HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:21:51 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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



Photons do not behave like rubber cars.

Don't just jump in here and make silly statements Bob, without
thinking a bit more about this.
I have a new theory that appears to fit in with all aspects of
variable star observations. Let's examine it, not throw it out without
even looking.

I do not throw cold water on people that are 'brain storming', that is
trying to think of as many ideas as possible, no matter how wild they
may be. But, in science, there comes a point when one weeds out those
ideas that do not pass the test of 'does this agree with current data'.

Well bob, there has never been a proper test of Einstein's second
postulate.

It certainly can not be proven, but any theory derived from it provides a
test.

The only known way to do it is to use variable stars. That's
what I have done and the results show that Einstein was wrong.

I wish you were correct. I would be happy to be able to say I knew someone
who revolutionized science. Over the last few years, I have tried to help
you. I would be very happy to be able to say I helped someone that
revolutionized science, even if my help was only in hammering out some of
the dents in a theory.

There is no way that light pulses from a remote orbiting source can all
be emitted at exactly c relative to little planet Earth. The idea is
ridiculous.

You and I both know that is an incorrect way of stating things. The photons
are emitted at c, in all directions, from the source, as measured from an
inertial FoR co-moving with the source at the instant of emission,
according to both BaT and SR.

The photons are measured as moving at c+v from any other iFoR, according to
BaT and at c from any other iFoR according to SR. There is nothing special
about the earth in either theory and it is silly to claim that there is.

The idea that 'photon pressure' would cause photons to get shorter is a
cool idea, as a brain storming idea. But it fails to pass the first test
of practicallity.

Don't make stupid comments bob, just because the theory conflicts with
your beliefs.

There are many places that photons travel together in large groups,
photons in those groups would suffer from the same compression as the
photons from stars. We don't see photons compressing and shifting in
frequency and wavelength.

How do you know?

I know that any laser produces groups of photons moving together.
I know that IF photons 'compress' from the pressure of 'being in a crowd of
photons', that a laser beam would be one of the places this would happen.

I know that when we attenuate a laser beam so that there are only a few
photons traveling together, the frequency of the beam is unchanged.

On the otherhand, if there were experments showing just such a
phenomina, they would support your idea.

Bob, the effect I'm proposing is one that occurs when a group of photons
experiences an acceleration, either during emission or during flight.

Are you proposing that it would ONLY happen if the group was 'experiencing
acceleration'?

George claims, probably rightly, that when photons are emitted by an
accelerating source the ones emitted later will move up on the earlier
ones, causing bunching.

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

In the case of pulsars, both the gaps between
pulses and the pulse widths will change in the same proportion.

That would make sense for both BaTh and SR. It is consistent with
conventional doppler shift of beams of data from spacecraft. Both the
frequency of the beam, the length of the data bits, and the data rate, all
are doppler shifted together.

The phenomina can even be observed on shortwave, long distance, radio
circuits as the motions of the ionosphere produce phase/frequency shifts in
the signal.

My theory states that individual photons also change in proportion to
the acceleration but by a much smaller amount than the 'bunching
factor'.

This is perfectly feasible theory.

It is only feasible if it is consistent with observation.


Note: if the acceleration is not constant, an important additional
effect occurs.

What?

bz



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

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





--
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