Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:45:56 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 May 2007 15:16:55 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

The equations _are_ the theory. The analogies are
just inaccurate handwaving.

George, the truth is you, like other relativists simply don't have the
ability
to appreciate analogies like this one.

The truth Henry, is really quite pragmatic, is simply
can't type "partially-springy photons" into a piece of
software and expect it to show me a graph of the Doppler
shift for a binary system. That requires an equation.
Nor can you tell me what the shift will be by guessing
until you too have an equation to apply. The mechanical
picture may give you a feel for the situation but until
you take the next step, it isn't usable.

I gave you the equation. Are you wasting time again?

You gave a separate trivial equation that doesn't
relate to the other two and conflicts with them.
You need to revise the _set_ of equations to be
consistent.

Whilst I accept that mechanical models must have limitations, I also
realise
that for a particle to be 'different from nothing' it must have
properties
...

Sure, but it's all just talk until you can write down
the equations that represent those properties and the
mechanics that describes their interactions.

It may take a little time George.

No problem, I'll wait but in the meantime all I can
do is use the current versions. As I say, it is
simply pragmatic.

... that
are describable in 3space, 1 time, the conditions under which all our
experiments are carried out.

Not true, there is no a priori reason why the universe
should be 3D + time and if you insist on that religious
conviction you force yourself into an aether theory.

There are three time subdimensions. Time couldn't flow if there weren't.
Time is not related to space.

Your religiuos convictions are already well known,
but that doesn't mean they have an validity.

George, Fourier analysis doesn't apply to particles or even damped
systems
like
the one I have idescribed for photons.

Fourier analysis applies to _any_ repetitive phenomenon,
you should know that if you have used them. Damping
merely adds a time dependence to the coefficients.

Well you don't have to bother with it to understand my model.

I don't have to, but I choose to because it provides
an important tool for the analysis. The behaviour of
RF signals is well known and the application of Fourier
analysis tells you a huge amount. You theory (the
equations that is) must work if I use Fourier analysis.

In a partical sense, note that a grating is just a
physical implementation of Fourier, if I send a
waveform of complex shape as a single beam (say a
modulated CW laser) at a grating, a plot of intensity
versus angle is the same as a Fourier analysis with
a mapping of component frequency to angle.

The equations you are both using are wrong. They do not
describe partially-springy photons, so they do not describe
Henry's theory.

The equations _are_ the theory, "springy photons" is
"hand-waving" or "speculation".

Speculation that works....that's a good start....

It doesn't work at all. You'll find that out when
you try to work out the equations.

I'm merely reporting the findings.
Variations regarding Pulsars and short period binaries are largely
VDoppler
related, variable star curves are brought about mainly by ADoppler.

But the latter isn't a finding. What you say of
pulsars and eclipsing binaries is true because
the eclipse or Shapiro delay provides a phase
against which the velocity and luminosity
variations can be compared. You have no such
reference for a Cepheid so the "orbital" phase
is unknown.

The phase relatoinship between velocity and brightness can vary depending
on
the relative contributions of A and V doppler.

No, that's where Fourier comes in. The phase of
the luminosity and velocity curves must always be
identical, both being produced by TDoppler as we
have gone over many times before.

Actually there is an added complexity we have been
ignoring, the ballistic change of energy per photon
which might have a very small extra effect on phase
but I haven't given that any consideration yet.

dv/ds = (c/n-v) / R

where v is the scalar speed (magnitude of the
velocity), s is the distance travelled measured
along the path, n is the refractive index and
R is an arbitrary constant with units of length
since we cannot determine the slope of the first
order relationship theoretically.

This is not exactly what I claim George.

Well it's about time you raised this then, we have
been using it for weeks.

You haven't given a reference for speed in your equation.

I've said it so many times, I took it for granted
you would know. Ballistic theory is Galilean
invariant so the first equation applies in _any_
inertial frame. The velocity of the source in that
frame is v_s.

For that purpose you
can use either the source barycentre or the observer.

I think you are still getting this confused by
thinking of "frame of reference" as being something
physical. It is _purely_ the coordinate system we
have chosen so can be any inertial reference at all.

Don't be ridiculous, George.

I have several time pointed out you were using the
phrase "frame of reference" incorrectly and while
it was possibly academic before, now it is coming
back to bite you. Ritzian theory uses Galilean
relativity and choice of reference frame is entirely
arbitrary. If you choose a different frame, you get
different values for v_s and v_i but the relationship
v_i = c + v_s at the moment of emission holds good in
all frames.

I say that light emitted in a particular direction at speeds between c+v
and
c-v wrt the source barycentre (or c(+/-)v+u wrt the observer) will tend
towards
a common speed as it travels. That speed is not necessarily c wrt the
barycentre...and it will continually fluctuate minutely as the light
passes
through different spaceconditions.
Relative to an Earth observer it will be c+(?) until it approaches
ground
level, where it is c/n.

How do you think that differs from the equations I
wrote? You see again you are just talking without
offering any physics. If my equations are not your
theory, tell me the correct ones. If you can't do
that I have no alternative but to use what you see
above to write the software.

I have just providied a perfectly good physical picture. What more do you
want
George?

I will ask again: How do you think that differs from
the equations I wrote?

What you and I have been trying to establish is the rate at which
unification occurs.

That would be the factor R in the above equations.
Change the equations and the factor may appear in
some different way and certainly could have a
different value. Until you define the equations
that constitute your theory, you have no way forward.

R wont be constant. This is a statistical effect.

Agreed, it is dependent on the material in any region
just as refractive index will vary.

For some reason it appears to be related to the period of oscillation
..or to the sizes and closeness of the two members of a binary.

Nope, it is a property of the ISM. Each charged
particle would have an effect on the wave dependent
only on the particle type (and photon frequency of
course, I mean all electrons would have a similar
influence but that might differ from protons).
Particle column density would be the controlling
parameter.

Probably....but the point is, the effect definitely appears to be stronger
around some objects than others. Can you explain that?

I don't need to, you do. That said, it is obvious
that some stars shed mass in the 'stellar wind' at
higher rates than others. You only have to look at
Eta Carinae! The problem you will have doesn't lie
in the variability but will be in explaining why
there isn't a simple relationship between refractive
index and speed equalisation, and why the properties
of space depend on orbital acceleration.

Prior to my addition, Henry's theory was "c+v",
that's all. I have done some work for him in
adding the speculation about speed equalisation
into the theory as a second equation. He has not
really commented on that proposal but it seems to
me to be directly derivable from his verbal claims
("hand-waving").

.....Handwaving that just happens to fit the data.....

It is impossible to say whather it fits or not
until you turn it into a theory and then apply
those equations to the experimental situation
(observations). I have given that process some
thought and it is clear you will hit a major
problem very quickly but it's not easy to explain
so I'll wait for you to find it yourself.

I can't see any major problem ....

Jut a statement of fact, you cannot know whether an
equation will fit the data until you find out what
the equation is.

The equations above are not a "compromise" in any
way other than being limited to the speed of light
along a path. Obviously I'm not offering a Ritzian
version of Maxwell's Equations. They fully represent
what Henry has said of c+v for the launch and his
speed equalisation.

Now Jeff, if you want to offer a set of equations
that represents "partially-springy photons" that
you think can model what we know of EM then by all
means post them, but I think it can't be done and
I'll give you some simple example waveforms to
which you can apply your equations to see what you
get.

My photons are more 'critically damped' than 'partially springy'.

Both mean negligible VDoppler, trivially falsified,
but there is a bigger problem before you even get
to that step.

Bottom line Henry, is that the two equations I wrote
above are the only theory we have, and until you
offer some alternative those are all we have to use
in writing the software models.

George, velocity curves of contact binaries obey VDoppler. Those of longer
period variables like cepheids obey ADoppler.

The BaTh equations say both VDoppler and ADoppler
combine to produce TDoppler which affects both
velocity and luminosity with the same phase. You
have no theory to predict anything else, just
hand-waving that I can see won't work when you
try to convert it into a theory.

Where in YOUR equations are such differences accounted for?

In the thermodynamics of Cepheids and related star
type in the unstable region, see the overview I
cited before.

George