On 7 May, 23:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 7 May 2007 09:55:54 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
....
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.

Maximum observed velocity is ~300km/s for contact binaries
or 0.1%c. That is also the catch-up ratio so the bunching is
asymptotic to reducing the spacing by 0.1% at most. Think
of your findings on the pulsars if you have trouble following
the logic.

....
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) ..

I've been too busy lately to look at it (we went away for short
holiday) but I might look at it again next weekend. I'm out or
tied up doing some private tutoring for the rest of this week.

.. you would soon see that (log) magnitude variations of
three or more can easily be achieved before peaks appear in the brightness
curves.

K=1 Henry.

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

See below, you haven't.

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.

Nicely put, the beginning, end and middle of each photon
move at (c+v)/10000 while the mean speed of the photon
is (c+v).

Henry, there is only _one_ equation for the speed in your
theory and it applies to _all_ parts so K=1.

You claimed elsewhere you knew how to use a Fourier
transform (which I doubt but never mind) so just apply
it to a pulse modulated carrier and see what you get
if you apply your Doppler equation to the components.
Reverse transform the frequency shifted elements to
get the received waveform as usual.

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 ...

a mathematical coordinate system with no physical existence
being used to defines locations and time of EM phenomena.

....
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

Yes, that's what I was looking for.

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

Yes, I was assuming the first order result in my other
replies too. In general the BaTh grating equation is:

N * lambda_r = D * sin(phi)


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.

Ah but you _claimed_ you had matched it, it is that dishonesty
that makes it a fake and you a fraud.

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....

... apart from the phase.

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.

Exactly, the only evidence you have from any actual
obervations is for VDopppler alone. That's what I have
been pointing out all along. All the luminosity variations
are known to have other mundane explanations and
there is _no_ evidence for the existence of ADoppler
whatsoever.

The movement BETWEEN photons continues for some
time.

Then each photon is moving at a mean different speed
from the speed of its parts which is nonsense, and if
you do a Fourier analysis you will find the modulation
of any wave will move at (c+v)/K when BaTh starts from
the assumption that it is (c+v). The result is self-
contradictory and therefore self-falsifying.

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.

BaTh as you have described it is a classical wave theory.


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.

Nope

lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

Otherwise it is the same as
the classical one.

It measures reflected wavelength specifically but otherwise
is the same as the classical equation.

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.

Actually no, there is just a carrier and a 'local oscillator'
but the key point is that the same mixing technique works
as well for light as it does for audio and RF.

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?

Variations in flux also apply to both.

How does one 'phase relate' photons anyway?

By making all the electrons in an antenna move in the
same direction at the same time, or by getting one
photon to prompt the emission of another in phase in
a laser.

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.

Then why are you unable to do the analysis of a pulse
modulated waveform that I suggested? It would solve
all these discussions at a stroke instead of arguing
about it for weeks as you have been.

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.

No, the term "frame of reference" means just a cooordinate
system.

It contains matter and fields
that define a macroscopic reference for velocity.

Then call it that, "matter" is an appropriate term.

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 ...

Nor will I if you stop getting it wrong, it is only jargon,
not physics.

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.

Frame of reference is mathematical only, matter is what
you mean.

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.

You have forgotten we discussed this years ago (Feb 2004!)

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif

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

No. the source is moving so the speed wrt the lab is c+v but
the mirror is also moving at the same speed so the speed
relative to the mirror is exactly c, the picture is symmetrical.

BUT THE REFLECTED SPEED IS probably 'c' or
thereabouts, wrt the mirror.

Exactly c whether you say it is always c on re-emission or
the same as the incident speed or if c+u is any other first
order function of c+v.

Also the reflected angle will not be exactly the
incident one.

Wrong again, since incident and reflected speeds are the
same, the angles are also the same.

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.

ROFL, you didn't even do the calculation, you got all
the assumptions wrong, and then you claim a win.
Henry, you didn't even enter the contest.

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

Nope, ballistic theory says there should be no fringe
shift whatsoever as we proved with your diagram and
my algebra:

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif

Remember that? You drew it and I just fixed a minor
error. The original might still be on your site somewhere
and the algebra is on Google.

George