Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 4 May 2007 14:38:09 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 4, 3:46 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 May 2007 01:41:03 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

I had another look Henry, it is a fake again! The top is a
cut-off ellipse and you have then drawn a number of dots along
the actual curve by hand.

Of course.

Show a screen capture from your program, state the orbital
parameters and _copy_ the curve onto a composite diagram like
mine showing both luminosity and velocity curves with the
correct relative phasing:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/EF_Dra.png

You are a charlatan Henry, a plain old fraud.

George, my diagram was never supposed to be accurate. It was
merely demonstrating the basic idea.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt to explain away your forged fit.

It wasn't a 'fit', as you call it, at all.
The only FIT around here is the one you are having...

It was just a rough diagram showing the phase of the brightness peak.

You people are really getting quite desperate.

(my hernia is not urgent. I can't even see a surgeon till June 14)


Jerry



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

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

On Fri, 4 May 2007 22:39:58 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 4 May 2007 01:41:03 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 4 May, 00:35, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

...

No George, have another look at:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdrag.jpg

The peak velocity curve is in phase with the peak brightness curve,
which in in
phase with hte eclipses.

I had another look Henry, it is a fake again! The top is a cut-off
ellipse and
you have then drawn a number of dots along the actual curve by hand.

Of course.

Show a screen capture from your program, state the orbital parameters
and
_copy_ the curve onto a composite diagram like mine showing both
luminosity
and velocity curves with the correct relative phasing:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/EF_Dra.png

You are a charlatan Henry, a plain old fraud.

George, my diagram was never supposed to be accurate. It was merely
demonstrating the basic idea.
I will make a more accurate one for you if you like.

Use your program. Set up orbital parameters that match
one of the velocity curves using the green curve (I know
it is supposed to be luminosity but it also matches
velocity with a different scale as we have discussed and
I guess you haven't added the "red curve" yet). The
luminosity variation will be small and the dips are due
solely to the eclipses.

Now adjust your speed equalisation distance until you get
the phase right relative to the eclipses which tell you
when the stars are on the LoS. You will find the effect
is pure VDoppler.

You're losing it George.
The EF Dra curve is that of a star in a small circular orbit. It is being
eclipsed by a large close and cool object (maybe even a gas cloud). The second
spectrum is just a reflection of the starlight by the WCH.


George




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

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

On 4 May 2007 15:10:13 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 4, 4:52 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007 13:58:52 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

http://ophelia.princeton.edu/~page/single_photon.html

There is no PM in this experiment.

Microchannel plates are photomultiplier arrays.

They accelerate the electrons.

Your electronics knowledge is VERY out of date.

We're talking about PMs not charge accelerators.


Jerry



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

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

George replied to Henry:

What makes a photon different from anything else
then George?

It has different intrinsic properties.

How can anything have 'intrinsic properties' (which can be
measured in 3space1time) if it doesn't have a 'structure'?

Consider some entity A. It is made of entities B and C.
A has properties which come from the properties of B
and C plus some influence from the relationship between
B and C. For example the mass of A might be the sum
of the masses of B and C plus the binding energy of the
pair. As you go down the scale, eventually you come to
something fundamental which is not composed of other
things, and yet it must have some properties of its own.

This idea has surely been expressed so many times that I
was hoping for a very refined, elegant exegesis. I'll
just add my own slap-dash, spur-of-the-moment examples.

A rectangle has no structure, yet has intrinsic properties
such as length, width, and area. A circle has no structure,
yet has intrinsic properties such as diameter, circumference,
and area. An electron has no structure, yet has intrinsic
properties such as mass, charge, and magnetic moment.

Of course that doesn't answer Henry's question. Things just
have intrinsic properties regardless of whether they have
any structure, so it isn't possible to say how that can be.

How can anything have fur if it doesn't have wheels?


When you calculate the probability of detection of a
photon at some location, there is a sine function in
that equation.

Oh crap. Probability theory doesn't work with sample
sizes of unity.

Location is a continuous variable. It is not possible to
calculate exactly where a photon will land given an
experimental setup, you can only calculate the probability
as a function of location. That is an intrinsic property of
all particles.

George, if a thousand bullets are fired at a target,
the way they are distributed around the bull follows an
established statistical law.

Yes, and that is true even if the gun is locked into position.

However, if single ONE bullet is fired at the target, it has
zero probability of landing anywhere other than at the point
where the gun was aimed. (please don't mention wind shear)

No, it has exactly the same probability of landing at any
location as each of the thousand.

Statistics is the most misinterpreted science of all....

Indeed, though your mistake above is less common than
others. The key here is that the probability for each
bullet is unaffected by the existence of any preceding
shot. It is similar to tossing an unbiassed coin, the
probability is 50:50 regardless of the outcome of
preceding tosses, only the variable is 2D real (location
on the target) rather than binary (heads or tails).

A sequence of binary coin tosses can generate a gaussian
probability distribution which describes the pattern of
bullet hits.

Henry will put forth a superficially plausible but
incorrect explanation for the many photon or electron
impacts in the images you linked to which are not in the
constructive areas of the interference patterns. You will
show him what is wrong with his explanation, and he will
defend it by telling you that you are wrong and modify his
explanation to make it work. You will show him why the
modification doesn't work, and he will respond again by
saying that he was mistaken, the modification wasn't
needed, his original explanation was correct.


the constancy of cepheid periods strongly suggests
some kind of connection with an orbit.

No, Cepheid variation is less stable.

So are many orbit periods.

No orbital periods are more stable and don't show the
discontinuous phase changes of Cepheids.

Was there supposed to be a comma after the "No" ?

Don't, stop! No, don't stop!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

Monochromatic light is made up of many identical photons, all with
intrinsic 'absolute wavelengths' of whatever the main beam exhibits.

An RF signal is made from many possibly varied photons, the intrinsic
wavelengths of which are not the same as the 'absolute wavelength' of
the signal.

The RF signal from a CW transmitter is monochromatic.


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news7bn33hpiiv00fsmjpqh053j3n5v280lja@
4ax.com:

A radio signal is a mixture in which groups of individual photons form sine
shaped 'bunches' which move along. ..somewhat like a water wave except the
photons move back and forth rather than up and down.

An unmodulated radio signal is monchromatic.
The photons are phase and frequency coherent.
The photons travel outward from the antenna.

This has given me an idea. Do the individual photons move or remain at
basically the same location?
I'll have to make an animation of this.

Photons move at c. They do NOT remain at the same location.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 4 May 2007 01:41:03 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 4 May, 00:35, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

...

No George, have another look at:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdrag.jpg

The peak velocity curve is in phase with the peak brightness curve,
which in in
phase with hte eclipses.

I had another look Henry, it is a fake again! The top is a cut-off
ellipse and
you have then drawn a number of dots along the actual curve by hand.

Of course.

Show a screen capture from your program, state the orbital parameters
and
_copy_ the curve onto a composite diagram like mine showing both
luminosity
and velocity curves with the correct relative phasing:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/EF_Dra.png

You are a charlatan Henry, a plain old fraud.

George, my diagram was never supposed to be accurate. It was merely
demonstrating the basic idea.
I will make a more accurate one for you if you like.

You have your program for precisely this purpose.
Use it to match the velocity curve of one star,
post a screengrab of the green curve and the
orbital parameters as you have before. Then add
180 to the yaw and scale the velocity to get the
second star and see if you can match its velocity
curve. Post that too. Then show how you take account
of the reductions due to eclipsing and show the total.
Don't sketch what you would like, instead plot the
sum using a spreadsheet or something similar.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 May 2007 13:58:52 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On 3 May 2007 02:58:34 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

[continued]



For an inertial source, the length of the photon is c/N. ...but for an
accelerating source, it is something different, the variation being a
function
of a, not v.

Right, Different waves in the packet therfore get different speeds
and the usual c+v bunching factor due to acceleration applies.

Initially that may be true...but I'm suggesting any such differences are
quickly dampened out and the photon settles down to a length that
reflects
its
average emission ACCELERATION.

And I agree, speed equalisation does precisely that.

Well that's settled then.

I didn't think it was ever disputed.

This would suggest that photon 'shrinkage' occurs only at origin
time....AND IT IS ACCELERATION DEPENDENT.

No, that contradicts what you just said.

Well it could go on for a little time after emission.

Yes, the speed equalisation distance that you already
include in your program.

No. The intra-photonic movement settles down long before the
inter-photonic
movement does.

(Note: two new Wilsonian terms)

Understood but pointless, they are the same thing.

But we don't agree that the rate within a photon is far greater than the
rate BETWEEN photons.

The rate is fixed by your speed equalisation factor.

The inside of a photon has completely different properties from the space
between photons. Why should the two be the same?

Space has only one set of properties. Ballistic theory
says the speed is c+v tending towards c and that theory
applies to all the waves in your photon packet.

Not entirely. The oscillations could be related to the orbiting of a
large
second body. ..after all the constancy of cepheid periods strongly
suggests
some kind of connection with an orbit.

No, Cepheid variation is less stable.

So are many orbit periods.

No orbital periods are more stable and don't show the
discontinuous phase changes of Cepheids.

There are plenty of complex orbit systems that would cause that effect.

Nope, you can't gete a nice consistent value for years
with step discontinuities.

There can also be a long term Vdoppler shift caused by a whole cepheid
system
being in a long period orbit around a galactic centre or similar.

Sure, proper motion is significant but again it cannot
produce phase steps.

Its huffing is
analogous to orbiting eccentrically as far as radial velocity is
concerned.
The BaTh DOES however provide a perfectly sound and accurate
expanation for the
brightness variation, something no other theory can do.

Rubbish, plasma theory shows how the opacity changes and
thermodynamics, radiation pressure and ordinary dynamics
(momentum) does the rest.

Well, I haven't found paper yet where the author claim to have found a
convincing link between huffing and brightness.

You would be better to look in a textbook.

ROFL, that's always your answer Henry, if you can't
cope, bury your head.

Burn the book.

Exactly :-)

A photomultiplier produces a flash for each photon, you should know
that. The basic physics is the photoelectric effect. An electron
ejected
by a photon creates a cascade that generates enough light on the
final phosphor to be measured.

A very sensitive PM might pick up single photons.

All PMs pick up single photons, that's their job!

Their main job is to amplify very weak light signals. A single photon
could barely be seen above the noise.

********, see these stills:

It's not ******** George. PMs were initially used to amplify very weak
light
signals.

The idea that individual detections "could barely
be seen above the noise" is ********, the detectors
are far less noisy than you imagine. That is obvious
in the stills.

The fact that the principle can be used to detect single photons is an
added
bonus.


http://ophelia.princeton.edu/~page/single_photon.html

There is no PM in this experiment.

"The Hamamatsu camera is a remarkable device. In
essence, it has two successive micro-channel
plates followed by a CCD chip."

What do you think that is then?

....
Of course, but it requires that the "wavelength" of a single photon
is the same as the macroscopic wave of which it is a part, hence
K=1.

Bull....

Plain bull!!!!

Required for self-consistency Henry, see the grating discussion above.

Not required at all. Explained above...

Sorry Henry, wittering about rubber cars or something
which conflicts with your own equations isn't an
"explanation".

It's a simple demonstration of the principle involved.

It doesn't demonstrate BaTh, but a self-contradictory
alternative. Just because you can write a story about
rubber cars, it doesn't mean translating it into a
picture of photons will work. In this case it doesn't.

Yes, so? What is the BaTh equation?

I don't knw....How long does the contact last?

So there you are you see, you don't have any equation so
you don't know whether speed appears in it or not.

The FREQUENCY of wavecrest arrival is what the BaTh uses.

You just said you didn't know what the equation is
Henry, you have no idea what it will use, and since
frequency is just speed / wavelength, any equation
that uses frequency can equally well be written
using speed and wavelength. You really need to find
out what your equation is before you make a bigger
fool of yourself.

I'm happy at this stage just to match brightness and velocity curves.

You can match the velocity curves and they are VDoppler dominated,
but you cannot match the luminosity curves without speeds greater
than c.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdrag/jpg...... The BaTh wins....

Faked, and still 45 degrees wrong, you can't even
cheat successfully.

George, so far you have been a great help to me. So much so I will give
you
quite a mention when I write all this up. It is now all coming together
nicely.

I just hope your desperation is not going to cause you to make stupid
elementary errors like this.

THE BLOODY BRIGHTNESS PEAK IS EXACTLY IN PHASE WITH THE CENTRE OF THE
ECLIPSE.

Yes, but the observed velocity peak is exactly between
the eclipses, and the period of the orbit is double
the period of the eclipses giving a 45 degree error.

Which is the BaTh prediction.

Wrong. If you had used you program instead of faking
your results, you would have found that yourself.

It is not contradictory ...

It is contradictory, it would have the same photons
landing in two different places.

Monochromatic light is made up of many identical photons, all with
intrinsic
'absolute wavelengths' of whatever the main beam exhibits.

Right, the 'wavelength' of the photons is what
determines the grating deflection angle.

An RF signal is made from many possibly varied photons, the intrinsic
wavelengths of which are not the same as the 'absolute wavelength' of the
signal.

Of course they are the same Henry. I think you are
confusing photon arrival rate with the intrinsic
properties. If you look at a dim light source and
you see one photon arriving per second on average,
that doesn't mean the light has a frquency of 1Hz.

You said above:

The FREQUENCY of wavecrest arrival is what the BaTh uses.

You can't seriously be trying to tell me you would
put 1Hz into the BaTh equation for the grating
deflection, are you? I certainly gave you credit
for more understanding than that. The grating
angle depends on the colour of the light, not how
many photons per second arrive.

Nope, the result would be an extreme broadening of spectral lines
which isn't displayed in any way.

Most is unified before it leaves the star's influence.

Try the sums. I think that's how the page on Sekerin gets
the speed equaisation distance of ~5 microns (from memory).
Certainly that would be "before it leaves the star's
influence." :-)

That's great!
It ensures that thermal molecular speeds are neutralised and that all
light
leaves the star at exactly c wrt that star.
Thanks again George.

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 ;-)

Speed equalization wasn't part of the theory he was commenting
on so he was right. AFAIK that bodge was added after he was dead
so he didn't comment on it at all.

Extinction refuted his arguments.

Extinction woluld not be required if his argument
was incorrect. He was right and Ritzian theory had
to be abandoned. Some cranks tried to add extinction
but it doesn't work.

De Sitter was wrong.. face it George.

He was right, or you wouldn't need extinction.

...and no other experiment refutes the BaTh.

Sagnac and Shapiro do.

I would also add that he probably used
grossly inflated velocity figures, based on VDoppler instead of
ADoppler.

I would also add that I have corrected you on that
stupid and uninformed statement three times now.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 May 2007 14:16:37 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


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

...

A photomultiplier produces a flash for each photon, you should know
that. The basic physics is the photoelectric effect. An electron
ejected
by a photon creates a cascade that generates enough light on the
final phosphor to be measured.

A very sensitive PM might pick up single photons.

All PMs pick up single photons, that's their job!

Their main job is to amplify very weak light signals. A single photon
could
barely be seen above the noise.

This is the experiment done with electrons rather than
photons but if you saw a video of the photon version
it would look exactly the same:

http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/doubleslit.cfm

Yes I'm familiar with that kind of result. De Broglie waves are quite
amazing
really. It shows that matter and 'fields' are not very far apart in
nature.

George, there is nothing here that surprises me. Single photons making up
a
monochromatic beam should have the same wavelength as the beam itself. The
beam
is just 'lots of them'.

Finally, you have cottoned on to what I have been
saying. In the experiment they used a current of
10 electrons per second. Obviously the diffraction
pattern is not what you would predict using a frequency
of 10Hz in your "grating equation". Each electron
behaves entirely independently of the others and
the pattern that builds up is controlled by the
intrinsic properties of an electron. If you use
the interference pattern via Huygens to work out a
wavelength, it is the wavelength of an electron that
you get, not the 29979245.8m wavelength that
corresponds to a frequency of 10Hz.

The site seemed slow and I had to download the movie
rather than view it on-line but it's worth a look so
that you understand the appearance of what we are
discussing. The regions where most photons land are
of course the same as the locations of the fringes
predicted by Huygens' method hence K=1.


that's good.

Incidentally, did you notice at the top it says

"This detector was specially modified for
electrons from the photon detector produced
by Hamamatsu Photonics (PIAS)."

It is just a photomultiplier with the front end
photoelectric element removed.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 May 2007 22:39:58 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On 4 May 2007 01:41:03 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 4 May, 00:35, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

...

No George, have another look at:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdrag.jpg

The peak velocity curve is in phase with the peak brightness curve,
which in in phase with hte eclipses.

I had another look Henry, it is a fake again! The top is a cut-off
ellipse and
you have then drawn a number of dots along the actual curve by hand.

Of course.

Show a screen capture from your program, state the orbital parameters
and
_copy_ the curve onto a composite diagram like mine showing both
luminosity
and velocity curves with the correct relative phasing:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/EF_Dra.png

You are a charlatan Henry, a plain old fraud.

George, my diagram was never supposed to be accurate. It was merely
demonstrating the basic idea.
I will make a more accurate one for you if you like.

Use your program. Set up orbital parameters that match
one of the velocity curves using the green curve (I know
it is supposed to be luminosity but it also matches
velocity with a different scale as we have discussed and
I guess you haven't added the "red curve" yet). The
luminosity variation will be small and the dips are due
solely to the eclipses.

Now adjust your speed equalisation distance until you get
the phase right relative to the eclipses which tell you
when the stars are on the LoS. You will find the effect
is pure VDoppler.

You're losing it George.

I'm not the one being forced to fake results.

The EF Dra curve is that of a star in a small circular orbit. It is being
eclipsed by a large close and cool object (maybe even a gas cloud). The
second
spectrum is just a reflection of the starlight by the WCH.

Sorry Henry, that's not possible, reflection cannot
provide enough light from the second source and the
mass ratio (from the velocity ratio) requires it to
be a star.

George