Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"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