Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 4 May 2007 04:03:17 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 4 May, 10:33, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 May 2007 00:26:21 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
On 4 May, 03:36, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007 00:21:07 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
My question was, "what intrinsic property of an individual photon
produces
a
sensation of a 'frequency'?

No it wasn't, the question was what is the definition
of frequency and that is what I explained above. I have
restored what you cut trying to cover it up.

In other words, what aspect of photon structure 'oscillates'?

A photon has no structure so nothing oscillates in it.

Hahahaha!

What makes a photon different from anything else then George?

It has different intrinsic properties.

How can anything have 'intrinsic properties' (which can be measured in
3space1time) if it doesn't have a 'structure'?

Consider some entity A. It is made of entities B and C.
A has properties which come from the properties of B
and C plus some influence from the relationship between
B and C. For example the mass of A might be the sum
of the masses of B and C plus the binding energy of the
pair. As you go down the scale, eventually you come to
something fundamental which is not composed of other
things, and yet it must have some properties of its own.

I think you just enjoy arguing, George.

Probably, but what I said is still valid. I expected
you to reply that an electron is a fundamental particle
yet string theory says it has structure - a ring of
energy. My reply would be that "ring-like" is a property
rather than indicative of construction from lesser items.
Quite often I feel words can be ambiguous and exploring
alternative meanings for, in this case, "structure" can
be useful in clarifying what we mean.

Location is a continuous variable. It is not possible to
calculate exactly where a photon will land given an
experimental setup, you can only calculate the probability
as a function of location. That is an intrinsic property of
all particles.

George, if a thousand bullets are fired at a target, the way they are
distributed around the bull follows an established statistical law.

Yes, and that is true even if the gun is locked into position.

However, if single ONE bullet is fired at the target, it has zero
probability
of landing anywhere other than at the point where the gun was aimed.
(please
don't mention wind shear)

No, it has exactly the same probability of landing at any location
as each of the thousand.

No it doesn't!!!!!!

Yes it does, that is basic probability theory.

Probability is not a cause of anything. It's a result.

Nobody said anything about probability being causal.

All those bullets that were normally distributed around the bull landed
exactly
where they did for purely physical reasons.
Where the bullet will strike is precisely determined BEFORE it is fired.
Even
factors like the nerve movements of the shooter and the wind movements are
precisely predetermined. There is no way anyone could produce a
mathematical
model to predict the outcome but it is still theoretically possible.

Statistics is the most misinterpreted science of all....

Indeed, though your mistake above is less common than
others. The key here is that the pprobability for each bullet
is unaffected by the existence of any preceding shot.

That is not related to my statement.

You said that a thosand bullets would be spread but a
single bullet would not, hence the implication is that
the first bullet always goes where it is aimed and
subsequent bullets go elsewhere because of the previous
one(s). That is not the case, the first bullet has as
much chance of landing at some off-centre point as any
other.

It is
similar to tossing an unbiassed coin, the probability is
50:50 regardless of the outcome of preceding tosses, only
the variable is 2D real (location on the target) rather than
binary (heads or tails).

Yes I know that George.

Then why did you say "No it doesn't!!!!!!" ?

If you drop a thousand ball bearings on the floor they will end up
normally
distributed around the centre....BUT that does not alter the fact thta
there
was a precise physical reason why every one came to rest right where it
did.

Mostly, the scatter is dominated by slight variations at
the macroscopic level, but a small amount of uncertainty
is also an intrinsic property of any individual particle
so if you repeat that with electrons there is a lower
limit of spread beyond that from the lack of perfect
knowledge. Einstein didn't like that but it has been
proven experimentally beyond any doubt. Newton's clockwork
and fully deterministic universe isn't ours.

No, the 'traveling oscillation' model is the macroscopic
equivalent for a group of photons.

That's also true....but it is a different package.

Just the aggregate,

The way I see it is that a monochromatic beam is just a large number of
identical photons with that particular 'wavelength'.

Yes. A grating deflects an individual photon depending on
the colour of that beam, not the rate at which photons
arrive. I'm thinking of say a dim red laser with a flux
of a few photons per minute. Like the coin tosses, each
one is deflected purely on its intrinsic properties.

White light is a mixture.

Yes. When it hits a grating each photon deflects depending
only on its own properties and not the properties of other
photons that arrive some seconds earlier or later.

A radio signal is a mixture in which groups of individual photons form
sine
shaped 'bunches' which move along. ..somewhat like a water wave except the
photons move back and forth rather than up and down.

No, radio is no different to light, it just has much lower
energy per photon. Consider microwaves hitting a wire grid.
Each photon in the wave is deflected by an angle that depends
only on its own properties independent of any others.

This has given me an idea. Do the individual photons move or remain at
basically the same location?
I'll have to make an animation of this.



It is not a theory, it is logically obvious, the energy cannot
be dumped in two different places at the same time.

George, there are two alternatives.
The energy/unit volume of an RF signal can be the sum of all the h.nu
energy
of individual photons in that volume. ...or it could be something like
2pi^2.h.A^2.f^3/c...

Sure, I expect the formula to be different in BaTh, but
the argument still holds, that energy is deposited where
the photon lands, not somehwere else.

That's probably OK for monochromatic light but you can't deduce that the
same
will apply to, say, RF.

They are both just EM, all the rules must apply to everything
from ELF at a few Hz up to gamma rays.

You don't know if the photon that enters the PM is the same one that
was
incident on the grating. One is absorbed and another emitted.

It makes no difference.

Anyway, we know the classical theory of gratings..

I don't think you do, you can't even work out whether speed
appears in the BaTh equations for a grating.

This argument is not about how gratings behave according to BaTh.

Of course it is.

The BaTh doesn't need gratings to verify it.

BaTh needs a version of the grating equation. Working
that out will tell you about the rules for dealing with
reflection in BaTh which is something you currently don't
know. Once you do that you could apply it to Sagnac's
experiment without having to assume all the mirrors are
at the same radius as you do at present.

I don't know what the lowest frequency of individual
detected photons is. However, grating methods are
applied at RF regularly and work fine. The photons
carry the energy and the energy goes where the wave
equations say it will therefore so do the photons.

Water waves carry longitudinal energy...but the individual molecules go
up and
down. Their vertical KE is NOT what is carried with the wave.

The wave energy is deposited where the waves lap the shore,
not somewhere else.

But the energy of the vertically oscillating water molecules is
continuously
being dampened out and absorbed as heat in the ocean.

Yes, and the heat is deposited at the location of the
wave, not elsewhere.

Nobody knows that actual role of individual photons in this process.

Yes we do, from the optical behaviour. EM is the same
whether high frequency or low and gratings work as well
at microwave as they do in the infra-red.

So they should. They are wavelength dependent.

Wavelength and/or frequency.

Since nobody has a clue what photon 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually
signify, that is a pretty meaningless statement.

Speak for yourself.

So why don't you know what they do? A grating reflects
an incident wave to a particular point on a screen along

Huygens.

Exactly, the place where the energy lands on the screen is
controlled by the intrinsic property of the individual photons,
but it is also where Huygens' method says it will land, hence
the wavelength and/or frequency of each photon must be the
same as the macroscopic wave, hence K=1.

Here's another analogy.
The cars on the highway are made of rubber and all carry a heavy
positive
surface charge. What do you think happens to their lengths as they slow
down
and speed up in different speed zones?

I think when the charge is taken to some destination, the car
also arrives at the same place. You can't send the car to
Boston and have the charge arrive in Cairo which is what you
are suggesting. Beyond that discussions of their length are
irrelevant, the length has no analog in the photon.

How do you know.

Because your suggestion is equivalent to saying the heat
produced by friction in an ocean wave can be deposited
inland.

Henry, I think we have maybe got a handle on this, in
your grating equation of you have red laser light
arriving at a level of one photon per second, would you
use the frequency of the red light or the 1Hz rate of
one photon per second to work out the deflection angle.
I say it is that of the light regardless of the arrival
rate, you are telling me the wave energy goes to one
place at an angle determined by the 1Hz figure while
the photons themselves go to the location given by the
red light frequency.

The concept matches the data very well.

It makes no sense though, how can the energy go anywhere
other than where the photons go?

George

On May 3, 6:21 pm, "George Dishman" wrote:

I don't know what the lowest frequency of individual
detected photons is.

Superconducting detectors based on the breaking of quasiparticle
Cooper pairs by absorbed photons go down to the submillimeter
wave range.
http://www.yale.edu/proberlab/Papers..._eucas2003.pdf

There was a Scientific American article on these devices last
year, but darned if I can find my copy...I think it was the one
with autism as the featured cover story.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 3, 6:21 pm, "George Dishman" wrote:

I don't know what the lowest frequency of individual
detected photons is.

Superconducting detectors based on the breaking of quasiparticle
Cooper pairs by absorbed photons go down to the submillimeter
wave range.
http://www.yale.edu/proberlab/Papers..._eucas2003.pdf

There was a Scientific American article on these devices last
year, but darned if I can find my copy...I think it was the one
with autism as the featured cover story.

Fascinating paper Jerry, thanks

It appears it could go as low as the Al limit at 100GHz
or 3mm wavelength which would easily allow a macroscopic
wire grid to be used as a diffraction grating.

George

On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:48:14 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news7bn33hpiiv00fsmjpqh053j3n5v280lja@
4ax.com:

A radio signal is a mixture in which groups of individual photons form sine
shaped 'bunches' which move along. ..somewhat like a water wave except the
photons move back and forth rather than up and down.

An unmodulated radio signal is monchromatic.
The photons are phase and frequency coherent.
The photons travel outward from the antenna.

Have you ever trapped an individual RF photon?


This has given me an idea. Do the individual photons move or remain at
basically the same location?
I'll have to make an animation of this.

Photons move at c.

Wrt what?

They do NOT remain at the same location.



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

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

On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:22:29 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 4 May 2007 01:41:03 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 4 May, 00:35, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

...

No George, have another look at:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdrag.jpg

The peak velocity curve is in phase with the peak brightness curve,
which in in
phase with hte eclipses.

I had another look Henry, it is a fake again! The top is a cut-off
ellipse and
you have then drawn a number of dots along the actual curve by hand.

Of course.

Show a screen capture from your program, state the orbital parameters
and
_copy_ the curve onto a composite diagram like mine showing both
luminosity
and velocity curves with the correct relative phasing:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/EF_Dra.png

You are a charlatan Henry, a plain old fraud.

George, my diagram was never supposed to be accurate. It was merely
demonstrating the basic idea.
I will make a more accurate one for you if you like.

You have your program for precisely this purpose.
Use it to match the velocity curve of one star,
post a screengrab of the green curve and the
orbital parameters as you have before. Then add
180 to the yaw and scale the velocity to get the
second star and see if you can match its velocity
curve. Post that too. Then show how you take account
of the reductions due to eclipsing and show the total.
Don't sketch what you would like, instead plot the
sum using a spreadsheet or something similar.

Here is the combined curve of both stars (without the eclipse)

the details are shown.

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

George




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

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

On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:36:57 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

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.

The RF signal from a CW transmitter is monochromatic.

the signals might be but what of the photons that make up the signal?



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

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

Henri Wilson a écrit :
Here is the combined curve of both stars (without the eclipse)

the details are shown.

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

You could, even if getting worse in physics and general computing, improve
your GUI programing.

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:48:14 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news7bn33hpiiv00fsmjpqh053j3n5v280lja@
4ax.com:

A radio signal is a mixture in which groups of individual photons form
sine shaped 'bunches' which move along. ..somewhat like a water wave
except the photons move back and forth rather than up and down.

An unmodulated radio signal is monchromatic.
The photons are phase and frequency coherent.
The photons travel outward from the antenna.

Have you ever trapped an individual RF photon?

Yep. (prove me wrong!)



This has given me an idea. Do the individual photons move or remain at
basically the same location?
I'll have to make an animation of this.

Photons move at c.

Wrt what?

Any inertial FoR in SR, the source [and very quickly any inertial FoR] in
the ballistic theory of light, and in the Wilson Aether in Henri's BaTh
tub.


They do NOT remain at the same location.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:36:57 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

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.

The RF signal from a CW transmitter is monochromatic.

the signals might be but what of the photons that make up the signal?

They are phase and frequency coherent, just like photons from a laser.

Better actually than most lasers as most have some multimode contributions
to their output.

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

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






--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

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.