On 14 May 2007 10:29:17 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 13 May, 06:04, Jeff Root wrote:


Because I learned maths at a more advanced level than
you and can see that your claims are contradictory.

It does appear as if you are ignoring his springy photon
model and applying the math to a different model.

You're right, I am ignoring it. It isn't a question of
"applying the math to a different model", the math _is_
the model. What Henry is trying to do is use hand-waving
analogies to explain how photons can be springy but the
maths of the theory tells me that they aren't, it says
each wave of a burst initially travels at c+v and what
happens thereafter is a described by dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R.

That's the only 'model' that Henry has produced, and in
fact it was I who determined the second part for him.

All the stuff about cars and springs are just analogies,
teaching aids to try to explain the model, but the model
is actually the equations and the analogies are in
conflict with those so you have to make a choice.

The equations can be consistent with what we know of EM
signals, the analogies are not so that determines my
selection, and I ignore what he says that conflicts with
his theory.

No George, you ignore what conflicts with - ney, destroys - YOUR theory.

Individual photons are susceptible to ADoppler but to a far lesser extent than
the inter-movement between photons. Thus the ADoppler shifts can be larger or
smaller than the VDoppler ones, depending on the separations and masses of the
source star(s).

It's all so simple really.


George



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

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