On 7 May 2007 09:55:54 -0700, George Dishman wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .


Unification takes care of multiple imagery.

You need to learn to read more carefully, Henry, you
just said unification "is not really part of the basic
theory" so it doesn't take care of anything. Either it
is part of your theoryor it isn't, and de Sitter's
argument applies to the case where unification is _not_
part of the theory.

No star light seems to ever
overtakes other light....but there might be instances where it does.

There are many instances where it should, but it never
gets to within 0.1% of that, it is _never_ observed.

I don't know where you got that figure from.



The theory says a photon (or several) knocks a single electron out of an
atom.

No, experiment says _one_ photon knocks _one_ electron
out of the surface. It takes some amount of energy to
free an electron, say W. If h.nu is less than W than
no electron gets released no matter how bright the
source so we know that "several" never happens. And if
h.nu W then one electron is liberated with a residual
kinetic energy of h.nu-W. If h.nu 2W a wave description
suggests more than one elctron could be liberated by a
single photon but again that doesn't happen.

The electron is then accelerated, causing an avalanche that is visually
recordable.

Right, and that's the part where I have shown you that the
noise levels are adequately low to be negligible in our
context.




It accelerates single electrons, emitting photon bursts. These are what
the
thing sees.

Yes, and in a photo-multiplier the first electron
is emitted by the photo-electric effect. The whole
amplification and detection process is identical.
It is in fact an actual PM camera with just the
front end removed so you can see the noise level
for yourself.



The velocities do. The luminosity is then seen to be
intrinsic in eclipsing binaries and Cepheids. A small
value of 'extinction' distance is required for EF Dra
and the pulsars which is entirely consistent. Your
theory survives all these tests but in every case where
we can tell (there's no phase reference for Cepheids)
only VDoppler can be seen.

George, if it weren't for the fact that a great many brightness curves can
be
matched with BaTh, ...

Sorry Henry, you can't match any without making your model
self-contradictory. You _can_ match the velocity curves
but not luminosity.

I can easily match both George.

.. I would take the easy way out and probably agree with you.
However, since logic tells us that there is no mechanism outside of
fairyland
which would cause all starlight in the universe to travel towards little
planet
Earth at precisely c, and since I CAN match brightness curves very nicely,

No you can't, all you can match is curves of less than 0.002
magnitude variation, max.

George this is a plainly ridiculous claim. If you could set up your own program
(too hard, no doubt) you would soon see that (log) magnitude variations of
three or more can easily be achieved before peaks appear in the brightness
curves.

will prefer to continue along my present very interesting and fruitful
path.

Fair enough, I'll continue to dismiss it and point out
the truth to anyone following the thread until you make
it consistent.

Well I have now solved Sagnac.,,so that will please you even more...

If I assume it has a value of maybe 10000,
then everything falls into place, I can match hundreds of brightness
curves in
phase and magnitude with velocity curves.

But it is then self-contradictory so fails to be a theory
in the first place.

It isn't. It can have a value of 10000 ..

Nope, that requires the light to travel at both c+v and
(c+v)/10000 at the same time, it is self-contradictory.

No it doesn't George. You are telling little fibs again.
The photons keep moving at c+v for a lot longer than the 'ends of each photon'.
It's all so simple really.

George, this is how exepriment physics operates. If K is not = 1, then
all
data
is matched. What is the logical conclusion?

Without K=1 you cannot match simple Doppler measurements
in the lab and K1 conflicts with c+v for the speed, it
is self-contradictory so proves itself wrong.

I now consider that Labs create and constitute their own strong EM FoRs.

An "FoR" is a mathematical coordinate system with no
physical existence.

An EM FoR is one of limited size that sets light speed somewhat loosely, within
itself.


Yes I can if what you say conflicts with what you say,
one or the other is wrong. Either you know frequency is
the independent variable in the equation or you don't
know what the equation is, both cannot be true.

Nobody has
moved a grating in remote space ...

Itrrelevant, what equation for aa grating deflection
angle is derived from the BaTh basic equations by pure
maths?

I will soon produce the relevant diagram for htis.

Don't waste your time, just show your mathematical
derivation of the equation from c+v.


It should be pretty obvious.

It should, in fact it's a problem that you should be
able to do in a few minutes, but your incapable of
even the simplest algebra from what I have seen.

Well you've seen it now.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg

For other angles the equation is N(lambda= D[sin(theta)/(c+u)-sin(phi)/(c+v)]


Oh, Ok. I wasn't looking at that.

OK, you need to have a more detailed look. It isn't
trivial.

No, it certainly isn't.
I just hadn't gotten around to it.

Right, you just faked the result and got caught out.

I did not fake anything George. I just draw a rough curve to show you the basic
shape of the brightness curve of one member. I can't match it exactly because
most of it is hidden.



The curves don't really tell us much because there are only a few points
to go
on.

They tell us where the peaks are and that phase is what we
need to know.

...and it all fits nicely....

Which is the BaTh prediction.

Wrong. If you had used you program instead of faking
your results, you would have found that yourself.

Well you can see a better curve now.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdra.jpg

As I write it still matches the luminosity instead of
the velocities.

Yes.

Pointless then the luminosity is dominated by the
two eclipses. Do one matching the velocity curves.

The velocity curves are basically VDoppler..because the individual photons very
rapidly become stabilized. The movement BETWEEN photons continues for some
time.

K is obviously large for close binaries...but not so large for cepheids.

K is 1, period.

Here you go again...applying some kind of classical wave theory to light
particles.

Right, the 'wavelength' of the photons is what
determines the grating deflection angle.

...and that 'wavelength' cannot possibly change just because the GRATING
moves.

I have explained several times why BaTh says it
_can_ change. You need to do the derivation to
find out if it predicts that it does.

BaTh says the difraction angles are sensitive to 'wavecrest arrival rate'.

No it doesn't, it says the speed is c+v initially and
that approaches c/n according to the formula

dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R

To get from there to an equation will take you some work.

I will illustrate the principle today if I get a chance.

Just show me the equation and stop guessing.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg

Note, light speed is included in the BaTh equation. Otherwise it is the same as
the classical one.



But George, you are not distinguishing between a beam of light made from a
large number of identical photons, all moving at the same speed, and a
generated radio signal made up of intelligently bunched groupings of any
old
photons.

There is nothing to distinguish, a mono-mode laser signal
is a generated signal exactly the same as the RF signal
but at a higher frequency. Early radio receivers used a
"heterodyne" technique to improve tuning, high resolution
spectroscopy does exactly the same by heterodyning the
starlight with a laser and measuring the beat frequency
with an RF receiver.

That's OK. There is still a carrier frequency and a signal frequency.


You can't realy believe that a constant RF signal lasting ten years is
made of
one single photon.

No, nor do I believe a mono-mode laser running for ten
years emits a single photon.

Well what's you model for this?

Same as for RF of course, a stream of phase-related photons.

Why not a periodic variation in photon density?

How does one 'phase relate' photons anyway?

So what's the difference George? Are you going to offer any suggestions?

None, both consist of a flux of many photons.

What's wrong with my above model?

It tries to explain a difference that doesn't exist.

Tell me, what is the relationship between an constant RF sine wave and a
photon?

Same as for a mono-mode laser, bz has told you already
so I won't repeat it.

BZ knows nothing....but he tries....

He knows vastly more than you, but like everyone else
his answers are over your head because you haven't
spent the time learning the basics. Tools like Fourier
analysis are essential if you are going to follow more
complex theories.

George, I spent years analysing sine waves that make different musical
instrument sounds. I know all about it.

Yep, it also mean ADoppler is non-existent for binaries,
the light changes to speed c within 4.6 microns of leaving
the star's surface ;-)

That's c wrt the star George.

It is c wrt to the material with which it is interacting
to cause the speed change Henry, otherwise you cannot
transfer the energy and momentum to maintain conservation.

You can't assume it is 'material'. Just call it a 'local EM FoR'.

Why would I want to look stupid, you don't transfer
momentum to a coordinate system.

A local EM FoR is more than a cooordinate system. It contains matter and fields
that define a macroscopic reference for velocity.

For contact binaries, it appears that such a frame is defined by the
barycentre
of the pair.

Garbage, the frame is chosen by whoever does the calculations.

Well I wont dwell on this ...




...and no other experiment refutes the BaTh.

Sagnac and Shapiro do.

Other factors are involved.

As with De Sitter, they falsify BaTh as it stands. If
you want to come up with a new alternative then maybe
will have other problems, but as it stands at the
moment Sagnac and Shapiro both independently falsify
BaTh.

I have already suggested that BaTh applies 100% only in genuinely empty
space.

For Ritz's theory that would be true, speed equalisation
like a refractive index requires material.

I am also of the opinion that local EM FoRs are present wherever matter or
fields exist.

Still showing your ignorance Henry, a frame of reference
is purely a mathematical device for assigning coordinates.

I didn't say 'FoR'. I said an 'EM FoR'.
It's a physical entity not a mathematical one.

It is quite possible that there may be a compromise theory that might
explain
the intricacies of starlight movement and still accommodate some aspects
of
Einstein's modified aether theory.

I sense that you may be thinking along similar lines.

No, I'm thinking you have been corrected on most of the
string of stupid errors you made many times before and I
wonder how you can persist in making a fool of yourself
over and over again without leaving the group to avoid
further embarrassment. It's just one of life's little
mysteries.

Well I have now solved the Sagnac mystery.

As you know, specular reflection can be regarded a diffraction process with
reinforcement occuring at exactly the angle of incidence.
Now, you will see from my grating diagram that if the mirror is moving wrt the
source, the incident speed is c+v BUT THE REFLECTED SPEED IS probably 'c' or
thereabouts, wrt the mirror. Also the reflected angle will not be exactly the
incident one.
Applying this to Sagnac, it is easy to see that one beam ends up moving a lot
more slowly that the other. Hence the fringe shift.

The BaTh wins again.

I think you will also find that the equation governing fringe shift turns out
to be similar to the aether theory one.



George




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

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