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

On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:50:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

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.

George, why don't you accept the fact that even today, nobody has the faintest
idea of what a photon actually is.

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.

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...... 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....


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.

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. Most variable stars have extremely stable
periods....highly suggestive that an orbit is unvolved.


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 :-)


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.

They aren't photons. They're electrons..

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.


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.

George, you keep telling me I have to match observed data.

If I assume K is 1, nothing matches. 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.

George, this is how exepriment physics operates. If K is not = 1, then all data
is matched. What is the logical conclusion?

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.

George, I can say whatever I like and you can't prove me wrong. Nobody has
moved a grating in remote space at significant speed wrt a source and so there
is no data to compare it with. As for the HST, well we don't know whether it is
outside the local EM FoR....and we don't really know if the diffraction angles
change with its orbit phase.


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.

Oh, Ok. I wasn't looking at that.

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.

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


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.

....and that 'wavelength' cannot possibly change just because the GRATING moves.

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.

That's OK for light....but not for generated radio waves.
You can't realy believe that a constant RF signal lasting ten years is made of
one single photon.

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

Tell me, what is the relationship between an constant RF sine wave and a
photon?

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 ;-)

That's c wrt the star George.
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?"

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.

I can live with extinction. De Sitter couldn't.

...and no other experiment refutes the BaTh.

Sagnac and Shapiro do.

Other factors are involved.

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




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

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

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

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.

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.

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? 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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Oh, Ok. I wasn't looking at that.

OK, you need to have a more detailed look. It isn't
trivial.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

That's OK for light....but not for generated radio waves.

Both are EM, any theory must be equally aplplicable to
both.

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.

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

None, both consist of a flux of many photons.

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.

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 ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

So do I but the latter are merely statistical variations.

George, when signals are sent through optical fibres, how are they
modulated?

For telecomms, I believe usually AM. In fibre gyros, phase modulation.

You should know that the 'carrier light' can have a wide range of
wavelengths and still do the job.

Sure, it shows up as a bit of noise. What does that have to do
with you saying three different things on the same point in three
posts? how can we discuss this if you can't even keep your
story straight.

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'.

Indeed, just a slip of the keyboard.

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....

Good, then what I said stands.

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..

That's why I suggested you consider how a quarter-wave
plate works.

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.

The argument is correct.

... 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.

No, it is still valid. If the theory doesn't include
some reduction of the speed difference between light
initially emitted at c+v and c-v then multiple images
must appear. That argument is and always will be valid.

Unification takes care of multiple imagery.

You need to learn to read more carefully, Henry, you
just said unification "is not really part of the basic
theory" so it doesn't take care of anything. Either it
is part of your theoryor it isn't, and de Sitter's
argument applies to the case where unification is _not_
part of the theory.

No star light seems to ever
overtakes other light....but there might be instances where it does.

There are many instances where it should, but it never
gets to within 0.1% of that, it is _never_ observed.

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.

Yes they do, study the subject before spouting.

....
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.

No, experiment says _one_ photon knocks _one_ electron
out of the surface. It takes some amount of energy to
free an electron, say W. If h.nu is less than W than
no electron gets released no matter how bright the
source so we know that "several" never happens. And if
h.nu W then one electron is liberated with a residual
kinetic energy of h.nu-W. If h.nu 2W a wave description
suggests more than one elctron could be liberated by a
single photon but again that doesn't happen.

The electron is then accelerated, causing an avalanche that is visually
recordable.

Right, and that's the part where I have shown you that the
noise levels are adequately low to be negligible in our
context.

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.

'seeing' is amental process with our eyes acting as
input sensors, the PM tube is merely an extension of
that so in that sense we are 'seeing' single photons.

Your are wandering off the point though, each photon
gets deflected by a grating by an angle determined
solely by its intrinsic properties, not when the
next photon will arrive.

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, ...

Sorry Henry, you can't match any without making your model
self-contradictory. You _can_ match the velocity curves
but not luminosity.

.. 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,

No you can't, all you can match is curves of less than 0.002
magnitude variation, max.

I
will prefer to continue along my present very interesting and fruitful
path.

Fair enough, I'll continue to dismiss it and point out
the truth to anyone following the thread until you make
it consistent.

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 ..

Nope, that requires the light to travel at both c+v and
(c+v)/10000 at the same time, it is self-contradictory.

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.

An "FoR" is a mathematical coordinate system with no
physical existence.

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.

Don't waste your time, just show your mathematical
derivation of the equation from c+v.

It should be pretty obvious.

It should, in fact it's a problem that you should be
able to do in a few minutes, but your incapable of
even the simplest algebra from what I have seen.

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.

Right, you just faked the result and got caught out.

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.

They tell us where the peaks are and that phase is what we
need to know.

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.

Pointless then the luminosity is dominated by the
two eclipses. Do one matching the velocity curves.

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

K is 1, period.

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'.

No it doesn't, it says the speed is c+v initially and
that approaches c/n according to the formula

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

To get from there to an equation will take you some work.

I will illustrate the principle today if I get a chance.

Just show me the equation and stop guessing.

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.

There is nothing to distinguish, a mono-mode laser signal
is a generated signal exactly the same as the RF signal
but at a higher frequency. Early radio receivers used a
"heterodyne" technique to improve tuning, high resolution
spectroscopy does exactly the same by heterodyning the
starlight with a laser and measuring the beat frequency
with an RF receiver.

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?

Same as for RF of course, a stream of phase-related photons.

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?

It tries to explain a difference that doesn't exist.

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....

He knows vastly more than you, but like everyone else
his answers are over your head because you haven't
spent the time learning the basics. Tools like Fourier
analysis are essential if you are going to follow more
complex theories.

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'.

Why would I want to look stupid, you don't transfer
momentum to a coordinate system.

For contact binaries, it appears that such a frame is defined by the
barycentre
of the pair.

Garbage, the frame is chosen by whoever does the calculations.

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.

I know, you wont be able to follow the argument. You
might start to see it if you could draw a cross-section
of a binary system and plot 'isobars' of extinction
distance but I doubt even that would switch the light
bulb on.

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.

For Ritz's theory that would be true, speed equalisation
like a refractive index requires material.

I am also of the opinion that local EM FoRs are present wherever matter or
fields exist.

Still showing your ignorance Henry, a frame of reference
is purely a mathematical device for assigning coordinates.

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.

No, I'm thinking you have been corrected on most of the
string of stupid errors you made many times before and I
wonder how you can persist in making a fool of yourself
over and over again without leaving the group to avoid
further embarrassment. It's just one of life's little
mysteries.

George

On 7 May 2007 09:55:54 -0700, George Dishman wrote:


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


Unification takes care of multiple imagery.

You need to learn to read more carefully, Henry, you
just said unification "is not really part of the basic
theory" so it doesn't take care of anything. Either it
is part of your theoryor it isn't, and de Sitter's
argument applies to the case where unification is _not_
part of the theory.

No star light seems to ever
overtakes other light....but there might be instances where it does.

There are many instances where it should, but it never
gets to within 0.1% of that, it is _never_ observed.

I don't know where you got that figure from.



The theory says a photon (or several) knocks a single electron out of an
atom.

No, experiment says _one_ photon knocks _one_ electron
out of the surface. It takes some amount of energy to
free an electron, say W. If h.nu is less than W than
no electron gets released no matter how bright the
source so we know that "several" never happens. And if
h.nu W then one electron is liberated with a residual
kinetic energy of h.nu-W. If h.nu 2W a wave description
suggests more than one elctron could be liberated by a
single photon but again that doesn't happen.

The electron is then accelerated, causing an avalanche that is visually
recordable.

Right, and that's the part where I have shown you that the
noise levels are adequately low to be negligible in our
context.




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.



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, ...

Sorry Henry, you can't match any without making your model
self-contradictory. You _can_ match the velocity curves
but not luminosity.

I can easily match both George.

.. 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,

No you can't, all you can match is curves of less than 0.002
magnitude variation, max.

George this is a plainly ridiculous claim. If you could set up your own program
(too hard, no doubt) you would soon see that (log) magnitude variations of
three or more can easily be achieved before peaks appear in the brightness
curves.

will prefer to continue along my present very interesting and fruitful
path.

Fair enough, I'll continue to dismiss it and point out
the truth to anyone following the thread until you make
it consistent.

Well I have now solved Sagnac.,,so that will please you even more...

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 ..

Nope, that requires the light to travel at both c+v and
(c+v)/10000 at the same time, it is self-contradictory.

No it doesn't George. You are telling little fibs again.
The photons keep moving at c+v for a lot longer than the 'ends of each photon'.
It's all so simple really.

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.

An "FoR" is a mathematical coordinate system with no
physical existence.

An EM FoR is one of limited size that sets light speed somewhat loosely, within
itself.


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.

Don't waste your time, just show your mathematical
derivation of the equation from c+v.


It should be pretty obvious.

It should, in fact it's a problem that you should be
able to do in a few minutes, but your incapable of
even the simplest algebra from what I have seen.

Well you've seen it now.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg

For other angles the equation is N(lambda= D[sin(theta)/(c+u)-sin(phi)/(c+v)]


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.

Right, you just faked the result and got caught out.

I did not fake anything George. I just draw a rough curve to show you the basic
shape of the brightness curve of one member. I can't match it exactly because
most of it is hidden.



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

They tell us where the peaks are and that phase is what we
need to know.

...and it all fits nicely....

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.

Pointless then the luminosity is dominated by the
two eclipses. Do one matching the velocity curves.

The velocity curves are basically VDoppler..because the individual photons very
rapidly become stabilized. The movement BETWEEN photons continues for some
time.

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

K is 1, period.

Here you go again...applying some kind of classical wave theory to light
particles.

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'.

No it doesn't, it says the speed is c+v initially and
that approaches c/n according to the formula

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

To get from there to an equation will take you some work.

I will illustrate the principle today if I get a chance.

Just show me the equation and stop guessing.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg

Note, light speed is included in the BaTh equation. Otherwise it is the same as
the classical one.



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.

There is nothing to distinguish, a mono-mode laser signal
is a generated signal exactly the same as the RF signal
but at a higher frequency. Early radio receivers used a
"heterodyne" technique to improve tuning, high resolution
spectroscopy does exactly the same by heterodyning the
starlight with a laser and measuring the beat frequency
with an RF receiver.

That's OK. There is still a carrier frequency and a signal frequency.


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?

Same as for RF of course, a stream of phase-related photons.

Why not a periodic variation in photon density?

How does one 'phase relate' photons anyway?

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?

It tries to explain a difference that doesn't exist.

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....

He knows vastly more than you, but like everyone else
his answers are over your head because you haven't
spent the time learning the basics. Tools like Fourier
analysis are essential if you are going to follow more
complex theories.

George, I spent years analysing sine waves that make different musical
instrument sounds. I know all about it.

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'.

Why would I want to look stupid, you don't transfer
momentum to a coordinate system.

A local EM FoR is more than a cooordinate system. It contains matter and fields
that define a macroscopic reference for velocity.

For contact binaries, it appears that such a frame is defined by the
barycentre
of the pair.

Garbage, the frame is chosen by whoever does the calculations.

Well I wont dwell on this ...




...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.

For Ritz's theory that would be true, speed equalisation
like a refractive index requires material.

I am also of the opinion that local EM FoRs are present wherever matter or
fields exist.

Still showing your ignorance Henry, a frame of reference
is purely a mathematical device for assigning coordinates.

I didn't say 'FoR'. I said an 'EM FoR'.
It's a physical entity not a mathematical one.

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.

No, I'm thinking you have been corrected on most of the
string of stupid errors you made many times before and I
wonder how you can persist in making a fool of yourself
over and over again without leaving the group to avoid
further embarrassment. It's just one of life's little
mysteries.

Well I have now solved the Sagnac mystery.

As you know, specular reflection can be regarded a diffraction process with
reinforcement occuring at exactly the angle of incidence.
Now, you will see from my grating diagram that if the mirror is moving wrt the
source, the incident speed is c+v BUT THE REFLECTED SPEED IS probably 'c' or
thereabouts, wrt the mirror. Also the reflected angle will not be exactly the
incident one.
Applying this to Sagnac, it is easy to see that one beam ends up moving a lot
more slowly that the other. Hence the fringe shift.

The BaTh wins again.

I think you will also find that the equation governing fringe shift turns out
to be similar to the aether theory one.



George




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

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

On 7 May, 23:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 7 May 2007 09:55:54 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
....
No star light seems to ever
overtakes other light....but there might be instances where it does.

There are many instances where it should, but it never
gets to within 0.1% of that, it is _never_ observed.

I don't know where you got that figure from.

Maximum observed velocity is ~300km/s for contact binaries
or 0.1%c. That is also the catch-up ratio so the bunching is
asymptotic to reducing the spacing by 0.1% at most. Think
of your findings on the pulsars if you have trouble following
the logic.

....
George, if it weren't for the fact that a great many brightness curves can
be
matched with BaTh, ...

Sorry Henry, you can't match any without making your model
self-contradictory. You _can_ match the velocity curves
but not luminosity.

I can easily match both George.

.. 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,

No you can't, all you can match is curves of less than 0.002
magnitude variation, max.

George this is a plainly ridiculous claim. If you could set up your own program
(too hard, no doubt) ..

I've been too busy lately to look at it (we went away for short
holiday) but I might look at it again next weekend. I'm out or
tied up doing some private tutoring for the rest of this week.

.. you would soon see that (log) magnitude variations of
three or more can easily be achieved before peaks appear in the brightness
curves.

K=1 Henry.

Well I have now solved Sagnac.,,so that will please you even more...

See below, you haven't.

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 ..

Nope, that requires the light to travel at both c+v and
(c+v)/10000 at the same time, it is self-contradictory.

No it doesn't George. You are telling little fibs again.
The photons keep moving at c+v for a lot longer than the 'ends of each photon'.
It's all so simple really.

Nicely put, the beginning, end and middle of each photon
move at (c+v)/10000 while the mean speed of the photon
is (c+v).

Henry, there is only _one_ equation for the speed in your
theory and it applies to _all_ parts so K=1.

You claimed elsewhere you knew how to use a Fourier
transform (which I doubt but never mind) so just apply
it to a pulse modulated carrier and see what you get
if you apply your Doppler equation to the components.
Reverse transform the frequency shifted elements to
get the received waveform as usual.

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.

An "FoR" is a mathematical coordinate system with no
physical existence.

An EM FoR is ...

a mathematical coordinate system with no physical existence
being used to defines locations and time of EM phenomena.

....
Don't waste your time, just show your mathematical
derivation of the equation from c+v.
It should be pretty obvious.

It should, in fact it's a problem that you should be
able to do in a few minutes, but your incapable of
even the simplest algebra from what I have seen.

Well you've seen it now.http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg

Yes, that's what I was looking for.

For other angles the equation is N(lambda= D[sin(theta)/(c+u)-sin(phi)/(c+v)]

Yes, I was assuming the first order result in my other
replies too. In general the BaTh grating equation is:

N * lambda_r = D * sin(phi)


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.

Right, you just faked the result and got caught out.

I did not fake anything George. I just draw a rough curve to show you the basic
shape of the brightness curve of one member. I can't match it exactly because
most of it is hidden.

Ah but you _claimed_ you had matched it, it is that dishonesty
that makes it a fake and you a fraud.

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

They tell us where the peaks are and that phase is what we
need to know.

..and it all fits nicely....

... apart from the phase.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdra.jpg

As I write it still matches the luminosity instead of
the velocities.

Yes.

Pointless then the luminosity is dominated by the
two eclipses. Do one matching the velocity curves.

The velocity curves are basically VDoppler..because the individual photons very
rapidly become stabilized.

Exactly, the only evidence you have from any actual
obervations is for VDopppler alone. That's what I have
been pointing out all along. All the luminosity variations
are known to have other mundane explanations and
there is _no_ evidence for the existence of ADoppler
whatsoever.

The movement BETWEEN photons continues for some
time.

Then each photon is moving at a mean different speed
from the speed of its parts which is nonsense, and if
you do a Fourier analysis you will find the modulation
of any wave will move at (c+v)/K when BaTh starts from
the assumption that it is (c+v). The result is self-
contradictory and therefore self-falsifying.

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

K is 1, period.

Here you go again...applying some kind of classical wave theory to light
particles.

BaTh as you have described it is a classical wave theory.


Just show me the equation and stop guessing.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg

Note, light speed is included in the BaTh equation.

Nope

lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

Otherwise it is the same as
the classical one.

It measures reflected wavelength specifically but otherwise
is the same as the classical equation.

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.

There is nothing to distinguish, a mono-mode laser signal
is a generated signal exactly the same as the RF signal
but at a higher frequency. Early radio receivers used a
"heterodyne" technique to improve tuning, high resolution
spectroscopy does exactly the same by heterodyning the
starlight with a laser and measuring the beat frequency
with an RF receiver.

That's OK. There is still a carrier frequency and a signal frequency.

Actually no, there is just a carrier and a 'local oscillator'
but the key point is that the same mixing technique works
as well for light as it does for audio and RF.

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?

Same as for RF of course, a stream of phase-related photons.

Why not a periodic variation in photon density?

Variations in flux also apply to both.

How does one 'phase relate' photons anyway?

By making all the electrons in an antenna move in the
same direction at the same time, or by getting one
photon to prompt the emission of another in phase in
a laser.

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....

He knows vastly more than you, but like everyone else
his answers are over your head because you haven't
spent the time learning the basics. Tools like Fourier
analysis are essential if you are going to follow more
complex theories.

George, I spent years analysing sine waves that make different musical
instrument sounds. I know all about it.

Then why are you unable to do the analysis of a pulse
modulated waveform that I suggested? It would solve
all these discussions at a stroke instead of arguing
about it for weeks as you have been.

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'.

Why would I want to look stupid, you don't transfer
momentum to a coordinate system.

A local EM FoR is more than a cooordinate system.

No, the term "frame of reference" means just a cooordinate
system.

It contains matter and fields
that define a macroscopic reference for velocity.

Then call it that, "matter" is an appropriate term.

For contact binaries, it appears that such a frame is defined by the
barycentre of the pair.

Garbage, the frame is chosen by whoever does the calculations.

Well I wont dwell on this ...

Nor will I if you stop getting it wrong, it is only jargon,
not physics.

I am also of the opinion that local EM FoRs are present wherever matter or
fields exist.

Still showing your ignorance Henry, a frame of reference
is purely a mathematical device for assigning coordinates.

I didn't say 'FoR'. I said an 'EM FoR'.
It's a physical entity not a mathematical one.

Frame of reference is mathematical only, matter is what
you mean.

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.

No, I'm thinking you have been corrected on most of the
string of stupid errors you made many times before and I
wonder how you can persist in making a fool of yourself
over and over again without leaving the group to avoid
further embarrassment. It's just one of life's little
mysteries.

Well I have now solved the Sagnac mystery.

You have forgotten we discussed this years ago (Feb 2004!)

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif

As you know, specular reflection can be regarded a diffraction process with
reinforcement occuring at exactly the angle of incidence.
Now, you will see from my grating diagram that if the mirror is moving wrt the
source, the incident speed is c+v

No. the source is moving so the speed wrt the lab is c+v but
the mirror is also moving at the same speed so the speed
relative to the mirror is exactly c, the picture is symmetrical.

BUT THE REFLECTED SPEED IS probably 'c' or
thereabouts, wrt the mirror.

Exactly c whether you say it is always c on re-emission or
the same as the incident speed or if c+u is any other first
order function of c+v.

Also the reflected angle will not be exactly the
incident one.

Wrong again, since incident and reflected speeds are the
same, the angles are also the same.

Applying this to Sagnac, it is easy to see that one beam ends up moving a lot
more slowly that the other. Hence the fringe shift.

The BaTh wins again.

ROFL, you didn't even do the calculation, you got all
the assumptions wrong, and then you claim a win.
Henry, you didn't even enter the contest.

I think you will also find that the equation governing fringe shift turns out
to be similar to the aether theory one.

Nope, ballistic theory says there should be no fringe
shift whatsoever as we proved with your diagram and
my algebra:

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif

Remember that? You drew it and I just fixed a minor
error. The original might still be on your site somewhere
and the algebra is on Google.

George

In article ,
George Dishman wrote:

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.

What a weird idea --- if the deflection angle depended on the time
between photon arrivals, the angle would change if the intensity of
the light was changed. If the light gets more intense, there will
naturally be a shorter time between the photon arrivals, since there
are more photons per time unit involved if the light is more intense.

Btw, please write "wavelength of the light" instead of "colour of the
light". You probably know the difference, but feeble-minded people
like Henri will most likely confuse them with one another.


Are you denying ballistic theory says the speed is c+v relative to the
source? 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.

You can't apply an inconsistent theory consistently..... it fails
if you try...... g


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Dishman wrote:

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.

What a weird idea --- if the deflection angle depended on the time
between photon arrivals, the angle would change if the intensity of
the light was changed. If the light gets more intense, there will
naturally be a shorter time between the photon arrivals, since there
are more photons per time unit involved if the light is more intense.

I think Henry is scratching around for things to say to
argue with me rather than trying to present anything
sensible based on his theory because I've shown him how
it makes definitive predictions that he can't accept.

Btw, please write "wavelength of the light" instead of "colour of the
light". You probably know the difference, but feeble-minded people
like Henri will most likely confuse them with one another.

I did that quite deliberately. Henry has made a point of
saying that while conventional theory has the angle of
deflection for a grating dependent on wavelength, his
theory uses frequency. "Colour" was a way to convey the
concept without being specific as I knew he would use
any mention of wavelength to change the subject.

Are you denying ballistic theory says the speed is c+v relative to the
source? 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.

You can't apply an inconsistent theory consistently..... it fails
if you try...... g

You and I know that, but Henry hasn't grasped it yet.

George

On Mon, 7 May 2007 09:23:47 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Dishman wrote:

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.

What a weird idea --- if the deflection angle depended on the time
between photon arrivals, the angle would change if the intensity of
the light was changed. If the light gets more intense, there will
naturally be a shorter time between the photon arrivals, since there
are more photons per time unit involved if the light is more intense.

I think Henry is scratching around for things to say to
argue with me rather than trying to present anything
sensible based on his theory because I've shown him how
it makes definitive predictions that he can't accept.

Btw, please write "wavelength of the light" instead of "colour of the
light". You probably know the difference, but feeble-minded people
like Henri will most likely confuse them with one another.

I did that quite deliberately. Henry has made a point of
saying that while conventional theory has the angle of
deflection for a grating dependent on wavelength, his
theory uses frequency. "Colour" was a way to convey the
concept without being specific as I knew he would use
any mention of wavelength to change the subject.

Are you denying ballistic theory says the speed is c+v relative to the
source? 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.

You can't apply an inconsistent theory consistently..... it fails
if you try...... g

You and I know that, but Henry hasn't grasped it yet.

see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg

George




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

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