On 4 May 2007 01:08:57 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 4 May, 00:35, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 3 May 2007 02:58:34 -0700, George Dishman wrote:



I have George...
You refuse to listen.
There are plenty of instances where the BaTh does NOT require continued
ballistic movement.

That's why I don't listen, the theory is that light moves at c+v. If
it is to be a theory it must apply ALWAYS so the moment you
say sometimes it doesn't your description is self-contradictory.

I gave you another analogy where there is continued but
reduced movement.
You are assuming the ends of a photon are completely independent of each other.

You give lots of analogies but they don't reflect the theory, c+v.
That
equation applies to every wave in your classical wavetrain version of
a photon so the analogy is wrong.

Your problem George, is that you keep flipping backwards and forwards between
classical wave theory and BaTh.

The very fact that an individual photon can exist means that it must have some
kind of identifying property and 'structure' that distinguishes it from
'nothing'. There is absolutely no reasn to assume the ends will continue to
move in way pulsar pulses appear to.

There is no reson to assume anything Henry, but ballistic theory
says each end moves at c+v where v is the speed of the source when
the end was emitted.

No George, you just want to believe that is true.
If it were true it wouldn't match the evidence. So, since there is an
alternative theory that works - ie., mine - let's choose it instead.


Wavefronts approach a series of wires (the asterisks are the wires
seen
along their length.

_____________________________
_____________ _____________
_____________ | _____________
_____________ | _____________
_____________ v _____________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________

* * * * * * * *

The field induces current in the wires which then re-radiate. That
raiation should be isotropic in a plane perpendicular to the axis
of the wires but interferences creates 'lobes' or preferred
directions.
There is a peak of radiation at any angle (which depends on the
frequency or wavelength) where the waves arrive in phase. The
reflected wavefronts might go like this:

\ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \
\
* * * * * * * *

Changing the scale so the horizontal line is the grating, the
signal arriving vertically downwards is reflected at some angle
like this and the maximum field, say measured with a dipole
and oscilloscope as mentioned in my other post, might have
a maximum at 'A'. What you are telling me is that TDoppler
affects the waves at a macrosopic level hence the angle to
A but that if we think of that wave as bing delivered in small
bursts, each burst of classical waves (which you are calling
a photon) is affected by an amount which is smaller by the
factor K so the bursts all get deposited at location B.

|
| \A
| /\
| / \B
__|/_ \

You can't have all the "photons" arriving at B and the energy
appearing at A.

The question you want me to answer is, "how is an individual photon affected by
being in a group of photons?"

No, I'm not asking you a question, I am pointing out something
that is so obvious I shouldn't have to waste my time saying it.

It is not obvious at all. It isn't even true. The wave energy goes to A and the
intrinsic photon energy to B.
Think of a diffracted water wave. The KE of the individual molecules doesn't go
to the nodes.

"Photon" is the name we give to a packet of energy. You cannot
say that the photons will land at point B above and also that the
energy is all deposited at point A.

I don't see why not. I say the summed photon energy is not the wave energy.

I doubt if anyone can give you a decent answer to that....but like I said
before, I doubt if individual photons making up an RF signal would be
diffracted in the same way as the macroscopic wave itself.

Henry, the macroscopic wave is nothing more than the
collection of photons. You don't have some sort of wierd
composite of a wave being carried along by photons like
pall-bearers carrying a coffin.

Look, this 'wave' you keep refering to is just a graph of a varying physical
process. I'm suggesting various physical processes that might fit in with all
the known data. One is as I've described it....individual photons bunching
together and moving apart periodically as they travel. At the same time they
each have their own intrinsic 'oscillation' that may or may not be somehow
synchroinized with the former one.

when they fit the data? That's not a
very scientific attitude George.

The first rule of a scientific attitude is slf-consitency. Your
nonsense
predicts two contradictory locations for the light reflected from a
grating, that's why I dismiss it as nonsense.

You have twisted the meaning of what I am saying...

It seems you have at least finally understood the argument.

I have been quite aware of the argument all along George.

and since there is no
evidence either way, you don't have a leg to stand on.



....and it doesn't happen like that ...

Right, so the variation must be intrinsic.

No George.
I have explained.

Your 'explanation' was self-contradictory.

I will not do it again.

Promises, promises.

I can see I will have to...

You are the only one confused Henry, BaTh is very simple. It
says both luminosity and Doppler shift are due to to TDoppler,
and if K 1 then both get changed. The relationship between
the two is unaffected by K.

...but that doesn't fit the data George...

Yes it does Henry, Cepheid variations are intrinsic to the star.

Your classical wave theory doesn't apply to individual photons nor does your
'ballistic shrinkage'.

Your so-called "photons" are nothing more than bursts of classical
waves, the view Planck held in 1914, and a purely classical analysis
is entirely valid.

Nobody knows anything about the particle nature of a photon George,

Sorry Henry, QED tells us all about photons and is the most
precise and complete theory in science. You might be clueless
but that's your choice.

More useless stats...

so don't
try to make out they do. It is clearly not just a 'classical wave'. It is a
package of energy with definite properties and structure.

It is indeed.

At last we agree on something.

Wrong again henry, when will you learn. BaTh says it is TDoppler
that matters.

Of course,...

Good, try to remember that, you keep making the same error
and I'm fed up correcting it. My point regarding a Fouier analysis
stands.

The VDoppler component is generally negligible. Forget it...

Still can't handle reality eh, you have proved it is always
dominant.

You are a bigger dreamer than Andersen...


if it had that same frequency. It must do Henry, the individual wave
bursts
cannot be deflected by a grating at an angle different from the bulk
wave.

It is the wave formed by the group of photons that is diffracted.
If you are considering monochromatic light, naturally all photons will be
diffracted to the same angle.

Exactly, so the photons must have the same wavelength as the
macroscopic wave.

How long is a 1 hz photon, George?


If you want to use those for an analogy that accurately reflects the "c
+v"
equation, each car or bullet is but a point on the wave within the
long train
of waves that you call a photon. It's easier to think of them
representing
peaks of the sine wave but any other part is equally valid.

When water waves are diffracted, it is a macroscopic effect, not a molecular
one.

The difference is that we know the photons have the same
wavelength.

No we don't.

analogy would be that the macroscopic
waves have a minimum height and multiple overlapping waves
with the same phase add up to make a larger wave. Obviously
the larger amplitude wave has the same wavelength as the
smaller ones.

You seem to have a funny idea that a wave is just a squiggly line painted in
the sky. It isn't . It is a graphical representation of a physical process.
When are you going to get down to basics, George.

if you could 'diffract' the line of cars on the highway, you would get two
different angles. One being due to the 'wavelength' defined by the distance
between cars and the other but the lengths of the cars themselves.

I suppose you would get another angle from the fact that the wheels were all
the ame diameter.

Some analogies don't reflect the physics correctly, you must chose
them carefully.

Let's talk about the charged rubber cars then.

The rest is intrinsic.
That interpretation matches all you have discovered from
pulsars and EF Dra and there is no evidence to question it.

I gave you MY light curve for EF Dra. It fits an ADoppler type prediction..

No, the one that fitted was an error using half the period (I'm
inclined to
give you the benefit of the doubt and think it wasn't deliberate
fraud) but
the phase is actually 90 degrees out from ADoppler, it matches
VDoppler.

Not in my diagram. The brightness peak, which is eclipsed, occurs when the star
is on the LOS, furthest away...

No, that doesn't match what is observed. See below.

That is where maximum ADoppler occurs. Do you
not agree George?

No, it is 45 degrees out with the two merged curves.

So the BaTh wins again.

No, you are just in denial again.

snip repetition
but 90 degrees out from the orbital phase, the curves are VDoppler.

No George,

Yes Henry, the peak of the velocity curve is half way between
the eclipses, not coincident with them.

No George, have another look at:- Hide quoted text -

I hate Google's new interface !

The diagrams are

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdrag.jpg
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/EF_Dra.png

If you put them together you will see the phase is now
45 degrees out, exactly half way between VDoppler and
ADoppler so they give exactly equal contributions.

Where did that idea come from?
My projected brightness peak lies right over the zero radial velocity mark.
That is exactly what the BaTh expects.

That
is a remarkable coincidence given VDoppler is asymptotic
to a constant level while ADoppler varies with distance. I
also haven't had time to consider whether the sense of the
contributions is valid but your program should be able to
test that. In fact I should check this out a bit more so I may
find more errors in this later.

You are wrong here george.

Coincidences aside, certainly you have again ruled out the
possibility of ADoppler being dominant or even significantly
larger than VDoppler.

The brightness curve is all ADoppler.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

read more »

I'll reply to the rest later.

George



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

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