classical sense.
I call it light speed unification. I have suggested numerous reasons for it.
It might depend on how much the star is moving because the properties of the
light paths to Earth might change considerably over months or years.
Most stars are considered to be pretty well 'fixed in space' however, so most
light paths should have rather similar properties..
>> >The light curve changes to show the multiple
>> >spikes as the distance is now beyond critical
>> >but the blue curve is unchanged, it should
>> >also have spikes and overlaps as shown by
>> >Sekerin's colleague, Serbulenko:
>> No my blue curve shows the actual radial velocity at the source, not the
>> observed one.
>OK, that explains it. I thought you had updated it.
>> I haven't included that but I suppose I should.
>> >See Figure 3. Changing the viewing distance
>> >also has no visible effect.
>> Yes it does. Curves a), b) and c) are for different distances.
>I meant it has no effect in your program. I was
>expecting your program to produce curves like
I'll work on it today.
>> Again however, Sekerin's curves are for situations where the fast light has
>> overtaken the slower. I say that rarely if ever happens.
>Indeed but that sets an upper limit to your
>extinction distance and a lower value than
>you have assumed will affect the brightness
Maybe. There are lots of possible factors to consider. For instance in the case
of a pair of very large stars, their own gravity might somehow constitute a
type of local EM reference frame which considerably unifies the speeds before
they leave the frame's 'sphere of influence'.
>>> >You are forgetting I gave you the approximation
>> >for the Doppler when beyond the critical distance
>> >which I suspect you haven't even got round to
>> >putting into your program yet. If you intend to
>> >use it around or below the critical distance, you
>> >need to combine that with the velocity term which
>> >predominates below critical.
>> I will endeavour to include the expected OBSERVED doppler relationship in the
>> program. I appreciate that it is important...and it shouldn't be very
>> difficult. I just never got around to it before.
>You also need to include the extinction effect. It should
>be easy too as the speed approaches c exponentially.
>You can define a "reduced distance" based on the actual
>observer range and the extinction length and use that
>for your calculations.
But that wouldn't reveal much because we cannot assume that unification rates
are anywhere near the same everywhere.
On the other hand, if we know the real distance and we know the predicted
distance for a particular light curve, we can get an idea of the unification
rate for that star.
>> >> In fact I haven't noticed any Einstein supporter coming up with anything
>> >> useful here.
>> >For something to be useful, you have to make the
>> >effort to use it.
>> Give me time George. I have other projects as well as proving Einstein wrong
>Don't we all.