Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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.

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)



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?


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.
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.

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.

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 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.

What do you think might happen when you send an RF signal through a PM
George?


Same thing, EM is EM, but the energy per photon is going to be very
low so you would need a detector with much better sensitivity than
is currently available.

Yep.

That's OK.
Perfectly in accord with hte P.E. effect.

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.


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.

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.

Which is the BaTh prediction.

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.

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.


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.


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.
....and no other experiment refutes the BaTh.

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.

De Sitter was wrong.. face it George.
....and no other experiment refutes the BaTh.

George




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

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