On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:12:05 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 27 Sep, 22:55, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:16:58 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

explained by QED.

Oh crap.
Of course light exists is some form during its lifetime of travel.
That form can be described in terms of OUR physical 3D, 1T universe.
This is pure physics, not philosophy.

No, physics is about what can be measured so
by definition, what happens when it isn't
measured is not physics. What we can say is
that certain properties are conserved which
implies that they have the same values when
not being measured, but that is only an
implication, it cannot be confirmed obviously.

George, you've been in engineering too long....

The Einstein claim that all starlight in the universe travels miraculously at
exactly c wrt litlte planet Earth is philosophy....the fairyland type...

Of course, your pathetic strawman is pure
fairyland stuff. In the real world, SR says
the speed is c in _all_inertial_ frames, and
Earth isn't inertial, while there are an
infinite number of inertial frames.

SR is bull.
Sagnac proves that.

And I have explained that the phase difference
through the two light paths for a single photon
can only depend on the speed over the last few
wavelengths prior to the surface of the telescopes.
Any speed variations prior to that are common to
both paths since we are talking about just one
photon. There is no point in repeating what you
said when I have already told you why it does not
have any effect.

...and I have tried to explain to you that one photon cannot reveal anything
about any radius change.

And I have told you that it is the contrast ratio of
the overlapping interference patterns that is used
to determine the radius. Interference applies to
each photon individually so is unaffected by the
speed in space but it is the cumulative distribution
that gives us the information.

You can believe that if you want to



George, YOUR equation is trivial. The hard part is finding n(s) and r(s).

My equation is the one given by ballistic theory.
For n(s) and r(s) you need to look at material
science as well. For example to predict the
refractive index of diamond, you need to
understand the crystal structure, and that isn't
the province of your theory.

relate to actual situations so for example for
the pulsars we looked at, the value of n(s) is
measured using the frequency dependence. In
reality, r(s) cannot be measured since it
doesn't exist.

your opinion....

And that of all scientists, but it means you
can't find the work done for you, you need to
work it out yourself.

Time is not unlimited George.

We know the light will speed up if it is too slow
and slow down if it is too fast so if v is large,
the rate of change is negative while if the speed
is low the rate is positive. That means v enters
with a negative sign. The simplest form is first
order and that will be at worst an adequate
approximation as long as v c, and may be exact,
so the basic form must be:

dv/ds = A * (B - v)

..and dv/dt will also be = A * (B - v)
since vc.

Yes, and it would be a good excercise for you to
see if you can work ou why I chose to use dv/ds
instead of dv/dt. You'll need to learn some
calculus to do that.



Obviously n(s) and r(s) are much easier to consider as functions of distance,
rather than time.

Yes, that's one reason and perfectly valid, but
there is another that comes purely from calculus.
It's a bit more subtle and not a rigid requirement,
it just make life a bit easier.

Well naturally if you are dealing with functions of distance you wont try to
differentiate wrt time.



George, I have a mind that does these things automatically. I don't need any
equations until I get the model right.

The equations _are_ the model Henry, no equations
means no theory.

You being an engineer require an equation BEFORE you get the model right.
Physicists provide engineers with equations.

Exactly! So if you want to pretend you are a
physicist, _you_ should be providing _me_ with
rthe equations, not the other way round as it
is at the moment.

have a peek at these george: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg

hahahahahaha!

George, stop raving and derive n(s) and r(s) for the various situations please.

I have already given you the link to the dispersion
equation for n(s) from the Jodrell Bank site. There
is no equation for r(s) but if you remember we found
an upper value for the mean of r(s) from the pulsar
data. This is supposed to be your theory so you have
to write it yourself Henry, but I can tell you how I
would approach it if I were you.

There is NO clearcut equation for either.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pulsar/tuto...ut/node14.html

There are many different situations regarding the common EM sphere around
binary pairs.

I am talking about the ISM, not the region near
the star.

'Type 2' extinction ...or unification.

I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to describe what YOU are likening to a
refractive index, n(s), as something like: 1-n = (1-n(o)).K/(s^3)....but that
would be an oversimplification.

The equation is given on the page above.

r(s) would be hard to describe since it involves statistics. Light randomly
speeds up and slows down as it travels....
We can regrad the universe as being turbulent like any rare gas.
However, we can state that type(2) unification AFTER LEAVING THE STAR'S SPHERE
requires that c+v+u - c-v+u. in other words the v - zero with distance. After
unification, the velocity 'u' will also vary depending on the properties of the
particular region of space the light happens to be in.

The same applies within the sphere but you cannot
assume r(s) is constant. An equation deriving r(s)
from density could give you the overall formula by
noting that the stellar wind is likely to fall off
roughly as the inverse square (not quite since the
material is being slowed by gravity but good for
a first approximation).

There is an important point that I must enlarge upon. In the case of a long
period orbiting star, the sphere around that star moves pretty well in phase
with it. All light leaves the sphere at about c wrt the star's barycentre.
IFall the star's emitted light experiences a speed change in escaping from the
sphere (including the gravity field) that will merely show up as a component of
proper motion towards earth. The BaTh predicted brightness curve will not be
affected.
Get it?


To get r(s) finally, you need to work out the number
of such interactions per unit distance as a function
of the density in a similar fashion to the pulsar
formula I showed you for the refractive index.

This is still the 'refractive index' approach.

It is a particulate approach, nothing more.

I maintain that unification involves MORE than ordinary matter.

Typically the particles would be assumed to be
the species observed, mostly electrons, protons,
alpha particles etc. but there is no reason why
it shouldn't apply to particles other than
normal matter, all you need is the value of M
which is the coefficient of the momentum to
speed function for the particle.

I think there is a lot more to this than we know about at present.

If a photon is a discreet particle, it must interact with its surroundings in
order to change speed ...up or down...

Yep, and the above deals with any particulate
form of "surroundings".

I still like the idea that a photon is basically a rapidly rotating pair of
charges carving out a helix or some kind of spatial patern as they travel.
Polarization has to be explained though.

Polarisation is easy, your model is similar to a
conventional circularly polarised signal and two
can be combined to give linear polarisation. Where
you have a problem is conceptually since your are
trying to give a particle-based theory so there
are no fields, the photon _is_ the field, so you
end up with photons giving off photons, and
experimentally you have to explain why we cannot
detect the individual charges.

Well why don't you think positively about the theory instead of knocking it.
This is something like Len Gaasenbeek's helical wave photon idea, which you
might recall. Len seems to have left us...

There is a problem unfortunately, if you start with
Vi 0 (e.g. a "c-v" photon) then the particle moves
more slowly and the recoil means the same process
speeds up the photon as you want, however the particle
still gets a positive speed and the emitted photon has
speed c after the interaction. Solving that one is
your task, this is supposed to be your theory after all
so I can't do it all for you.

At least you are now trying rather than rejecting it outright....
Thanks George...

Oh I reject it outright of course, Sagnac proves
the whole idea is wrong from the start, but I am
happy to teach you how to do physics for yourself.

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

Hahahahohohoho!

WHO'S TEACHING WHO NOW GEORGE?

So the question is can you do the physics and solve
the problem? I have given you a hint, if you use
the same approach of breaking the equation down
logically as I did to write equation [3], you
will find the solution. The key is that you apply
the method to work out the equation for the
momentum of a photon as a function of its speed.
See if you can do it yourself this time, if not
I'll tell you the answer and show you how to do
it again.

I don't have time at present..

George

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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