Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:54:13 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:31:32 +0100, "George Dishman"

But that has no effect on the interferometer,
all of it is on Earth ;-)

George, presumably the interference is caused by the angle subtended by
the star.

Nope. You have covered some of this with paul but
you have only partly grasped the situation. Look
again at the setup:

http://tinyurl.com/3dybf3

and compare it with this

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...ic_grating.gif

As with any interferometer the pattern depends on
the distance between the paths at the receiving
end. A maximum occurs where the path length
difference is a multiple of a wavelength. The same
is true here but instead of simple rulings on a
grating you have two separate telescopes, ANTU and
MELIPAL, providing the paths.

Remember when we talked of the grating, I made the
point that a single photon would be deflected by an
angle that depended on its frequency or wavelength
adn a distribution plot of where photons land gives
the usual pattern. The same is true again, light from
one side of the star passes through both telescopes
and produces a set of fringes. Completely independently
light from the other side also produces a set of
fringes but because the source is slightly displaced,
so are the fringes. As a result, the minima don't
occur at exactly the same place so they don't go to
zero. The contrast ratio then gives an indication of
the displacement as a fraction of a fringe and hence
of the angular width of the star.

impossible.

However, it is what happens.

My interpretation is that the interference is caused by factors
unknown, ...

ROFL, that says it all Henry, your interpretation
is that you don't have an interpretation. :-)

The light arrives at c/n where n is the refractive
index of the air around the telescopes. The phase
difference across the system (i.e. between the two
telescopes) depends on their separation and that
speed.

...the light travels a long way before it reaches the Earth's atmosphere.

Only the speed over the last few metres matters to
the phase difference, the rest is common to both
paths.

Interferomery will give a distorted answer.

Nope, there is no distortion introduced
by ballistic theory.

I think it is fair to assume all stars are rotatiing.

Sure, but photons from one side of the star arrive
at some speed and get deflected through some angle
by the interferometer. What speed it left the star
makes no difference to the pattern. The same is true
for photons from the other side, every photon acts
independently.

You have no model of a photon ..

QED, sum over the paths.

.. so how would you know?

Your diagram of a grating applies.

It has no effect, you only want to wave it
away because you cannot stomach the truth.

the star's rotation stuffs up the whole process.

Not in the slightest.

George's Giant Photons explain everything.

"Henry's Giant Photons" you mean, that is _your_
philosophical interpretation. I merely pointed out
that the probability of every _individual_ photon
hitting the detector depends on the details of both
paths which is an empirical observation, and one you
would have repeated in the form of Young's Slits in
the lab if you had ever done a physics degree.

Even the simplest review of a basic reflecting
telescope shows that as Paul has explained to you.

Don't be so hasty George.
The Planck curve deals with PHOTON DENSITY in a particular band.

Intensity Henry.


Cepheid surface speeds are typically less than 30km/s
so 0.01% is an upper limit. Whether that is caused by
VDoppler or ADoppler doesn't matter, the shift is no
more than that value. That means no more than 0.24nm
worth of the band moves out at one end while about the
same amount moves in at the other.

George, you will never learn anything about cepheids from willusory
data..

If it is shifted by 0.01%, that's how much
falls off one end of the filter and into the
other.

This is going to become pretty complicated so I will think about it.

Do that, you are obviously missing the point at the
moment.

you are mssing the willusions...

Nope, 0.01% is the shift regardless of cause,
think about it.

it can be caused by ADopppler, some VDoppler or shift in Planck curve.

Whatever, the shift is 0.01% and we know the filter
widths so we know how much it affects the reading.

All the bserved data is willusory and cannot be assumed correct.

Wrong again, temperatures and subtended angle are
valid as I have explained to you several times.

George, these exist in your dreams....

Temperatures and radii exist in reality, and
your theory says we measure them without
distortion.

...and have been pointing out that the velocity curve should be
similar
in
shape an phase to the luminosity curve...but you never listen...

No, check the top of this post, you were arguing
that the luminosity peaked with the acceleration,
not the velocity.

That's correct

Well make your mind up.

I have.

Then stick to it and stop contradicting yourself.

I cnt see our sun fluctuating in brigtness or radius....yet it would be
classed as a variable by a distant observer.

It would appear to vary in luminosity but not in
radius or temperature which is what we are talking
about, try to keep a grasp of the conversation Henry.

George, a relativist 100LYs away would come up with all kinds of
ridiculous
theories ....

Trying to duck the subject again Henry?

You might want to consider the overall setup:

http://tinyurl.com/3dybf3

No, it wont work..

But it does work Henry, they get fringes exactly
as all the theories say they will.

sure

Yep

That would require turbulent diffusion because thermal conductivty of
gasses is
quite small. Such diffusion would be far too slow.

The transfer is principally radiative but it is not
fast due to the opacity.

far too slow...

Do the sums (remember you personal estimates are
usually six to ten orders of magnitude out), it
works perfectly.

I don't see how a single photon could be emitted by both sides of a


It ignores the different c+v from both sides.

A single photon doesn't come from "both sides" and for
each photon it is only the speed at the interferometer
together with the frequency that determines the
wavelength, lambda_r:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...ic_grating.gif

The whole method is useless and incapable of producing anything concrete.

Sorry Henry, ballistic theory says it works just
fine, so your whining is pointless.

George