Seeking a correct explanation for Stellar Abberation
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: How is SR this probability problem explained?
Next: The Infinitely Large Arch (was Re: Three times happening together)
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 24 Apr 2010 18:44 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:47:08 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 20.04.2010 23:57, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:36:55 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >>> Let me remind you: >>> >>> Paul B Andersen wrote: >>> | In inertial frame A, a particle is going 'straight down', >>> | and is reducing its speed from v1 to v2. >>> | >>> | o >>> | o v1 >>> | o >>> | X >>> | o >>> | o v2 >>> | o >>> | The trajectory is a straight line in frame A. >>> | >>> | Frame B is moving 'horizontally' to the right at some speed v. >>> | In this frame the trajectory would look something like this this: >>> | >>> | o >>> | o >>> | o >>> | X >>> | o >>> | o >>> | o >>> | >>> | The trajectory is bent in frame B. >>> >>> Which is obviously and trivially correct according to Galileo and Newton. >>> >>> But you, Henry Wilson, made a GIANT fool of yourself >>> when you responded: >>> | >>> | Hahahhahhhahhahhaha! >>> | >>> | Let an object accelerate along the centre line of a long straight tube. >>> | Does its increase in speed wrt the tube cause the tube to bend whenever a >>> | moving observer happens to look at it? >>> >>> And followed up with comments like: >>> |...does the tube bend or not? >>> | Answer the question please... >>> >>> and: >>> |...because you believe the tube bends.... >>> >>> and even more revealing: >>> | How is it that the object can move in a straight line in one frame but a >>> | parabola in another? >>> | >>> | Please explain how anything straight can bent by a moving observer. >>> | >>> | I really think you should get a job as a 'spoon bender' in a circus somewhere. >>> >>> There is nothing about 'trajectory' in these statements of yours! >>> You obviously were too stupid to understand that an object indeed can >>> and does move in a straight line in one frame of reference and along >>> a parabola in another frame. >>> >>> Eventually it probably dawned to you that you had made a giant fool >>> of yourself, but admitting a blunder is no option to >>> Henry Wilson, so you were desperate to find a way out, and >>> since then you have pretended that the problem is about the interpretation >>> of the word 'trajectory'. >>> >>> But insisting to have a definition of 'trajectory' which is different >>>from the definition used by the rest of the world can't save you. >>> >>> All you have achieved is to make an even bigger fool of yourself. >>> >>> Which you will continue to do. > >Wasn't I right, or was I right? :-) Paul 'spoon bender' Andersen still hasn't explained how an object's 'trajectory' can be curved when its movement is confined to the inside a straight tube. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 24 Apr 2010 19:33 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:35:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 22.04.2010 23:58, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:01:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> >>> >>> Remarkable! >>> >>> So now you will probably claim that you never disagreed with me in >>> the first place, so we have had this long discussion about nothing. > >Wasn't I right, or was I right? :-) > >> Well, I did know the answer all along...but it hasn't been for nothing. >> >> The real motive for this thread was to point out the folly of using rotating >> frames. >> I said originally that since the star and earth were always MAR, it stands to >> reason that the telescope should always point directly at the star and there >> should be no aberration. > >So you did. >But admitting having done a blunder is no option for >Doctor Henry Wilson; better then >to claim that you never meant what you said. :-) > >> That is what one might conclude, using the rotating frame....(That of the >> orbit). >> >> Your Sagnac argument is identical to this. You say, if you regard a ring gyro >> in its rotating frame, it never rotates..... and there can be no fringe >> displacement according to BaTh. >> >> Do you now see how stupid your Sagnac 'BaTh refutation' is? > >Frustrating not to be able to find any errors in it, >so you have to resort to stupidities like the above, eh? :-) > >See the interferometers that never rotates: >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html All wrong...as I have repeatedly shown. >>>> Incidentally, your previous claim that the aberration angle is known so >>>> accurately that it can be used to refute BaTh is quite wrong. >>>> >>>> The standard aberration angle has been CALCULATED to 7 significant figures >>>> based on Earth's orbit parameters....but there is no way it can be MEASURED to >>>> anything like that accuracy. >>> >>> The radial velocity of some close binaries is varying with >>> an amplitude of 300 km/s. So according to the emission theory, >>> the speed of light from those stars should vary by c(1 +/- 10^-3). >>> That means that the aberration angle v/c should change by +/-10^-7 radians. >>> These binaries have a short period (days). 10^-7 radians = 0.02" = 20mas. >>> That means that these stars should move 20mas back and forth relative to >>> other stars in the region, with a period in the order of days. >>> Hipparcos could measure such a motion with a precision of 1.5 mas. >> >> All quoted stellar orbit periods and velocities are likely to be wrong. >> >> Rotation frequencies can be exaggerated by factors of one hundred or more due >> to time compression. > >No, it can not, not even according to the emission theory. >'Time compression' is according to the emission theory caused >by acceleration of the source. If the orbital period was to >be "exaggerated by factors of one hundred times or more" >the whole orbiting system would have to be accelerated much >more than the acceleration of the orbiting star. >Which of course is ridiculous. I happen to know a lot more about this that you do. The frequency of a periodic event that takes place in a system that is in a large and slow orbit can easily appear exaggerated by a factor of 100 or 1/100. >We have discussed this before, you obviously still don't >understand what the emission theory predicts. You obviously know very little about the emission theory. >> Calculated velocities, using spectral line shifts, can also be out by large >> amounts because wavelength shifts are affected far more by ADoppler than >> VDoppler...and nobody has even heard of the former. >> >>> So yes, if such an aberration anomaly had existed, Hipparcos would >>> have detected it. >>> It didn't. >> >> Since I am the only person on this Earth who understands ADoppler, it is not >> surprising that almost ALL astronomy is completely wrong. > >Your "Adoppler" is the same as your "time compression", namely >the Doppler shift due to source acceleration predicted by >the emission theory. No, there is a considerable difference. ADoppler is similarly based, but it doesn't continue forever as photon bunching does. >And of course you are not the only person that knows this, >it is a rather trivial and obvious consequence of the emission >theory. > >But all astronomers know of course that the emission theory is >falsified, so there is no "Adoppler" in the real world. Is there not? Why do cepheid velocity curves mirror their brightness curves, Paul? Do YOU have an answer? Nobody else has one.... >On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >| There is but one type of what you call "time compression", >| and it is basically the same phenomenon as the Doppler shift. >| And it isn't hard to calculate at all. >| If an event happens at the source at the time t, >| and this event is observed by the observer at the time to, >| then the "time compression" simply is : dto/dt. >| >| Let me first demonstrate this "time compression" >| when we assume that the speed of light is c in >| the observer's rest frame. (In a Galilean world.) >| The observed object is moving with the radial speed v. >| We define positive v as approaching. >| At t = 0, the distance to the object is D. >| At time t, the distance to the object is >| D - (integral from 0 to t of) v(t)*dt >| I will write the latter term as I(vdt). >| So an event happening at the time t will be observed >| by the observer at the time: >| to = t + (D - I(vdt))/c >| dto/dt = 1 - v/c = (c - v)/c >| This is observed "time compression". >| Since a period of the emitted light is "compressed" >| by the factor dto/dt, the Doppler shift is the inverse >| of this: DS = c/(c - v) >| >| Now, let us do the same using the ballistic theory. >| The difference is only that now the speed of light >| in the observer's rest frame is c+v. >| Thus: >| to = t + (D - I(vdt))/(c+v) >| If we assume that v/c << 1, we can write the approximation: >| to = t + (D - I(vdt))*(1 - v/c)/c >| dto/dt = 1 - v/c + (v/c)^2 - ((D + I(vdt))/c^2)*dv/dt >| We can ignore the (v/c)^2 term. >| And if we assume that that the object is in orbit, >| the displacement I(vdt) can be ignored compared to D. >| (The radius of the orbit is small compared to the distance >| to the star.) >| So we get: >| dto/dt = 1 - v/c - (D/c^2)*dv/dt >| >| Note one very important point, though. >| This equation says that the light that is >| emitted at the time t will be observed >| at the rate dto/dt, it says nothing about >| _when_ the observation is done. >| (Meaning that dto/dt doesn't have to vary >| sinusoidally with to even if v(t)is sinusoidal.) >| >| The Doppler shift is the inverse of this: >| DS = 1/(1 - v/c - (D/c2)*dv/dt) >| >| If we can assume that (D/c^2)*dv/dt << 1, >| then this can be written: >| DS = 1 + v/c + (D/c^2)*dv/dt >| >| Note however that according to the ballistic >| theory, this assumption can NOT generally be done. >| (Se remark below.) >| >| If you analyse under which conditions the ballistic >| theory predicts that the intensity will be infinite, >| you will find that it is when it predicts that >| the Doppler shift also is infinite. >| It is a good reason for that. When light emitted >| at the time t is received at the same time as >| the light emitted a time dt later, the "time compression" >| dto/dt = 0, which means that a period is compressed to nothing, >| the observed frequency is infinite, and the intensity >| is infinite. >| If the light emitted at the time t is received _after_ >| the light emitted dt later, the "time compression" >| dto/dt is negative (time is reversed), and the Doppler >| shift is negative. >| If this happens, we will at the same time observe >| light emitted at another time (multiple stars), >| with a different Doppler shift. >| >| But the bottom line is that it is a one to one >| relationship between the predicted brightening of >| the star and the Doppler shift. No it isn't. ADoppler is never as large as brightness variation. Compression WITHIN a photon is different from compression BETWEEN photons. Think of a photon as a damped inelastic coil spring. If photon is emitted by an accelerating source, then its rear end moves up on its front end....but not for long. Individual photons, on the other hand, continue to move up on each other ad infinitum...or at least till external factors tend to unify their speeds. >> Tell me Paul, how is it that astronomers cannot explain why cepheid velocity >> curves are a virtual mirror image of their brightness curves? > >But they can. No they cannot. >> I know the answer, Paul. ......ADoppler...or 'WaSh' (the Wilson >> acceleration Shift) > >You are dead wrong. Yet another demonstration of your failure >to understand what the emission theory predicts. >Remember that 'the velocity curve' is calculated from >the assumption that the Doppler shift is f = fo(1 + v/c). >It the Doppler shift that is observed. >-------------------------------------- >For delta Cep the observed Doppler shift is about f = fo(1 +/- 0.7E-4). > >If we assume that the Cepheid really is an orbiting >star with Doppler shift as observed, then the emission theory >predicts that the brightness variation should be 1.4E-4, and >the brightness should be maximum when the Doppler shift is maximum. We can assume that many cepheids are indeed pulsating stars. Certainly those with harmonics present must be. The radial velocities of pulsating stars is by nature very similar to those of a star in elliptical orbit with a small yaw angle. So it is probable that many supposed cepheids are ordinary orbiting stars. (Androcles claims 100%...but he cannot explain the presence of harmonics) >The observed brightness variation is 2 (0.8 magnitude variation), >and the brightness is minimum when the Doppler shift is maximum. > >So the emission theory gets the brightness variation wrong by >more than 4 orders of magnitude, and the phase wrong by 180 degrees. It does not. You have your velocity signs back to front. BaTh predicts maximum blue shift at maximum brightness or slightly after. Maximum brightness occurs at maximum acceleration TOWARDS Earth. That coincides with MINIMUM radius....or in the case of an orbiting star, when the periastron is furthest from Earth. Of course the observed spectral line shifts are a sum of ADoppler and VDoppler which are 90 degress apart.. ..Usually, but not necesarily, the former will dominate but the presence of the latter can affect the phasing. That's what is observed. Here is an example: http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html Quote: "If a horizontal line is drawn across the velocity graph about halfway up (at around +21.6 km/sec) then the portion of the velocity graph that is below that line represents movement relatively toward us, and the portion above that line represents movement relatively away from us. " So from that, the bottom half is blue shifted (and assumed to be moving towards us when in fact it isn't). Maximum blue shift is almost in phase with maximum brightness. It lags slightly because VDoppler lags ADoppler by 90. The whole of astronomy is wrong. QED Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 25 Apr 2010 17:33 On 25.04.2010 01:33, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:35:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: > >> On 22.04.2010 23:58, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:01:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >>> > >>>> >>>> Remarkable! >>>> >>>> So now you will probably claim that you never disagreed with me in >>>> the first place, so we have had this long discussion about nothing. >> >> Wasn't I right, or was I right? :-) >> >>> Well, I did know the answer all along...but it hasn't been for nothing. >>> >>> The real motive for this thread was to point out the folly of using rotating >>> frames. >>> I said originally that since the star and earth were always MAR, it stands to >>> reason that the telescope should always point directly at the star and there >>> should be no aberration. >> >> So you did. >> But admitting having done a blunder is no option for >> Doctor Henry Wilson; better then >> to claim that you never meant what you said. :-) >> >>> That is what one might conclude, using the rotating frame....(That of the >>> orbit). >>> >>> Your Sagnac argument is identical to this. You say, if you regard a ring gyro >>> in its rotating frame, it never rotates..... and there can be no fringe >>> displacement according to BaTh. >>> >>> Do you now see how stupid your Sagnac 'BaTh refutation' is? >> >> Frustrating not to be able to find any errors in it, >> so you have to resort to stupidities like the above, eh? :-) >> >> See the interferometers that never rotates: >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html > > All wrong...as I have repeatedly shown. > >>>>> Incidentally, your previous claim that the aberration angle is known so >>>>> accurately that it can be used to refute BaTh is quite wrong. >>>>> >>>>> The standard aberration angle has been CALCULATED to 7 significant figures >>>>> based on Earth's orbit parameters....but there is no way it can be MEASURED to >>>>> anything like that accuracy. >>>> >>>> The radial velocity of some close binaries is varying with >>>> an amplitude of 300 km/s. So according to the emission theory, >>>> the speed of light from those stars should vary by c(1 +/- 10^-3). >>>> That means that the aberration angle v/c should change by +/-10^-7 radians. >>>> These binaries have a short period (days). 10^-7 radians = 0.02" = 20mas. >>>> That means that these stars should move 20mas back and forth relative to >>>> other stars in the region, with a period in the order of days. >>>> Hipparcos could measure such a motion with a precision of 1.5 mas. >>> >>> All quoted stellar orbit periods and velocities are likely to be wrong. >>> >>> Rotation frequencies can be exaggerated by factors of one hundred or more due >>> to time compression. >> >> No, it can not, not even according to the emission theory. >> 'Time compression' is according to the emission theory caused >> by acceleration of the source. If the orbital period was to >> be "exaggerated by factors of one hundred times or more" >> the whole orbiting system would have to be accelerated much >> more than the acceleration of the orbiting star. >> Which of course is ridiculous. > > I happen to know a lot more about this that you do. > > The frequency of a periodic event that takes place in a system that is in a > large and slow orbit can easily appear exaggerated by a factor of 100 or 1/100. > > >> We have discussed this before, you obviously still don't >> understand what the emission theory predicts. > > You obviously know very little about the emission theory. > >>> Calculated velocities, using spectral line shifts, can also be out by large >>> amounts because wavelength shifts are affected far more by ADoppler than >>> VDoppler...and nobody has even heard of the former. >>> >>>> So yes, if such an aberration anomaly had existed, Hipparcos would >>>> have detected it. >>>> It didn't. >>> >>> Since I am the only person on this Earth who understands ADoppler, it is not >>> surprising that almost ALL astronomy is completely wrong. >> >> Your "Adoppler" is the same as your "time compression", namely >> the Doppler shift due to source acceleration predicted by >> the emission theory. > > No, there is a considerable difference. ADoppler is similarly based, but it > doesn't continue forever as photon bunching does. > >> And of course you are not the only person that knows this, >> it is a rather trivial and obvious consequence of the emission >> theory. >> >> But all astronomers know of course that the emission theory is >> falsified, so there is no "Adoppler" in the real world. > > Is there not? > > Why do cepheid velocity curves mirror their brightness curves, Paul? > > Do YOU have an answer? Nobody else has one.... > >> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> | There is but one type of what you call "time compression", >> | and it is basically the same phenomenon as the Doppler shift. >> | And it isn't hard to calculate at all. >> | If an event happens at the source at the time t, >> | and this event is observed by the observer at the time to, >> | then the "time compression" simply is : dto/dt. >> | >> | Let me first demonstrate this "time compression" >> | when we assume that the speed of light is c in >> | the observer's rest frame. (In a Galilean world.) >> | The observed object is moving with the radial speed v. >> | We define positive v as approaching. >> | At t = 0, the distance to the object is D. >> | At time t, the distance to the object is >> | D - (integral from 0 to t of) v(t)*dt >> | I will write the latter term as I(vdt). >> | So an event happening at the time t will be observed >> | by the observer at the time: >> | to = t + (D - I(vdt))/c >> | dto/dt = 1 - v/c = (c - v)/c >> | This is observed "time compression". >> | Since a period of the emitted light is "compressed" >> | by the factor dto/dt, the Doppler shift is the inverse >> | of this: DS = c/(c - v) >> | >> | Now, let us do the same using the ballistic theory. >> | The difference is only that now the speed of light >> | in the observer's rest frame is c+v. >> | Thus: >> | to = t + (D - I(vdt))/(c+v) >> | If we assume that v/c<< 1, we can write the approximation: >> | to = t + (D - I(vdt))*(1 - v/c)/c >> | dto/dt = 1 - v/c + (v/c)^2 - ((D + I(vdt))/c^2)*dv/dt >> | We can ignore the (v/c)^2 term. >> | And if we assume that that the object is in orbit, >> | the displacement I(vdt) can be ignored compared to D. >> | (The radius of the orbit is small compared to the distance >> | to the star.) >> | So we get: >> | dto/dt = 1 - v/c - (D/c^2)*dv/dt >> | >> | Note one very important point, though. >> | This equation says that the light that is >> | emitted at the time t will be observed >> | at the rate dto/dt, it says nothing about >> | _when_ the observation is done. >> | (Meaning that dto/dt doesn't have to vary >> | sinusoidally with to even if v(t)is sinusoidal.) >> | >> | The Doppler shift is the inverse of this: >> | DS = 1/(1 - v/c - (D/c2)*dv/dt) >> | >> | If we can assume that (D/c^2)*dv/dt<< 1, >> | then this can be written: >> | DS = 1 + v/c + (D/c^2)*dv/dt >> | >> | Note however that according to the ballistic >> | theory, this assumption can NOT generally be done. >> | (Se remark below.) >> | >> | If you analyse under which conditions the ballistic >> | theory predicts that the intensity will be infinite, >> | you will find that it is when it predicts that >> | the Doppler shift also is infinite. >> | It is a good reason for that. When light emitted >> | at the time t is received at the same time as >> | the light emitted a time dt later, the "time compression" >> | dto/dt = 0, which means that a period is compressed to nothing, >> | the observed frequency is infinite, and the intensity >> | is infinite. >> | If the light emitted at the time t is received _after_ >> | the light emitted dt later, the "time compression" >> | dto/dt is negative (time is reversed), and the Doppler >> | shift is negative. >> | If this happens, we will at the same time observe >> | light emitted at another time (multiple stars), >> | with a different Doppler shift. >> | >> | But the bottom line is that it is a one to one >> | relationship between the predicted brightening of >> | the star and the Doppler shift. > > No it isn't. ADoppler is never as large as brightness variation. > > Compression WITHIN a photon is different from compression BETWEEN photons. > > Think of a photon as a damped inelastic coil spring. > If photon is emitted by an accelerating source, then its rear end moves up on > its front end....but not for long. > Individual photons, on the other hand, continue to move up on each other ad > infinitum...or at least till external factors tend to unify their speeds. Nonsensical babble. _All_ frequencies are Doppler shifted exactly the same. It doesn't matter what mechanism causes the Doppler shift. f = 1/T. So if D is the observed Doppler shift f' = Df, then the observed duration T' = T/D, and the energy emitted during the time T is received during the time T/D, so the brightening is D. It doesn't matter which theory you use, this is a fundamental relationship true for _all_ theories. So even SR predicts that the brightness of binaries should vary a little due to the Doppler shift, but this variation will hardly ever be measurable. It is bloody obvious that _no_ variable star has a brightness variation exactly equal to the Doppler shift. That means that even according to the emission theory, the variation of _all_ variable stars must be caused by either an intrinsic variation, or by being eclipsed by another body. And it is equally obvious that if such a thing as a binary star exists, then we do not observe the Doppler shift predicted by the emission theory. The Doppler shift due to acceleration should be giant. We never observe it. > >>> Tell me Paul, how is it that astronomers cannot explain why cepheid velocity >>> curves are a virtual mirror image of their brightness curves? >> >> But they can. > > No they cannot. > >>> I know the answer, Paul. ......ADoppler...or 'WaSh' (the Wilson >>> acceleration Shift) >> >> You are dead wrong. Yet another demonstration of your failure >> to understand what the emission theory predicts. >> Remember that 'the velocity curve' is calculated from >> the assumption that the Doppler shift is f = fo(1 + v/c). >> It the Doppler shift that is observed. >> -------------------------------------- >> For delta Cep the observed Doppler shift is about f = fo(1 +/- 0.7E-4). >> >> If we assume that the Cepheid really is an orbiting >> star with Doppler shift as observed, then the emission theory >> predicts that the brightness variation should be 1.4E-4, and >> the brightness should be maximum when the Doppler shift is maximum. > > We can assume that many cepheids are indeed pulsating stars. Certainly those > with harmonics present must be. > The radial velocities of pulsating stars is by nature very similar to those of > a star in elliptical orbit with a small yaw angle. So it is probable that many > supposed cepheids are ordinary orbiting stars. (Androcles claims 100%...but he > cannot explain the presence of harmonics) > >> The observed brightness variation is 2 (0.8 magnitude variation), >> and the brightness is minimum when the Doppler shift is maximum. >> >> So the emission theory gets the brightness variation wrong by >> more than 4 orders of magnitude, and the phase wrong by 180 degrees. > > It does not. You have your velocity signs back to front. > BaTh predicts maximum blue shift at maximum brightness or slightly after. OK. But it is still wrong by more than 4 orders of magnitude. > Maximum brightness occurs at maximum acceleration TOWARDS Earth. > That coincides with MINIMUM radius....or in the case of an orbiting star, when > the periastron is furthest from Earth. > > Of course the observed spectral line shifts are a sum of ADoppler and VDoppler > which are 90 degress apart.. ..Usually, but not necesarily, the former will > dominate but the presence of the latter can affect the phasing. > > > That's what is observed. > Here is an example: > http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html > > Quote: > "If a horizontal line is drawn across the velocity graph about halfway up (at > around +21.6 km/sec) then the portion of the velocity graph that is below that > line represents movement relatively toward us, and the portion above that line > represents movement relatively away from us. " Right. So the observed Doppler shift is f = fo(1 +/- 0.7E-4), which is equal to the brightness variation predicted by the emission theory. So the emission theory predicts that the brightness variation should be unmeasurable. Wrong by more than four orders of magnitude. > > So from that, the bottom half is blue shifted (and assumed to be moving towards > us when in fact it isn't). > Maximum blue shift is almost in phase with maximum brightness. > It lags slightly because VDoppler lags ADoppler by 90. But it shouldn't lag! According to the emission theory, you know nothing about the velocity. The 'velocity curve' isn't a velocity curve at all, it shows the observed Doppler shift. It doesn't matter if it is caused by the acceleration or the velocity, when the 'velocity curve' shows a maximum, the Doppler shift is maximum, and the emission theory predicts maximum brightness. Four orders of magnitude too small. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 Apr 2010 18:37 On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:33:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 25.04.2010 01:33, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:35:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> >> wrote: >> >>> On 22.04.2010 23:58, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> Is there not? >> >> Why do cepheid velocity curves mirror their brightness curves, Paul? >> >> Do YOU have an answer? Nobody else has one.... >> >>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >>> | There is but one type of what you call "time compression", >>> | and it is basically the same phenomenon as the Doppler shift. >>> | And it isn't hard to calculate at all. >>> | If an event happens at the source at the time t, >>> | and this event is observed by the observer at the time to, >>> | then the "time compression" simply is : dto/dt. >>> | >>> | Let me first demonstrate this "time compression" >>> | when we assume that the speed of light is c in >>> | the observer's rest frame. (In a Galilean world.) >>> | The observed object is moving with the radial speed v. >>> | We define positive v as approaching. >>> | At t = 0, the distance to the object is D. >>> | At time t, the distance to the object is >>> | D - (integral from 0 to t of) v(t)*dt >>> | I will write the latter term as I(vdt). >>> | So an event happening at the time t will be observed >>> | by the observer at the time: >>> | to = t + (D - I(vdt))/c >>> | dto/dt = 1 - v/c = (c - v)/c >>> | This is observed "time compression". >>> | Since a period of the emitted light is "compressed" >>> | by the factor dto/dt, the Doppler shift is the inverse >>> | of this: DS = c/(c - v) >>> | >>> | Now, let us do the same using the ballistic theory. >>> | The difference is only that now the speed of light >>> | in the observer's rest frame is c+v. >>> | Thus: >>> | to = t + (D - I(vdt))/(c+v) >>> | If we assume that v/c<< 1, we can write the approximation: >>> | to = t + (D - I(vdt))*(1 - v/c)/c >>> | dto/dt = 1 - v/c + (v/c)^2 - ((D + I(vdt))/c^2)*dv/dt >>> | We can ignore the (v/c)^2 term. >>> | And if we assume that that the object is in orbit, >>> | the displacement I(vdt) can be ignored compared to D. >>> | (The radius of the orbit is small compared to the distance >>> | to the star.) >>> | So we get: >>> | dto/dt = 1 - v/c - (D/c^2)*dv/dt >>> | >>> | Note one very important point, though. >>> | This equation says that the light that is >>> | emitted at the time t will be observed >>> | at the rate dto/dt, it says nothing about >>> | _when_ the observation is done. >>> | (Meaning that dto/dt doesn't have to vary >>> | sinusoidally with to even if v(t)is sinusoidal.) >>> | >>> | The Doppler shift is the inverse of this: >>> | DS = 1/(1 - v/c - (D/c2)*dv/dt) >>> | >>> | If we can assume that (D/c^2)*dv/dt<< 1, >>> | then this can be written: >>> | DS = 1 + v/c + (D/c^2)*dv/dt >>> | >>> | Note however that according to the ballistic >>> | theory, this assumption can NOT generally be done. >>> | (Se remark below.) >>> | >>> | If you analyse under which conditions the ballistic >>> | theory predicts that the intensity will be infinite, >>> | you will find that it is when it predicts that >>> | the Doppler shift also is infinite. >>> | It is a good reason for that. When light emitted >>> | at the time t is received at the same time as >>> | the light emitted a time dt later, the "time compression" >>> | dto/dt = 0, which means that a period is compressed to nothing, >>> | the observed frequency is infinite, and the intensity >>> | is infinite. >>> | If the light emitted at the time t is received _after_ >>> | the light emitted dt later, the "time compression" >>> | dto/dt is negative (time is reversed), and the Doppler >>> | shift is negative. >>> | If this happens, we will at the same time observe >>> | light emitted at another time (multiple stars), >>> | with a different Doppler shift. >>> | >>> | But the bottom line is that it is a one to one >>> | relationship between the predicted brightening of >>> | the star and the Doppler shift. >> >> No it isn't. ADoppler is never as large as brightness variation. >> >> Compression WITHIN a photon is different from compression BETWEEN photons. >> >> Think of a photon as a damped inelastic coil spring. >> If photon is emitted by an accelerating source, then its rear end moves up on >> its front end....but not for long. >> Individual photons, on the other hand, continue to move up on each other ad >> infinitum...or at least till external factors tend to unify their speeds. > >Nonsensical babble. > >_All_ frequencies are Doppler shifted exactly the same. >It doesn't matter what mechanism causes the Doppler shift. >f = 1/T. So if D is the observed Doppler shift f' = Df, then >the observed duration T' = T/D, and the energy emitted during >the time T is received during the time T/D, so the brightening is D. > >It doesn't matter which theory you use, this is a fundamental >relationship true for _all_ theories. So even SR predicts that >the brightness of binaries should vary a little due to the Doppler >shift, but this variation will hardly ever be measurable. Oh dear, Norwegian science is indeed in a bad way. You obviously don't have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. Do you know what radial acceleration is...for an elliptical orbit? ADoppler is a wavelenght shift due to acceleration. You are talking about conventional VDoppler. >It is bloody obvious that _no_ variable star has a brightness >variation exactly equal to the Doppler shift. >That means that even according to the emission theory, the variation >of _all_ variable stars must be caused by either an intrinsic variation, >or by being eclipsed by another body. Oh dear...I thought you might have learnt something by now. Your old colleague George Dishman knew exactly what ADopppler implied. It is a pity George isn't with us now. He probably would have been the first relativist to admit he and Einstein had been completely wrong. >And it is equally obvious that if such a thing as a binary star >exists, then we do not observe the Doppler shift predicted >by the emission theory. The Doppler shift due to acceleration >should be giant. We never observe it. It would be of the same order of magnitude as the linear brightness variation if for instance light was just a 'wave in the aether'. But my theory explains it with the 'coiled spring' model. The bunching effect WITHIN a photon is limited whilst that BETWEEN photons is continuous. It also states that the equation E= h.c/L' does not hold for ADoppler shifted photons since their individual energy cannot change due to 'internal bunching'. It should be E = h.c/Lo >>>> Tell me Paul, how is it that astronomers cannot explain why cepheid velocity >>>> curves are a virtual mirror image of their brightness curves? >>> >>> But they can. >> >> No they cannot. >> >>>> I know the answer, Paul. ......ADoppler...or 'WaSh' (the Wilson >>>> acceleration Shift) >>> >>> You are dead wrong. Yet another demonstration of your failure >>> to understand what the emission theory predicts. >>> Remember that 'the velocity curve' is calculated from >>> the assumption that the Doppler shift is f = fo(1 + v/c). >>> It the Doppler shift that is observed. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> For delta Cep the observed Doppler shift is about f = fo(1 +/- 0.7E-4). >>> >>> If we assume that the Cepheid really is an orbiting >>> star with Doppler shift as observed, then the emission theory >>> predicts that the brightness variation should be 1.4E-4, and >>> the brightness should be maximum when the Doppler shift is maximum. >> >> We can assume that many cepheids are indeed pulsating stars. Certainly those >> with harmonics present must be. >> The radial velocities of pulsating stars is by nature very similar to those of >> a star in elliptical orbit with a small yaw angle. So it is probable that many >> supposed cepheids are ordinary orbiting stars. (Androcles claims 100%...but he >> cannot explain the presence of harmonics) >> >>> The observed brightness variation is 2 (0.8 magnitude variation), >>> and the brightness is minimum when the Doppler shift is maximum. >>> >>> So the emission theory gets the brightness variation wrong by >>> more than 4 orders of magnitude, and the phase wrong by 180 degrees. >> >> It does not. You have your velocity signs back to front. >> BaTh predicts maximum blue shift at maximum brightness or slightly after. > >OK. So you admit you were wrong with a simple 'OK'? When are you going to admit to all your other mistakes? >But it is still wrong by more than 4 orders of magnitude. George and I looked into that problem years ago. That's why I came up with the 'sawtooth' or 'damped spring' models. They are only models...but they describe the principle. The 'wavelength' of light is determined by a spatial pattern on each photon. If a source is accelerating, the back end moves up on the front end BUT ONLY FOR A VERY LIMITED TIME. Individual photons continue their relative movement virtually forever...or until speed-unified by some process. My latest variable star program already produces predicted spectral shifts by adding ADoppler to VDoppler in different proportions. It is not on my website yet but produces curves that are a better match of RT Aur's velocity curve than the published one. >> Maximum brightness occurs at maximum acceleration TOWARDS Earth. >> That coincides with MINIMUM radius....or in the case of an orbiting star, when >> the periastron is furthest from Earth. >> >> Of course the observed spectral line shifts are a sum of ADoppler and VDoppler >> which are 90 degress apart.. ..Usually, but not necesarily, the former will >> dominate but the presence of the latter can affect the phasing. >> >> >> That's what is observed. >> Here is an example: >> http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html >> >> Quote: >> "If a horizontal line is drawn across the velocity graph about halfway up (at >> around +21.6 km/sec) then the portion of the velocity graph that is below that >> line represents movement relatively toward us, and the portion above that line >> represents movement relatively away from us. " > >Right. >So the observed Doppler shift is f = fo(1 +/- 0.7E-4), >which is equal to the brightness variation predicted by the emission >theory. So the emission theory predicts that the brightness variation >should be unmeasurable. Wrong by more than four orders of magnitude. No. Put simply, my theory predicts that, if a star's brightness varies by a factor of, say 10 (linear) due to cyclical light bunching, then its ADoppler line shift should be 10/W, where W is Wilson's 'photon compression factor'. W is normally quite large. I have been investigating to see if its value is constant for a range of stars...but data availability is a problem. >> So from that, the bottom half is blue shifted (and assumed to be moving towards >> us when in fact it isn't). >> Maximum blue shift is almost in phase with maximum brightness. >> It lags slightly because VDoppler lags ADoppler by 90. > >But it shouldn't lag! Yes it should. >According to the emission theory, you know nothing about the velocity. >The 'velocity curve' isn't a velocity curve at all, it shows >the observed Doppler shift. My BaTh program SIMULATES observed brightness curves by adjusting orbit parameters until a good match is achieved. The true source orbit characteristics and velocities are therefore assumed known. It follows that the VDoppler factor is also known. It is usually small compared with the linear brightness variation. The value of 'W' can be roughly calculated for a particular star...and I have been looking into this. >It doesn't matter if it is caused by the >acceleration or the velocity, when the 'velocity curve' shows a maximum, >the Doppler shift is maximum, and the emission theory predicts maximum >brightness. Four orders of magnitude too small. Paul, consider a star in elliptical orbit with its periastron furthest from us. Its maximum radial ACCELERATION towards Earth occurs at the periastron. It maximum radial VELOCITY occurs somewhere in the first quadrant AFTER periastron...typically about 70 degrees for cepheids. ADoppler might be 100 times a large as VDoppler, which lags by 70 degrees. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 26 Apr 2010 08:54
On 26.04.2010 00:37, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:33:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: > >> On 25.04.2010 01:33, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:35:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> >>> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >>>> | There is but one type of what you call "time compression", >>>> | and it is basically the same phenomenon as the Doppler shift. >>>> | And it isn't hard to calculate at all. >>>> | If an event happens at the source at the time t, >>>> | and this event is observed by the observer at the time to, >>>> | then the "time compression" simply is : dto/dt. >>>> | >>>> | Let me first demonstrate this "time compression" >>>> | when we assume that the speed of light is c in >>>> | the observer's rest frame. (In a Galilean world.) >>>> | The observed object is moving with the radial speed v. >>>> | We define positive v as approaching. >>>> | At t = 0, the distance to the object is D. >>>> | At time t, the distance to the object is >>>> | D - (integral from 0 to t of) v(t)*dt >>>> | I will write the latter term as I(vdt). >>>> | So an event happening at the time t will be observed >>>> | by the observer at the time: >>>> | to = t + (D - I(vdt))/c >>>> | dto/dt = 1 - v/c = (c - v)/c >>>> | This is observed "time compression". >>>> | Since a period of the emitted light is "compressed" >>>> | by the factor dto/dt, the Doppler shift is the inverse >>>> | of this: DS = c/(c - v) >>>> | >>>> | Now, let us do the same using the ballistic theory. >>>> | The difference is only that now the speed of light >>>> | in the observer's rest frame is c+v. >>>> | Thus: >>>> | to = t + (D - I(vdt))/(c+v) >>>> | If we assume that v/c<< 1, we can write the approximation: >>>> | to = t + (D - I(vdt))*(1 - v/c)/c >>>> | dto/dt = 1 - v/c + (v/c)^2 - ((D + I(vdt))/c^2)*dv/dt >>>> | We can ignore the (v/c)^2 term. >>>> | And if we assume that that the object is in orbit, >>>> | the displacement I(vdt) can be ignored compared to D. >>>> | (The radius of the orbit is small compared to the distance >>>> | to the star.) >>>> | So we get: >>>> | dto/dt = 1 - v/c - (D/c^2)*dv/dt >>>> | >>>> | Note one very important point, though. >>>> | This equation says that the light that is >>>> | emitted at the time t will be observed >>>> | at the rate dto/dt, it says nothing about >>>> | _when_ the observation is done. >>>> | (Meaning that dto/dt doesn't have to vary >>>> | sinusoidally with to even if v(t)is sinusoidal.) >>>> | >>>> | The Doppler shift is the inverse of this: >>>> | DS = 1/(1 - v/c - (D/c2)*dv/dt) >>>> | >>>> | If we can assume that (D/c^2)*dv/dt<< 1, >>>> | then this can be written: >>>> | DS = 1 + v/c + (D/c^2)*dv/dt >>>> | >>>> | Note however that according to the ballistic >>>> | theory, this assumption can NOT generally be done. >>>> | (Se remark below.) >>>> | >>>> | If you analyse under which conditions the ballistic >>>> | theory predicts that the intensity will be infinite, >>>> | you will find that it is when it predicts that >>>> | the Doppler shift also is infinite. >>>> | It is a good reason for that. When light emitted >>>> | at the time t is received at the same time as >>>> | the light emitted a time dt later, the "time compression" >>>> | dto/dt = 0, which means that a period is compressed to nothing, >>>> | the observed frequency is infinite, and the intensity >>>> | is infinite. >>>> | If the light emitted at the time t is received _after_ >>>> | the light emitted dt later, the "time compression" >>>> | dto/dt is negative (time is reversed), and the Doppler >>>> | shift is negative. >>>> | If this happens, we will at the same time observe >>>> | light emitted at another time (multiple stars), >>>> | with a different Doppler shift. >>>> | >>>> | But the bottom line is that it is a one to one >>>> | relationship between the predicted brightening of >>>> | the star and the Doppler shift. >>> >>> No it isn't. ADoppler is never as large as brightness variation. >>> >>> Compression WITHIN a photon is different from compression BETWEEN photons. >>> >>> Think of a photon as a damped inelastic coil spring. >>> If photon is emitted by an accelerating source, then its rear end moves up on >>> its front end....but not for long. >>> Individual photons, on the other hand, continue to move up on each other ad >>> infinitum...or at least till external factors tend to unify their speeds. >> >> Nonsensical babble. >> >> _All_ frequencies are Doppler shifted exactly the same. >> It doesn't matter what mechanism causes the Doppler shift. >> f = 1/T. So if D is the observed Doppler shift f' = Df, then >> the observed duration T' = T/D, and the energy emitted during >> the time T is received during the time T/D, so the brightening is D. >> >> It doesn't matter which theory you use, this is a fundamental >> relationship true for _all_ theories. So even SR predicts that >> the brightness of binaries should vary a little due to the Doppler >> shift, but this variation will hardly ever be measurable. > > Oh dear, Norwegian science is indeed in a bad way. > You obviously don't have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. > Do you know what radial acceleration is...for an elliptical orbit? > > ADoppler is a wavelenght shift due to acceleration. You are talking about > conventional VDoppler. > >> It is bloody obvious that _no_ variable star has a brightness >> variation exactly equal to the Doppler shift. >> That means that even according to the emission theory, the variation >> of _all_ variable stars must be caused by either an intrinsic variation, >> or by being eclipsed by another body. > > Oh dear...I thought you might have learnt something by now. Your old colleague > George Dishman knew exactly what ADopppler implied. It is a pity George isn't > with us now. He probably would have been the first relativist to admit he and > Einstein had been completely wrong. > >> And it is equally obvious that if such a thing as a binary star >> exists, then we do not observe the Doppler shift predicted >> by the emission theory. The Doppler shift due to acceleration >> should be giant. We never observe it. > > It would be of the same order of magnitude as the linear brightness variation > if for instance light was just a 'wave in the aether'. But my theory explains > it with the 'coiled spring' model. > > The bunching effect WITHIN a photon is limited whilst that BETWEEN photons is > continuous. > > It also states that the equation E= h.c/L' does not hold for ADoppler shifted > photons since their individual energy cannot change due to 'internal bunching'. > It should be E = h.c/Lo > >>>>> Tell me Paul, how is it that astronomers cannot explain why cepheid velocity >>>>> curves are a virtual mirror image of their brightness curves? >>>> >>>> But they can. >>> >>> No they cannot. >>> >>>>> I know the answer, Paul. ......ADoppler...or 'WaSh' (the Wilson >>>>> acceleration Shift) >>>> >>>> You are dead wrong. Yet another demonstration of your failure >>>> to understand what the emission theory predicts. >>>> Remember that 'the velocity curve' is calculated from >>>> the assumption that the Doppler shift is f = fo(1 + v/c). >>>> It the Doppler shift that is observed. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> For delta Cep the observed Doppler shift is about f = fo(1 +/- 0.7E-4). >>>> >>>> If we assume that the Cepheid really is an orbiting >>>> star with Doppler shift as observed, then the emission theory >>>> predicts that the brightness variation should be 1.4E-4, and >>>> the brightness should be maximum when the Doppler shift is maximum. >>> >>> We can assume that many cepheids are indeed pulsating stars. Certainly those >>> with harmonics present must be. >>> The radial velocities of pulsating stars is by nature very similar to those of >>> a star in elliptical orbit with a small yaw angle. So it is probable that many >>> supposed cepheids are ordinary orbiting stars. (Androcles claims 100%...but he >>> cannot explain the presence of harmonics) >>> >>>> The observed brightness variation is 2 (0.8 magnitude variation), >>>> and the brightness is minimum when the Doppler shift is maximum. >>>> >>>> So the emission theory gets the brightness variation wrong by >>>> more than 4 orders of magnitude, and the phase wrong by 180 degrees. >>> >>> It does not. You have your velocity signs back to front. >>> BaTh predicts maximum blue shift at maximum brightness or slightly after. >> >> OK. > > So you admit you were wrong with a simple 'OK'? > When are you going to admit to all your other mistakes? > >> But it is still wrong by more than 4 orders of magnitude. > > George and I looked into that problem years ago. That's why I came up with the > 'sawtooth' or 'damped spring' models. They are only models...but they describe > the principle. The 'wavelength' of light is determined by a spatial pattern on > each photon. If a source is accelerating, the back end moves up on the front > end BUT ONLY FOR A VERY LIMITED TIME. Individual photons continue their > relative movement virtually forever...or until speed-unified by some process. > > My latest variable star program already produces predicted spectral shifts by > adding ADoppler to VDoppler in different proportions. It is not on my website > yet but produces curves that are a better match of RT Aur's velocity curve than > the published one. > >>> Maximum brightness occurs at maximum acceleration TOWARDS Earth. >>> That coincides with MINIMUM radius....or in the case of an orbiting star, when >>> the periastron is furthest from Earth. >>> >>> Of course the observed spectral line shifts are a sum of ADoppler and VDoppler >>> which are 90 degress apart.. ..Usually, but not necesarily, the former will >>> dominate but the presence of the latter can affect the phasing. >>> >>> >>> That's what is observed. >>> Here is an example: >>> http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html >>> >>> Quote: >>> "If a horizontal line is drawn across the velocity graph about halfway up (at >>> around +21.6 km/sec) then the portion of the velocity graph that is below that >>> line represents movement relatively toward us, and the portion above that line >>> represents movement relatively away from us. " >> >> Right. >> So the observed Doppler shift is f = fo(1 +/- 0.7E-4), >> which is equal to the brightness variation predicted by the emission >> theory. So the emission theory predicts that the brightness variation >> should be unmeasurable. Wrong by more than four orders of magnitude. This pretty much sums it up: > No. Put simply, my theory predicts that, if a star's brightness varies by a > factor of, say 10 (linear) due to cyclical light bunching, then its ADoppler > line shift should be 10/W, where W is Wilson's 'photon compression factor'. W > is normally quite large. I have been investigating to see if its value is > constant for a range of stars...but data availability is a problem. "Wilson's 'photon compression factor' " indeed. :-) Doppler shift without frequency shift. Hilarious, no? :-) > >>> So from that, the bottom half is blue shifted (and assumed to be moving towards >>> us when in fact it isn't). >>> Maximum blue shift is almost in phase with maximum brightness. >>> It lags slightly because VDoppler lags ADoppler by 90. >> >> But it shouldn't lag! > > Yes it should. > >> According to the emission theory, you know nothing about the velocity. >> The 'velocity curve' isn't a velocity curve at all, it shows >> the observed Doppler shift. > > My BaTh program SIMULATES observed brightness curves by adjusting orbit > parameters until a good match is achieved. The true source orbit > characteristics and velocities are therefore assumed known. It follows that the > VDoppler factor is also known. It is usually small compared with the linear > brightness variation. > > The value of 'W' can be roughly calculated for a particular star...and I have > been looking into this. > >> It doesn't matter if it is caused by the >> acceleration or the velocity, when the 'velocity curve' shows a maximum, >> the Doppler shift is maximum, and the emission theory predicts maximum >> brightness. Four orders of magnitude too small. > > Paul, consider a star in elliptical orbit with its periastron furthest from us. > Its maximum radial ACCELERATION towards Earth occurs at the periastron. > It maximum radial VELOCITY occurs somewhere in the first quadrant AFTER > periastron...typically about 70 degrees for cepheids. ADoppler might be 100 > times a large as VDoppler, which lags by 70 degrees. But we observe the Doppler shift, and in the real world the Doppler shift and the brightening are exactly equal. No predicted lag. Predicted magnitude four orders of magnitudes wrong for delta Cep. For binaries, we do not observe the huge Doppler shift predicted by the emission theory. But in Wonderland, where frequencies can be Doppler shifted without shift of frequency, "the BaTH" works just fine. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |