On 9 May, 00:19, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 8 May 2007 01:39:46 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
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.

That's only the VDoppler component.

No, it is TDoppler. How many times do I have to correct you
on that?

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).

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

I think you meant c+(v/10000)....but it doesn't even do that for very long.

I meant (c+v)/10000 but c+(v/10000) is also possible, your
theory is self-contradictory which means if I assume c+v I
can use it to prove (c+v)/10000 or vice versa or maybe that
black is white. The trouble with self-contradictory theories
is that they produce results that violate their own postulates
so the number you get depends on what route you take.

The
whole photon settles down to a fixed length that is shorter than when it was
emitted by L'=Le(1-Ka), where a is the radial acceleration of the source at the
point of emission.

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

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

No Henry, you just don't understand how physical laws can be
used as tools so that one assumption, say c+v, leads to other
conclusions like te Doppler equation by purely mathematical
means.

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.

An individual photon has intrinsic properties that are not part of the group
bunching process. Hiwever it is still subject to ADoppler, in a small way.

It's all so simple if you open up your mind George.

Of course I can believe in anything if I allow for fantasies
but raw maths rules out your handwaving crap and this is
a science group, not sci-fi.

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.

It ''''loosely''''' defines EM speed in that FoR

No, I can describe the speed of light in my office using a
coordinate system centred on the barycentre of the Bullet
Cluster, but the cluster does not define the speed in any
way whatsoever.

....
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)

Why do you want to use lamba_r?

Henry, do you understand what it means to put a variable
on the left hand side of an equation? Perhaps I should have
written it as:

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

but I kept it similar to yours to help you follow. I am only
"using" D and phi, both of which I can measure. lambda_r is
the result.

You don't know what its value is unless you
know the reflected light speed exactly. ..but you know lambda_i because it's is
absolute and universal.

Wrong, measuring D, the grating spacing, and phi, the
deflection angle, tells me lambda_r. I know nothing more
than that. You certainly don't know lambda_i because that
depends on the source, gravitational redshift, cosmogical
redshift, speed equalisation, material conditions and
magnetic fields in the source and so on.

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.

No George, you aren't even trying to pass the test. ...

Correct, that is basic logic. If you want to prove ADoppler exists
you have to show that a result could _not_ be explained by an
alternative. The luminosity curves you have suggested can be
explained by intrinsic variability in Cepheids and by eclipses in
contact binaries so you have no proof.

....
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.

It isn't nonsense, George.

It is nonsense Henry, do a Fourier analysis if you
doubt me, you claimed you knew how to do that.

It is merely the mechanism of 'bunching', which you
illustrated yourself.

The bunching is valid and produces ADopppler as well as
VDoppler, but you will find it must apply at the same
level to pulses and cycles of a sine wave if you use a
Fourier analysis. That means K=1.

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.

The group movenent of photons IS ballistic.

Yes, and ballistics is classical.

What happens inside individual
photons is also ballistic but to a much smaller and limited extent.

Your "photons" are classical wavetrains, not point particles.

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)

Incident light speed is prsent in 'lambda_r', George.

lambda_r has units of length Henry, don't be an idiot.

Lambda_r=lambda_i.(c+u/(c+v)), assuming light leaves the grating at c+u.

lambda_r is what is measured by the grating. That may imply
other things _IF_ you make _ASSUMPTIONS_ but lambda_r is
the only quantity that is actually measured.

Otherwise it is the same as
the classical one.

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

No it doesn't.

Yes it does Henry, your previous guesses were wrong.

It measures the time ...

D * sin(phi) / N does not have units of time Henry.

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.

Some people have recently claimed that this is true.

This has been the basis of instruments for many years, you
are way out of date again.

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.

Doesn't each electron emit a stream of photons as it accelerates George?

Since all the electrons move together under the influence
of the signal applied to the antenna, they emit in phase.

Come on!..., you don't know what happens to photons in a radio wave.

Exactly the same as light Henry.

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.

Because individual photons are particle-like and what happens inside them
doesn't influence the bunching process at all.

Your model is classical waves, not point particles, but you
don't even need that, just apply Fourier to the macroscopic
sum of the photons which is a clasical wave travelling at
c+v.

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.

It isn't just 'matter'. What is matter anyway?

Then call it the aether, whatever, "frame of reference" has an
entirely different meaning.

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.

You're unusually stubborn today George.

You arethe one continually causing confusion by insisting on
being wrong Henry, why do you stubbornly persist in saying
"frame of reference" when you know it means something
completely different to what you are trying to describe?

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

Not this one...it's physical...

Still stubbornly insisting on being wrong Henry, why
don't you grow up a bit.

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
....
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.
....
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.

But the reflected and incident speeds are NOT the same..

See above, both are c.

....
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.

Have another think about it George.

No need, we discussed this to death three years ago and you
discovered I was right, the diagram is still there.

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.

it's wrong.

You drew it, it is correct and you agreed the algebra. Repeat
the analysis if you wish, it's only maths so you will get the
same result.

Essentially what happens is that one beam moves around the ring at c+v/root2
and the other at c-v/root2 (wrt the non-rotating frame)...
The small difference in path length doesn't compensate for the difference in
travel times..

Do the algebra Henry, we showed the compensation
was exact including the "root2" factor.

George