Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

The Ghost In The Machine wrote in
:

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.

I think you mean that even a small tank could hold a LOT of photons.
(tank circuit, of course)

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.

Yep and a 50 KHz signal (Very low frequency, very long wave), 5.996 km
wavelength, has an energy of 2 x 10^-10 eV. Kind of hard to detect a single
photon of that energy.


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.

Good point. The peak should be much sharper and there should be a long tail
with red shifted doppler from the gases expelled away from us.

_most_???? Is it consistent with ANY?



--
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 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....

I see you still haven't learned what the word theory
means in science.

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.

Henry, I'm not talking about statistics, I'm talking
about probability. There is a subtle distinction.

Mathematics, on the other hand, is designed to analyse or predict single
events.

Maybe you should study probability a bit before
trying to discuss it.

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.

No, it's not a question at all, it is proven beyond
any doubt.

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...

Not true I'm afraid, but it doesn't alter the fact that
you said "No it doesn't" in one case and "Yes I know
that" a few lines later. It's hard to discuss anything
when you can't even express a consistent view in a single
post.

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.

Sorry Henry, your decades out of date again.

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?

To within the intrinsic uncertainty of the energy property.
That means there is a fundamental lower limit to line width.
You can think of that either as the (gaussian) spectrum of
the line showing the power in each frequency that you get
from a Fourier transform of the received sine wave or as a
histogram of the photon energies (which will produce a small
spread of deflection angles) or by transforming to the time
domain as the phase jitter on the RF sine wave. They are all
just different coneptual models of the same feature.

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..

Frequency (or equivalently wavelength), not phase.

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.

Excellent. That is a major agreement Henry.

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.

I'm afraid you are wrong on that, there might be a few
cranks around who would dispute it but it has been
known in scientific circles for well over a century.

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'.

Same thing.

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?

Photons are particles Henry. Look at the example I gave
of the sodium doublet. The line width has to be less than
6A while the mean wavelength is 5893A. The Zeeman effect
produces individual lines with far smaller spacing. A line
of 5893A wavelength and width of 0.003A must contain more
than 1.7 million cycles so would be more than 1 light
second long in a classical wave model, yet it is absorbed
instantly by a single electron in the photo-electric effect.

Photons are particles and energy is an intrinsic property.
The probability of a single photon being measured at some
location after deflection from a grating depends on the
energy, and the maths that describes that dependence
includes a sine function which is related to energy.
Planck's constant allows us to express the energy in the
classical "frequency" concept which can then be used in
the maths.

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.

"Field" is just a name for the statistical summed effect
of many photons, there is nothing between them.

That's why I invented Wilsonian nort-holes.

Everyone else calls it the vaccuum through which the photons
move.

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 don't care what you belive, it is a fact that the measued
speed is independent of the speed of the source.

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.

Even the IGM isn't "truly empty" so basically you
are simply back to LET to explain both the MMX and
Sagnac.

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..

Sure but a wave on the sea moves the sand on the shore,
it doesn't deposit its energy a mile inland.

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.

No, I think it is a fundamental particle like an electron
which has the property of carrying energy (and others).

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.

Yes, and the energy of the waves is then carried in
another direction to be deposited where the waves go.

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?

No Henry, exactly my point. That is what you are telling
me, that the grating angle for the wave is not the same
as that for the photons composing the wave.

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.

How about you calculate how much energy BaTh says is in
this extra mode you have invented. For a fairly bright
source with random arrival times (e.g. a sodium lamp
where the photons are emitted thermally) there should
be a background continuum under the lines. Make your
prediction of that level and then research the literature.

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.

Perhaps, but for your bizarre idea to 'match the data
very well' requires _all_ the energy to go where the
1Hz deflection predicts and none to go with the photons.
As I said, it makes no sense.

George

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

Yep, exactly the same, but in your other post you
claim there should be some energy deposuted from
the electron beam at the angle corresponding to
10Hz even though all the electrons go where the
De Broglie wavelength says they should.

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...

Henry, it_IS_ a PM tube but without the photoelectric
emitter on the front which of course ejects one electron
per photon. How did you think a PM worked?

George

In sci.physics.relativity, bz

wrote
on Sun, 6 May 2007 17:07:40 +0000 (UTC)
9:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in
:

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.

I think you mean that even a small tank could hold a LOT of photons.
(tank circuit, of course)

I was assuming one wanted a tank circuit to hold a single photon. ;-)


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.

Yep and a 50 KHz signal (Very low frequency, very long wave), 5.996 km
wavelength, has an energy of 2 x 10^-10 eV. Kind of hard to detect a single
photon of that energy.


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.

Good point. The peak should be much sharper and there should be a long tail
with red shifted doppler from the gases expelled away from us.

_most_???? Is it consistent with ANY?


AQL1493 has a rather peculiar single U-shaped anomaly.
Androcles occasionally touts this as proof of something.
I don't have an explanation; it's rather inconclusive to
me personally. I suspect something else, but what it is,
I don't know.

As it is, my computations assuming Newtonia on supernovae
suggest that the peak would be very rounded; the photons
from the leading edge of the exploding sphere would reach
us first, with low but growing luminosity. The maximum
would be at the point where the light from the gases
from the cross-section of the star perpendicular to our
view line -- which is travelling at c relative to us --
reaches us. The brightness would then taper off, in a manner
much like the brightness increase, maybe a bit slower
since 1.0/.9 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.0/1.1 .

Since at least one measurement suggests an explosion speed
of 1/10 c, one can perform these calculations without much
difficulty, and the results would depend on distance.

--
#191,
GNU and improved.

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

The Ghost In The Machine wrote in
news
RF tank circuit ?

Tanks for proving me right!

It would be a *very* small tank.

I think you mean that even a small tank could hold a LOT of photons.
(tank circuit, of course)

I was assuming one wanted a tank circuit to hold a single photon. ;-)

It is not the physical size, but the Q that would be important for holding
[the energy of] a single photon. You would want VERY low losses which would
imply a very high Q. That implies close matching between the photon's
frequency and the resonance of the tank.

The use of super conducting material and a temperature close to 0k would
make the capture and detection more feasable.




--
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

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in
news
RF tank circuit ?

Tanks for proving me right!

It would be a *very* small tank.

I think you mean that even a small tank could hold a LOT of photons.
(tank circuit, of course)

I was assuming one wanted a tank circuit to hold a single photon. ;-)

It is not the physical size, but the Q that would be important for holding
[the energy of] a single photon. You would want VERY low losses which
would
imply a very high Q. That implies close matching between the photon's
frequency and the resonance of the tank.

The use of super conducting material and a temperature close to 0k would
make the capture and detection more feasable.

I am assuming quantisation would show as discrete steps
in the tank voltage at very low levels. A higher Q would
increase the lifetime of each photon and the time between
steps as the energy decayed. To detect a trapped single
photon, the mean thermal noise needs to be below the
photon energy so that the tank would randomly have zero
or one photon in it, and very occasionally more than one.

Incidentally would the minimum energy be half the quantum
level? I seem to remember from my QM courses many years
ago that the levels for a tank are h.nu.(n+1/2) for
n=0,1,2,...

George

On Sun, 6 May 2007 13:06:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

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.

I distinguish between waves that are intrinsic to individual photons and waves
made from density distributions in large groups of photons.

George, when signals are sent through optical fibres, how are they modulated?
You should know that the 'carrier light' can have a wide range of wavelengths
and still do the job.

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?


You didn't mean that, I hope. You meant 'c relative to the source, c+v relative
to the observer'.

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.

I'm not denying that.... but strees that light entering such a medium might
never get even close to c/n (wrt the medium frame) before it passes right
through..

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.

Not refuted by DeSitters wrong 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.

That idea was thrown out years ago.
Unification takes care of multiple imagery. No star light seems to ever
overtakes other light....but there might be instances where it does.

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.

they don't. Their curves are quite Keplerian. Even B type Cepheids exhibit
brightness curves that are fully in accord with Keplerian binary systems.

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.

They don't falsify it at all. The motions are obviously complex. Other bodies
and factors are involved.



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 theory says a photon (or several) knocks a single electron out of an atom.
The electron is then accelerated, causing an avalanche that is visually
recordable.

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.

In any case, you aren't 'seeing' a single photon. You are merely verifying that
an electron can be released by one.



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.

George, if it weren't for the fact that a great many brightness curves can be
matched with BaTh, I would take the easy way out and probably agree with you.
However, since logic tells us that there is no mechanism outside of fairyland
which would cause all starlight in the universe to travel towards little planet
Earth at precisely c, and since I CAN match brightness curves very nicely, I
will prefer to continue along my present very interesting and fruitful path.

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.

It isn't. It can have a value of 10000 and not dominate VDoppler. ..but
ADoppler will still dominate as far as brightness is concerned becasue the
10000 is not instrumental in the bunching procedure.

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.

I now consider that Labs create and constitute their own strong EM FoRs.


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 will soon produce the relevant diagram for htis.
It should be pretty obvious.



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.

No, it certainly isn't.
I just hadn't gotten around to it.

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.

The curves don't really tell us much because there are only a few points to go
on.

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.

Yes. K is obviously large for close binaries...but not so large for cepheids.



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.

BaTh says the difraction angles are sensitive to 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
I will illustrate the principle today if I get a chance.



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.

But George, you are not distinguishing between a beam of light made from a
large number of identical photons, all moving at the same speed, and a
generated radio signal made up of intelligently bunched groupings of any old
photons.
I'm saying the radio waves use 'photon density' variations, whereas light rays
use intrinsic photon properties.

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.

Well what's you model for this?

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

None, both consist of a flux of many photons.

What's wrong with my above model?


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.

BZ knows nothing....but he tries....



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.

You can't assume it is 'material'. Just call it a 'local EM FoR'.
For contact binaries, it appears that such a frame is defined by the barycentre
of the pair.

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.

I don't have a definite view on this yet.



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.

I have already suggested that BaTh applies 100% only in genuinely empty space.
I am also of the opinion that local EM FoRs are present wherever matter or
fields exist.
It is quite possible that there may be a compromise theory that might explain
the intricacies of starlight movement and still accommodate some aspects of
Einstein's modified aether theory.

I sense that you may be thinking along similar lines.

George




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

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

On 6 May 2007 10:32:36 -0700, George Dishman wrote:


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

Yep, exactly the same, but in your other post you
claim there should be some energy deposuted from
the electron beam at the angle corresponding to
10Hz even though all the electrons go where the
De Broglie wavelength says they should.

It's all about probability George. You know...you have been teaching me about
probability for weeks...


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...

Henry, it_IS_ a PM tube but without the photoelectric
emitter on the front which of course ejects one electron
per photon. How did you think a PM worked?

that's the ultimate aim...not easy to achieve. Most PMs are used simply to
amplify very weak light signals.

George



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

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

On 6 May 2007 10:28:13 -0700, George Dishman wrote:


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

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.

Henry, I'm not talking about statistics, I'm talking
about probability. There is a subtle distinction.

there is.

Mathematics, on the other hand, is designed to analyse or predict single
events.

Maybe you should study probability a bit before
trying to discuss it.

I have already studied it George.



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.

No, it's not a question at all, it is proven beyond
any doubt.

You are jumping in too early again George.
It IS a big question that includes things like 'free will' if human action is
involved..

If I fire a bullet that misses the target, PROBABILITY says, 'that's OK, it is
a statistical fact that no matter how good the shooter, occasionally one WILL
miss'.
However, I say, it missed simply because I didn't aim in the right direction.

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...

Not true I'm afraid, but it doesn't alter the fact that
you said "No it doesn't" in one case and "Yes I know
that" a few lines later. It's hard to discuss anything
when you can't even express a consistent view in a single
post.

I wasn't refering to the same thing.


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.

Sorry Henry, your decades out of date again.

No. even at the atomic level, this has never been completely resolved.

For instance, consider radioactive decay.
We know all about its exponential rate. ..but we don't know why each event
occurs exactly when it does. Is there a unique physical explanation for each
one. Likewise, we don't know why emitted particles move in the directions they
do even though the angular distibution is statistical predictable.


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?

To within the intrinsic uncertainty of the energy property.
That means there is a fundamental lower limit to line width.
You can think of that either as the (gaussian) spectrum of
the line showing the power in each frequency that you get
from a Fourier transform of the received sine wave or as a
histogram of the photon energies (which will produce a small
spread of deflection angles) or by transforming to the time
domain as the phase jitter on the RF sine wave. They are all
just different coneptual models of the same feature.

If E=h.nu there is no distribution at all.


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..

Frequency (or equivalently wavelength), not phase.

In the case of monochromatic light, the theory says energy is relfected equally
at all angles but is reinforced only at one angle. Destructive interference
occurs at all other angles thus nullifying energy transfer at those angles.

Try to explain THAT with the particle model George. How actually do photon
'particles' cancel each other out?

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.

Excellent. That is a major agreement Henry.

not really...


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'.

Same thing.

No it isn't. If you modulate a laser beam with a 100000hz signal, you get two
entirely different diffraction patterns.


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?

Photons are particles Henry. Look at the example I gave
of the sodium doublet. The line width has to be less than
6A while the mean wavelength is 5893A. The Zeeman effect
produces individual lines with far smaller spacing. A line
of 5893A wavelength and width of 0.003A must contain more
than 1.7 million cycles so would be more than 1 light
second long in a classical wave model, yet it is absorbed
instantly by a single electron in the photo-electric effect.

You have never seen zeeman lines from ONE transition.
there are always millions involved.

Photons are particles and energy is an intrinsic property.
The probability of a single photon being measured at some
location after deflection from a grating depends on the
energy, and the maths that describes that dependence
includes a sine function which is related to energy.
Planck's constant allows us to express the energy in the
classical "frequency" concept which can then be used in
the maths.

I'm not even going to comment on this type of speculation.


I believe the sagnac effect is due to an entirely different factor...such
as a
local EM frame that behaves like an aether.

I don't care what you belive, it is a fact that the measued
speed is independent of the speed of the source.

Nobody has ever measured OWLS at all George, let alone from a moving source.
So don't preach nonsense to me please...

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.

Even the IGM isn't "truly empty" so basically you
are simply back to LET to explain both the MMX and
Sagnac.

Indeed it isn't empty, that's why unificatoin occurs....but most of it lies
below the WDT, at which level the BaTh operates almost entirely.



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.

No, I think it is a fundamental particle like an electron
which has the property of carrying energy (and others).

'the property of carrying energy'
That doesn't really tell us much does it George...hardly a model...

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.

Yes, and the energy of the waves is then carried in
another direction to be deposited where the waves go.

If photon are particles that are reflected over 360 degrees from each line, how
do you explain all that destructive interference over the 359.9 degrees.

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?

No Henry, exactly my point. That is what you are telling
me, that the grating angle for the wave is not the same
as that for the photons composing the wave.

Your theory has to rely 100% on the wave model of light to expain gratings.
...and then it fails. My model of photons as independent vibrating quanta
explains it all.

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.

How about you calculate how much energy BaTh says is in
this extra mode you have invented. For a fairly bright
source with random arrival times (e.g. a sodium lamp
where the photons are emitted thermally) there should
be a background continuum under the lines. Make your
prediction of that level and then research the literature.

I'm too busy...how about YOU do it.

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.

Perhaps, but for your bizarre idea to 'match the data
very well' requires _all_ the energy to go where the
1Hz deflection predicts and none to go with the photons.
As I said, it makes no sense.

How do you explain destructive interference with the particle model George?


George



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

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

On Sun, 6 May 2007 12:28:36 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

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.

It's OK. It all fits.

For contact binaries, K is large enough to make VDoppler dominant for
individual photons. The brightness curves are still determined by ADoppler.

George




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

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