Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:05:10 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

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.

Yes George, that isn't surprising. The thing is diffracting the De Broglie
waves of the electrons...whatever they might be.

Now try diffracting a 30000 hz radio wave. It WILL use the corresponding
wavelength.

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.

It detects single electrons, not single photons...


George





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

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

On 4 May 2007 15:54:43 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

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.

Pathetic!!!!

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?

Pathetic!!!!


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.

Yes we all know that.


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.

Don't lie...

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" ?

Of course....

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

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis



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

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

On Sat, 05 May 2007 23:48:29 +0200, YBM wrote:

Henri Wilson a écrit :
Here is the combined curve of both stars (without the eclipse)

the details are shown.

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

You could, even if getting worse in physics and general computing, improve
your GUI programing.

Shut up Moron....



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

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

On Sat, 5 May 2007 22:02:21 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:36:57 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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.

the signals might be but what of the photons that make up the signal?

They are phase and frequency coherent, just like photons from a laser.

Better actually than most lasers as most have some multimode contributions
to their output.


I don't think you really know...



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

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

On 5 May 2007 02:02:47 -0700, George Dishman wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 4 May 2007 04:03:17 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

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.

I think you just enjoy arguing, George.

Probably, but what I said is still valid. I expected
you to reply that an electron is a fundamental particle
yet string theory says it has structure - a ring of
energy. My reply would be that "ring-like" is a property
rather than indicative of construction from lesser items.
Quite often I feel words can be ambiguous and exploring
alternative meanings for, in this case, "structure" can
be useful in clarifying what we mean.

Theories, theories....nobody really knows....



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.

No it doesn't!!!!!!

Yes it does, that is basic probability theory.

Probability is not a cause of anything. It's a result.

Nobody said anything about probability being causal.

George, like many others, you are completely misinterpreting the role of
statistics, which is a science dealing with the outcome of multiple events.
Mathematics, on the other hand, is designed to analyse or predict single
events.

All those bullets that were normally distributed around the bull landed
exactly
where they did for purely physical reasons.
Where the bullet will strike is precisely determined BEFORE it is fired.
Even
factors like the nerve movements of the shooter and the wind movements are
precisely predetermined. There is no way anyone could produce a
mathematical
model to predict the outcome but it is still theoretically possible.

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

Indeed, though your mistake above is less common than
others. The key here is that the pprobability for each bullet
is unaffected by the existence of any preceding shot.

That is not related to my statement.

You said that a thosand bullets would be spread but a
single bullet would not, hence the implication is that
the first bullet always goes where it is aimed and
subsequent bullets go elsewhere because of the previous
one(s). That is not the case, the first bullet has as
much chance of landing at some off-centre point as any
other.

You can say that BEFORE the bullet is fired...because the conditions that cause
the bullet to land where it does are random.
However, that does not alter the fact that each bullet hits where it does for
specific physical reasons that are theoretically capable of being
mathematically analysed and explained.

Whether or not true randomicity exists is a big question.

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).

Yes I know that George.

Then why did you say "No it doesn't!!!!!!" ?

The bullet is destined to hit exactly where it does from the moment it is
fired. Chance doesn't enter into it...


If you drop a thousand ball bearings on the floor they will end up
normally
distributed around the centre....BUT that does not alter the fact thta
there
was a precise physical reason why every one came to rest right where it
did.

Mostly, the scatter is dominated by slight variations at
the macroscopic level, but a small amount of uncertainty
is also an intrinsic property of any individual particle
so if you repeat that with electrons there is a lower
limit of spread beyond that from the lack of perfect
knowledge. Einstein didn't like that but it has been
proven experimentally beyond any doubt. Newton's clockwork
and fully deterministic universe isn't ours.

Nobody has demonstrated that true randomicty exists, at any level.


Just the aggregate,

The way I see it is that a monochromatic beam is just a large number of
identical photons with that particular 'wavelength'.

Yes. A grating deflects an individual photon depending on
the colour of that beam, not the rate at which photons
arrive. I'm thinking of say a dim red laser with a flux
of a few photons per minute. Like the coin tosses, each
one is deflected purely on its intrinsic properties.

If all the photons are identical, should they all be deflected by the same
amount?

I would like to think that the diffraction angle depends on the actual phase of
the photon's INTRINSIC oscillation when it strikes the grating..

White light is a mixture.

Yes. When it hits a grating each photon deflects depending
only on its own properties and not the properties of other
photons that arrive some seconds earlier or later.

yes. That would have to be right.

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.

No, radio is no different to light, it just has much lower
energy per photon.

I don't agree with this at all...and I don't think many others would either.

Consider microwaves hitting a wire grid.
Each photon in the wave is deflected by an angle that depends
only on its own properties independent of any others.

But there is also a second diffraction based on the microwave 'wavelength'.


Sure, I expect the formula to be different in BaTh, but
the argument still holds, that energy is deposited where
the photon lands, not somehwere else.

That's probably OK for monochromatic light but you can't deduce that the
same
will apply to, say, RF.

They are both just EM, all the rules must apply to everything
from ELF at a few Hz up to gamma rays.

Sorry George, I cannot imagine a single photon that is maybe 1 lightsecond in
length and expands as a radio signal diverges. Do you think it expands forever?

You see, I believe that eventually EM beams become so weak due to square law
divergence that genuine 'nothing' appears between individual photons and their
fields. That's why I invented Wilsonian nort-holes.


This argument is not about how gratings behave according to BaTh.

Of course it is.

The BaTh doesn't need gratings to verify it.

BaTh needs a version of the grating equation. Working
that out will tell you about the rules for dealing with
reflection in BaTh which is something you currently don't
know. Once you do that you could apply it to Sagnac's
experiment without having to assume all the mirrors are
at the same radius as you do at present.

I believe the sagnac effect is due to an entirely different factor...such as a
local EM frame that behaves like an aether.
I'm starting to think that local EM reference frames are everywhere around us,
....inside accelerators, etc....

The BaTh only holds 100% in truly empty space.

Water waves carry longitudinal energy...but the individual molecules go
up and
down. Their vertical KE is NOT what is carried with the wave.

The wave energy is deposited where the waves lap the shore,
not somewhere else.

But the energy of the vertically oscillating water molecules is
continuously
being dampened out and absorbed as heat in the ocean.

Yes, and the heat is deposited at the location of the
wave, not elsewhere.

Underneath a traveling water wave, the individual molecules move in roughly
elliptical orbits....which accounts for the macroscopic movement of water and
energy. ...but the molecules move laterally far less than the wave crests.
CMIIW..



Wavelength and/or frequency.

Since nobody has a clue what photon 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually
signify, that is a pretty meaningless statement.

Speak for yourself.

Come on George, you don't have any kind of model for a photon. You think it's
just a couple of sinewaves drawn at right angles on paper.


I think when the charge is taken to some destination, the car
also arrives at the same place. You can't send the car to
Boston and have the charge arrive in Cairo which is what you
are suggesting. Beyond that discussions of their length are
irrelevant, the length has no analog in the photon.

How do you know.

Because your suggestion is equivalent to saying the heat
produced by friction in an ocean wave can be deposited
inland.

George, you know how water waves can be diffracted, for instance by a row of
vertical bars.
Do you really believe that the water molecules that go up and down near the
bars are the ones that end up making the diffraction pattern maybe 100 metres
away?

Henry, I think we have maybe got a handle on this, in
your grating equation if you have red laser light
arriving at a level of one photon per second, would you
use the frequency of the red light or the 1Hz rate of
one photon per second to work out the deflection angle.
I say it is that of the light regardless of the arrival
rate, you are telling me the wave energy goes to one
place at an angle determined by the 1Hz figure while
the photons themselves go to the location given by the
red light frequency.

the should be another very weak energy build up where the 1 hz is diffracted.
How about modifying your experiment to make the 1 Hz sinusoidal.

The concept matches the data very well.

It makes no sense though, how can the energy go anywhere
other than where the photons go?

Strange things happen.


George




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

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

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:48:14 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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.

Have you ever trapped an individual RF photon?

Yep. (prove me wrong!)

RF tank circuit ?

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.

Wrt what?

Any inertial FoR in SR,

Right, of course.

the source [and very quickly any inertial FoR] in
the ballistic theory of light,

In Ritz's ballistic theory, just the source.

In the modified with speed equalisation ('extinction'
as Henry ignorantly calls it), initially the source
and asymptotically wrt the material that defines the
refractive index of the region through which the light
is passing.

and in the Wilson Aether in Henri's BaTh
tub.

In generally, wrt to whatever he wants in his current
post regardless of what it was yesterday.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:22:29 +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.

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.

Here is the combined curve of both stars (without the eclipse)

the details are shown.

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

Which part of "match the velocity curve" did you
miss?

The luminosity variations are purely due to the
eclipses so match the velocity knowing your zero
phase corresponds to the eclipse centres and then
alter the distance. For a small value you will get
a match. As you increase the distance and ADoppler
starts to contribute, the first consequence will be
a shift of phase away from the match. As I said
before, you can try changing yaw and eccentricity
but I think you'll find it distorts the sine curve
too quickly to allow a significant amount of ADoppler.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:50:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

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.

George, why don't you accept the fact that even today, nobody has the
faintest
idea of what a photon actually is.

Henry, why don't you just accept that photons from
a laser deflect by an angle determined by the colour
of the light and not the time between photon arrivals,
you did in a second post and disagreed in a third.

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.

George, when you talk about the speed of anything you must always provide
a
reference. You should know that by now.

Are you denying ballistic theory says the speed is
c+v relative to the source? Are you denying it says
the speed is asymptotic to c/n relative to a medium
where n is the refractive index of that medium? I'm
just applying your theory consistently.

Ballistic theory says the speed of EM is INITIALLY c wrt its source and
c+v wrt
an object moving at -v wrt the source...

Refuted by De Sitter's argument.

... what happens to the light during
travel is not really part of the basic theory although we now suspect that
it
experiences speed changes and speed unification....

If it isn't part of your theory, it fails, we should see
multiple images.

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.

George, our own sun moves in a complex orbit around its barycentre with
all the
planets. Those small anomalies would show up in its brightness curve 50000
LYs
away.

Yes, and they would be smooth changes indicative
of Keplerian orbits. Cepheids show non-Keplerian
changes.

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.

They are not very common. ...

True but they exist falsifying your hypothesis.

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.

They aren't photons. They're electrons..

Yes, and that is how PM tubes work (at least early
ones). The stills _are_ a converted PM detector and
if there was a high noise level it would be visible
in the photographs.

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?

It accelerates single electrons, emitting photon bursts. These are what
the
thing sees.

Yes, and in a photo-multiplier the first electron
is emitted by the photo-electric effect. The whole
amplification and detection process is identical.
It is in fact an actual PM camera with just the
front end removed so you can see the noise level
for yourself.

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.

George, you keep telling me I have to match observed data.

A theory is required to be self-consistent as well as
matching the data.

If I assume K is 1, nothing matches.

The velocities do. The luminosity is then seen to be
intrinsic in eclipsing binaries and Cepheids. A small
value of 'extinction' distance is required for EF Dra
and the pulsars which is entirely consistent. Your
theory survives all these tests but in every case where
we can tell (there's no phase reference for Cepheids)
only VDoppler can be seen.

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.

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.

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.

George, I can say whatever I like and you can't prove me wrong.

Yes I can if what you say conflicts with what you say,
one or the other is wrong. Either you know frequency is
the independent variable in the equation or you don't
know what the equation is, both cannot be true.

Nobody has
moved a grating in remote space ...

Itrrelevant, what equation for aa grating deflection
angle is derived from the BaTh basic equations by pure
maths?

....
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.

Oh, Ok. I wasn't looking at that.

OK, you need to have a more detailed look. It isn't
trivial.

Yes that's interesting...and backs up my theory that unification is pretty
quick near short period binaries and also that K 1.
It means there is still enough ADoppler to account for the brightness
variation
although the individual photons are essentially VDoppler shifted.

I doubt it, but remember the eclipses will fully
explain the luminosity anyway so you don't need
to worry about matching that curve at all, only
the velocity curves. The spectral shift is the
same no matter if part of the star is hidden as
long as there is enough light to measure.

Which is the BaTh prediction.

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

Well you can see a better curve now.

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

As I write it still matches the luminosity instead of
the velocities.

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.

...and that 'wavelength' cannot possibly change just because the GRATING
moves.

I have explained several times why BaTh says it
_can_ change. You need to do the derivation to
find out if it predicts that it does.

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.

That's OK for light....but not for generated radio waves.

Both are EM, any theory must be equally aplplicable to
both.

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.

So what's the difference George? Are you going to offer any suggestions?

None, both consist of a flux of many photons.

Tell me, what is the relationship between an constant RF sine wave and a
photon?

Same as for a mono-mode laser, bz has told you already
so I won't repeat it.

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 ;-)

That's c wrt the star George.

It is c wrt to the material with which it is interacting
to cause the speed change Henry, otherwise you cannot
transfer the energy and momentum to maintain conservation.

However, I agree, it also appears to quite rapidly approach 'c' wrt the
BARYCENTRE of the pair in the case of pulsars and short period binaries.

This again raises the question, "how and why does unification rate depend
on
period?"

I have answered that before in some detail twice but
it is a subtle point and you didn't really follow it.
Basically it shows the theory is unlikely to be true
because it requires a remarkable coincidence between
your pitch factor and the peak orbital acceleration.

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.

I can live with extinction. De Sitter couldn't.

He didn't have to, it had to be invented as a result
of his falsification of Ritz's theory.

...and no other experiment refutes the BaTh.

Sagnac and Shapiro do.

Other factors are involved.

As with De Sitter, they falsify BaTh as it stands. If
you want to come up with a new alternative then maybe
will have other problems, but as it stands at the
moment Sagnac and Shapiro both independently falsify
BaTh.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:48:14 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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.

Have you ever trapped an individual RF photon?

Yep. (prove me wrong!)

RF tank circuit ?

Tanks for proving me right!


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.

Wrt what?

Any inertial FoR in SR,

Right, of course.

the source [and very quickly any inertial FoR] in
the ballistic theory of light,

In Ritz's ballistic theory, just the source.

Correct. But Ritz's theory is on the fritz due to the lack of multiple
images of distant stars.


In the modified with speed equalisation ('extinction'
as Henry ignorantly calls it), initially the source
and asymptotically wrt the material that defines the
refractive index of the region through which the light
is passing.

and in the Wilson Aether in Henri's BaTh
tub.

In generally, wrt to whatever he wants in his current
post regardless of what it was yesterday.

Yep. His inconsistancy is constant.



--
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

In sci.physics.relativity, bz

wrote
on Sun, 6 May 2007 14:52:43 +0000 (UTC)
39:
"George Dishman" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:48:14 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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.

Have you ever trapped an individual RF photon?

Yep. (prove me wrong!)

RF tank circuit ?

Tanks for proving me right!

It would be a *very* small tank. A light quantum is on
the order of 2.5 eV. A microwave photon 1/2 cm in wavelength
would be about a million times less energetic.



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.

Wrt what?

Any inertial FoR in SR,

Right, of course.

the source [and very quickly any inertial FoR] in
the ballistic theory of light,

In Ritz's ballistic theory, just the source.

Correct. But Ritz's theory is on the fritz due to the lack of multiple
images of distant stars.

Not to mention it doesn't explain the brightness versus time curve of
most novae and supernovae.



In the modified with speed equalisation ('extinction'
as Henry ignorantly calls it), initially the source
and asymptotically wrt the material that defines the
refractive index of the region through which the light
is passing.

and in the Wilson Aether in Henri's BaTh
tub.

In generally, wrt to whatever he wants in his current
post regardless of what it was yesterday.

Yep. His inconsistancy is constant.



--
#191,
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com