On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:36:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

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.

No, the second reason is that it makes it easier to
solve the equation analytically using "integration
by substitution". Remember that from school Henry?





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!

Yes, that was my reaction, you got it wrong again.

Then have a peek at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg


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.

"Speed unification", extinction is something
completely different.

Not terribly different...but I prefer 'unification'

...but your equation applies more to conventional extinction.


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?

Yes, the concept has no effect, as I told you when
you first suggested it.

Now stop stalling and work out the formula for r(s).

George I have been too busy over the last couple of days proving Einstein wrong
yet again.
Sagnac Effect has nothing whatsoever to do with relativity. It is a purely
ballistic phenomenon.



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

I think you are incapable of writing down a simple
piece of algebra and are looking for excuses.

George I've just produced a few lines of algebra that make you and your
colleagues look completely stupid.

You have been completely wrong about Sagnac. ..... why should anything else
you say have any credibility?


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.

Because your suggestion is nothing new, virtually a
copy of conventional physics.

there isn't any conventional theory about the structure of a photon.


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!

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...wavelength.png

WHO'S TEACHING WHO NOW GEORGE?

I am teaching you.

See how ring gyros work according to BaTh 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..

It would take minutes, you are incapable.

My time is valuable.
After all, I'm the person who proved Einsteinand all his followers wrong with a
simple .jpg image.

George


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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