Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 8 May 2007 01:39:46 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

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.

That's only the VDoppler component.
Brightness variation is nearly all due to ADoppler.
You've lost the plot again George.


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).

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

I think you meant c+(v/10000)....but it doesn't even do that for very long. The
whole photon settles down to a fixed length that is shorter than when it was
emitted by L'=Le(1-Ka), where a is the radial acceleration of the source at the
point of emission.

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

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

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.

An individual photon has intrinsic properties that are not part of the group
bunching process. Hiwever it is still subject to ADoppler, in a small way.

It's all so simple if you open up your mind George.

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.

It ''''loosely''''' defines EM speed in that FoR...how loose depends on many
factors.
....
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)

Why do you want to use lamba_r? You don't know what its value is unless you
know the reflected light speed exactly. ..but you know lambda_i because it's is
absolute and universal.


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.

I did not claim that I matched it. I merely indicated the general shape of the
curve for each star so that the phasing of the brighness maximum would become
clear.


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.

No George, you aren't even trying to pass the test.
In short period - ie., very close - binaries and pulsars, K appears to be
small. ...maybe = 10 or so. In single stars like cepheids, K is much larger,
maybe 1000 or more.
The value of K determines the relative phasing between brightness and velocity
curves. K is NOT present at all in the ADoppler brightness equation. A separate
factor, unification, IS present.

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.

It isn't nonsense, George. It is merely the mechanism of 'bunching', which you
illustrated yourself.
bviously 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.

The group movenent of photons IS ballistic. What happens inside individual
photons is also ballistic but to a much smaller and limited extent.

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)

Incident light speed is prsent in 'lambda_r', George.
Lambda_r=lambda_i.(c+u/(c+v)), assuming light leaves the grating at c+u.

Otherwise it is the same as
the classical one.

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

No it doesn't.
It measures the time taken for incoming wavecrests to arrive. They are moving
at c+v and their absolute wavelengths are lambda_i

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.

Some people have recently claimed that this is true.

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.

Doesn't each electron emit a stream of photons as it accelerates George?

Come on!..., you don't know what happens to photons in a radio wave.



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.

Because individual photons are particle-like and what happens inside them
doesn't influence the bunching process at all.


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.

It isn't just 'matter'. What is matter anyway?

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.

You're unusually stubborn today George.

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.

Not this one...it's physical...

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.

But the reflected and incident speeds are NOT the same...nor are the angles.

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.

Have another think about it George.

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.

it's wrong.
Essentially what happens is that one beam moves around the ring at c+v/root2
and the other at c-v/root2 (wrt the non-rotating frame)...
The small difference in path length doesn't compensate for the difference in
travel times..

George



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

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

On 9 May, 00:19, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 8 May 2007 01:39:46 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
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.

That's only the VDoppler component.

No, it is TDoppler. How many times do I have to correct you
on that?

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).

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

I think you meant c+(v/10000)....but it doesn't even do that for very long.

I meant (c+v)/10000 but c+(v/10000) is also possible, your
theory is self-contradictory which means if I assume c+v I
can use it to prove (c+v)/10000 or vice versa or maybe that
black is white. The trouble with self-contradictory theories
is that they produce results that violate their own postulates
so the number you get depends on what route you take.

The
whole photon settles down to a fixed length that is shorter than when it was
emitted by L'=Le(1-Ka), where a is the radial acceleration of the source at the
point of emission.

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

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

No Henry, you just don't understand how physical laws can be
used as tools so that one assumption, say c+v, leads to other
conclusions like te Doppler equation by purely mathematical
means.

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.

An individual photon has intrinsic properties that are not part of the group
bunching process. Hiwever it is still subject to ADoppler, in a small way.

It's all so simple if you open up your mind George.

Of course I can believe in anything if I allow for fantasies
but raw maths rules out your handwaving crap and this is
a science group, not sci-fi.

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.

It ''''loosely''''' defines EM speed in that FoR

No, I can describe the speed of light in my office using a
coordinate system centred on the barycentre of the Bullet
Cluster, but the cluster does not define the speed in any
way whatsoever.

....
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)

Why do you want to use lamba_r?

Henry, do you understand what it means to put a variable
on the left hand side of an equation? Perhaps I should have
written it as:

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

but I kept it similar to yours to help you follow. I am only
"using" D and phi, both of which I can measure. lambda_r is
the result.

You don't know what its value is unless you
know the reflected light speed exactly. ..but you know lambda_i because it's is
absolute and universal.

Wrong, measuring D, the grating spacing, and phi, the
deflection angle, tells me lambda_r. I know nothing more
than that. You certainly don't know lambda_i because that
depends on the source, gravitational redshift, cosmogical
redshift, speed equalisation, material conditions and
magnetic fields in the source and so on.

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.

No George, you aren't even trying to pass the test. ...

Correct, that is basic logic. If you want to prove ADoppler exists
you have to show that a result could _not_ be explained by an
alternative. The luminosity curves you have suggested can be
explained by intrinsic variability in Cepheids and by eclipses in
contact binaries so you have no proof.

....
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.

It isn't nonsense, George.

It is nonsense Henry, do a Fourier analysis if you
doubt me, you claimed you knew how to do that.

It is merely the mechanism of 'bunching', which you
illustrated yourself.

The bunching is valid and produces ADopppler as well as
VDoppler, but you will find it must apply at the same
level to pulses and cycles of a sine wave if you use a
Fourier analysis. That means K=1.

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.

The group movenent of photons IS ballistic.

Yes, and ballistics is classical.

What happens inside individual
photons is also ballistic but to a much smaller and limited extent.

Your "photons" are classical wavetrains, not point particles.

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)

Incident light speed is prsent in 'lambda_r', George.

lambda_r has units of length Henry, don't be an idiot.

Lambda_r=lambda_i.(c+u/(c+v)), assuming light leaves the grating at c+u.

lambda_r is what is measured by the grating. That may imply
other things _IF_ you make _ASSUMPTIONS_ but lambda_r is
the only quantity that is actually measured.

Otherwise it is the same as
the classical one.

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

No it doesn't.

Yes it does Henry, your previous guesses were wrong.

It measures the time ...

D * sin(phi) / N does not have units of time Henry.

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.

Some people have recently claimed that this is true.

This has been the basis of instruments for many years, you
are way out of date again.

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.

Doesn't each electron emit a stream of photons as it accelerates George?

Since all the electrons move together under the influence
of the signal applied to the antenna, they emit in phase.

Come on!..., you don't know what happens to photons in a radio wave.

Exactly the same as light Henry.

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.

Because individual photons are particle-like and what happens inside them
doesn't influence the bunching process at all.

Your model is classical waves, not point particles, but you
don't even need that, just apply Fourier to the macroscopic
sum of the photons which is a clasical wave travelling at
c+v.

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.

It isn't just 'matter'. What is matter anyway?

Then call it the aether, whatever, "frame of reference" has an
entirely different meaning.

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.

You're unusually stubborn today George.

You arethe one continually causing confusion by insisting on
being wrong Henry, why do you stubbornly persist in saying
"frame of reference" when you know it means something
completely different to what you are trying to describe?

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

Not this one...it's physical...

Still stubbornly insisting on being wrong Henry, why
don't you grow up a bit.

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
....
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.
....
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.

But the reflected and incident speeds are NOT the same..

See above, both are c.

....
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.

Have another think about it George.

No need, we discussed this to death three years ago and you
discovered I was right, the diagram is still there.

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.

it's wrong.

You drew it, it is correct and you agreed the algebra. Repeat
the analysis if you wish, it's only maths so you will get the
same result.

Essentially what happens is that one beam moves around the ring at c+v/root2
and the other at c-v/root2 (wrt the non-rotating frame)...
The small difference in path length doesn't compensate for the difference in
travel times..

Do the algebra Henry, we showed the compensation
was exact including the "root2" factor.

George

On 9 May 2007 05:52:35 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 9 May, 00:19, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 8 May 2007 01:39:46 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 7 May, 23:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

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.

That's only the VDoppler component.

No, it is TDoppler. How many times do I have to correct you
on that?

George, I know TDoppler is the overall cause.
When I said, "That's only the VDoppler component", I was implying that the
VDoppler component was greater than the ADoppler component, which can be
ignored.


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).

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

I think you meant c+(v/10000)....but it doesn't even do that for very long.

I meant (c+v)/10000 but c+(v/10000) is also possible, your
theory is self-contradictory which means if I assume c+v I
can use it to prove (c+v)/10000 or vice versa or maybe that
black is white. The trouble with self-contradictory theories
is that they produce results that violate their own postulates
so the number you get depends on what route you take.

See, George, you have been missing the point all along.

The
whole photon settles down to a fixed length that is shorter than when it was
emitted by L'=Le(1-Ka), where a is the radial acceleration of the source at the
point of emission.

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

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

No Henry, you just don't understand how physical laws can be
used as tools so that one assumption, say c+v, leads to other
conclusions like the Doppler equation by purely mathematical
means.

What a strange this to say!
This is just the procedure I'm following in relation to star brightness curves
and the BaTh.

you really are amusing sometimes George...


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.

An individual photon has intrinsic properties that are not part of the group
bunching process. Hiwever it is still subject to ADoppler, in a small way.

It's all so simple if you open up your mind George.

Of course I can believe in anything if I allow for fantasies
but raw maths rules out your handwaving crap and this is
a science group, not sci-fi.

You like to model the maths to suit yourself.
My theory is perfectly mathematically sound.



An EM FoR is ...

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

It ''''loosely''''' defines EM speed in that FoR

No, I can describe the speed of light in my office using a
coordinate system centred on the barycentre of the Bullet
Cluster, but the cluster does not define the speed in any
way whatsoever.

OK 'defines' wasn't the best word.
In an EM FoR, light speed will TEND TOWARDS c/n wrt the frame's 'EM centre'.

The latter is another Wilsonian pseudo-geometric term that describes a kind of
average influence exerted by all the 'substance' inside the frame (ie., matter
and fields) on all light originating in or passing through it.

I trust that is now settled.


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)

Why do you want to use lamba_r?

Henry, do you understand what it means to put a variable
on the left hand side of an equation? Perhaps I should have
written it as:

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

but I kept it similar to yours to help you follow. I am only
"using" D and phi, both of which I can measure. lambda_r is
the result.

You don't know what its value is unless you
know the reflected light speed exactly. ..but you know lambda_i because it's is
absolute and universal.

Wrong, measuring D, the grating spacing, and phi, the
deflection angle, tells me lambda_r. I know nothing more
than that. You certainly don't know lambda_i because that
depends on the source, gravitational redshift, cosmogical
redshift, speed equalisation, material conditions and
magnetic fields in the source and so on.

George, you obviously didn't follow my diagram. It describes BaTh not aether
theory. Have another look...

The criterion is TIME not distance. My 'lambda' is your Lambda_i.
The time taken for ray 2 reach the grating after the previous wavecrest (front)
from ray 1 has been reflected to the end of line 'x' is Lambda_i/(c+v).
The time for ray 1's reflection to travel distance 'x' is Dsin(phi)/(c+u)

....these two times are equal.

get it now?


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.

No George, you aren't even trying to pass the test. ...

Correct, that is basic logic. If you want to prove ADoppler exists
you have to show that a result could _not_ be explained by an
alternative. The luminosity curves you have suggested can be
explained by intrinsic variability in Cepheids and by eclipses in
contact binaries so you have no proof.

....and it is pure coincidence that the shape of just about all variable star
curve just happens to match the BaTh prediction for simple orbiting stars?

Some of us physicists can put two and two together George....
Some of us know that all the starlight in the universe hasn't been magically
adjusted to travel at exactly c wrt little planet Earth.

....unlike relativists who are totally bogged down in the ancient christian
belief that homo sapiens is the only living creature in the universe and that
the Earth really IS its centre.

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.

It isn't nonsense, George.

It is nonsense Henry, do a Fourier analysis if you
doubt me, you claimed you knew how to do that.

It is merely the mechanism of 'bunching', which you
illustrated yourself.

The bunching is valid and produces ADopppler as well as
VDoppler, but you will find it must apply at the same
level to pulses and cycles of a sine wave if you use a
Fourier analysis. That means K=1.

I keep telling you George, the intrinsic properties of individual photons must
be treated differently from those of the main 'bunching wave'.
The cars on the highway don't change length when the line slows down George.

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.

The group movenent of photons IS ballistic.

Yes, and ballistics is classical.

....not 'classical wave'....

What happens inside individual
photons is also ballistic but to a much smaller and limited extent.

Your "photons" are classical wavetrains, not point particles.

My best model is the 'serated bullet' one, where the serations represent a
'standing wave' or a helical path carved in space by something that rotates as
it moves.



Nope

lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

Incident light speed is prsent in 'lambda_r', George.

lambda_r has units of length Henry, don't be an idiot.

Lambda_r=lambda_i.(c+u/(c+v)), assuming light leaves the grating at c+u.

lambda_r is what is measured by the grating. That may imply
other things _IF_ you make _ASSUMPTIONS_ but lambda_r is
the only quantity that is actually measured.

see above.
I didn't think I would have to teach YOU geometry George.

Otherwise it is the same as
the classical one.

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

No it doesn't.

Yes it does Henry, your previous guesses were wrong.

It measures the time ...

D * sin(phi) / N does not have units of time Henry.

OK.... strictly speaking, it combines TIME and ABSOLUTE incoming wavelength
with the observed diffraction angle to calculate relative source speed .

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.

Some people have recently claimed that this is true.

This has been the basis of instruments for many years, you
are way out of date again.

My understanding is that only quite recently has light been mixed with very
short microwaves to create observable beats.

It still doesn't tell us much about photon 'frequency' because beating is
really a 'wavelength based' phenomenon.

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.

Doesn't each electron emit a stream of photons as it accelerates George?

Since all the electrons move together under the influence
of the signal applied to the antenna, they emit in phase.

I don't agree. I say they each emit randomly but the RATE at which they emit is
governed by the signal. The carrier 'frequency' relates to varying photon
density.

Come on!..., you don't know what happens to photons in a radio wave.

Exactly the same as light Henry.

Well, I suppose their are plenty of individual 'RF wavelength' photons produced
by thermal radiation and weak molecular bond transitions. ....but they don't
make a radio wave. Photons in the visible light region and higher can be
detected individually, as you pointed out. Lots of similar photons all going in
the same direction make a maser or laser beam. Question: What happens to
individual photons inside a maser cavity?

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.

Because individual photons are particle-like and what happens inside them
doesn't influence the bunching process at all.

Your model is classical waves, not point particles, but you
don't even need that, just apply Fourier to the macroscopic
sum of the photons which is a clasical wave travelling at
c+v.

If I were to assume that intrinsic photon oscillations interact, a fourier
combination would produce either white light or complete destructive
interference...I'm not sure which.

George, think of a pure sinusoidal RF signal. I say the observed wave effect is
just a result of photon density variation...or 'bunching'.
Visible light on the other hand is generally not like that at all... but
consists of identical photons whose energies add together to form 'beam
intensity'.

In my model, an EM beam of a particular wavelength can be produced in two quite
different ways. It can be the result of either lots of identical photons or it
can reflect the bunching pattern formed in groups of random photons all
traveling in the same direction.

Consider the electron radiation from an RF antenna again. Each electron
experiences varying acceleration as it moves up and down the antenna...but all
are linked in phase. The radiation from each electron must be entirely random
but the overall flux density of radiation is still controlled by the signal.
The individual photons don't have to be 'phase-linked' in any way.


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

It isn't just 'matter'. What is matter anyway?

Then call it the aether, whatever, "frame of reference" has an
entirely different meaning.

Not my EM FoR.

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.

You're unusually stubborn today George.

You arethe one continually causing confusion by insisting on
being wrong Henry, why do you stubbornly persist in saying
"frame of reference" when you know it means something
completely different to what you are trying to describe?

I have now provided a clearer definition.

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

Not this one...it's physical...

Still stubbornly insisting on being wrong Henry, why
don't you grow up a bit.

I have now provided a clearer definition.

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
...
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.
...
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.

But the reflected and incident speeds are NOT the same..

See above, both are c.

There is a subtle problem with reflection angles that we haven't considered at
all. I will get onto this soon.

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.

Have another think about it George.

No need, we discussed this to death three years ago and you
discovered I was right, the diagram is still there.

We ignored a vital piece of information.

George, if you shoot from a moving car at an object lying at 45 degrees, what
is the direction of the bullet's CENTRAL AXIS when it hits?
....
If the object is also moving at your speed but perpendicularly away from the
road, how does that affect the angle at which the bullet will bounce of the
object (assuming specularly).

Photons are not 'little round balls'.

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.

it's wrong.

You drew it, it is correct and you agreed the algebra. Repeat
the analysis if you wish, it's only maths so you will get the
same result.

It's a lot more complicated.


Essentially what happens is that one beam moves around the ring at c+v/root2
and the other at c-v/root2 (wrt the non-rotating frame)...
The small difference in path length doesn't compensate for the difference in
travel times..

Do the algebra Henry, we showed the compensation
was exact including the "root2" factor.

Yes, I'm aware of what we did before.

George



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

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

On 10 May, 00:58, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 9 May 2007 05:52:35 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 9 May, 00:19, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 8 May 2007 01:39:46 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 7 May, 23:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.

That's only the VDoppler component.

No, it is TDoppler. How many times do I have to correct you
on that?

George, I know TDoppler is the overall cause.
When I said, "That's only the VDoppler component", I was implying that the
VDoppler component was greater than the ADoppler component, which can be
ignored.

OK, in that case we agree. Please try to say TDoppler if that's
what you mean, it just wastes a lot of time clearing this up
each time.

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).

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

I think you meant c+(v/10000)....but it doesn't even do that for very long.

I meant (c+v)/10000 but c+(v/10000) is also possible, your
theory is self-contradictory which means if I assume c+v I
can use it to prove (c+v)/10000 or vice versa or maybe that
black is white. The trouble with self-contradictory theories
is that they produce results that violate their own postulates
so the number you get depends on what route you take.

See, George, you have been missing the point all along.

What are you talking about? What I said was correct.

The
whole photon settles down to a fixed length that is shorter than when it was
emitted by L'=Le(1-Ka), where a is the radial acceleration of the source at the
point of emission.

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

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

No Henry, you just don't understand how physical laws can be
used as tools so that one assumption, say c+v, leads to other
conclusions like the Doppler equation by purely mathematical
means.

What a strange this to say!

Not really, K=1 can be derived purely mathematically and you
are ignoring that which produces your inconsistency.

This is just the procedure I'm following in relation to star brightness curves
and the BaTh.

No, you are plucking a value of K out of thin air instead of
deriving it using Fourier analysis (or some other equivalent
approach, there's more than one way).

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.

An individual photon has intrinsic properties that are not part of the group
bunching process. Hiwever it is still subject to ADoppler, in a small way.

It's all so simple if you open up your mind George.

Of course I can believe in anything if I allow for fantasies
but raw maths rules out your handwaving crap and this is
a science group, not sci-fi.

You like to model the maths to suit yourself.

You don't "model the maths" Henry, you use maths to
model the real world.

My theory is perfectly mathematically sound.

No, it is mathematically self-contradictory, I have
explained why dozens of times. Do a Fourier transform
and see for yourself.

An EM FoR is ...

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

It ''''loosely''''' defines EM speed in that FoR

No, I can describe the speed of light in my office using a
coordinate system centred on the barycentre of the Bullet
Cluster, but the cluster does not define the speed in any
way whatsoever.

OK 'defines' wasn't the best word.

"Describes" or "labels" would be better but the key
point is that the FoR has no physical existence.

In an EM FoR, light speed will TEND TOWARDS c/n wrt the frame's 'EM centre'.

c/n wrt the material which produces the refractive index n
as measured using a frame of reference in which that
material is at rest would probably be the clearest way to
state that.

The latter is another Wilsonian pseudo-geometric term that describes a kind of
average influence exerted by all the 'substance' inside the frame (ie., matter
and fields) on all light originating in or passing through it.

I trust that is now settled.

Just say 'matter' when you mean it and the problem goes away.

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)

Why do you want to use lamba_r?

Henry, do you understand what it means to put a variable
on the left hand side of an equation? Perhaps I should have
written it as:

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

but I kept it similar to yours to help you follow. I am only
"using" D and phi, both of which I can measure. lambda_r is
the result.

You don't know what its value is unless you
know the reflected light speed exactly. ..but you know lambda_i because it's is
absolute and universal.

Wrong, measuring D, the grating spacing, and phi, the
deflection angle, tells me lambda_r. I know nothing more
than that. You certainly don't know lambda_i because that
depends on the source, gravitational redshift, cosmogical
redshift, speed equalisation, material conditions and
magnetic fields in the source and so on.

George, you obviously didn't follow my diagram. It describes BaTh not aether
theory. Have another look...

I didn't mention an aether. I'm fairly happy with your diagram.

The criterion is TIME not distance. My 'lambda' is your Lambda_i.
The time taken for ray 2 reach the grating after the previous wavecrest (front)
from ray 1 has been reflected to the end of line 'x' is Lambda_i/(c+v).
The time for ray 1's reflection to travel distance 'x' is Dsin(phi)/(c+u)

...these two times are equal.

The time for ray 1 is the distance from ruling 1 to the point on
the screen divided by the speed of ray 1. The time for ray 2 is
the distance from ruling 2 to the same point on the screen
divided by the speed of ray 2. You are assuming that the speed
of the two rays is the same, i.e. u1 = u2. That may not be the
case if the deflection angles differ as might be the case if the
screen were very close to the grating, however, if we assume
the rays are close to parallel then the speeds should be the
same and rays arrive in phase if the difference in distance is an
exact multiple of the reflected wavelength. That gives you the
grating equation:

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

get it now?

I always did, I derived the above directly from your first attempt.
The bottom line is that a manufacturer ould make a grating with
an attached protractor and mark the scale with Angstroms
instead of degrees and you could read off the reflected
wavelength. He cannot mark it in nanoseconds for you to read
a time and the reading in Angstroms is _not_ the incident
wavelength since BaTh allows for a change of speed on
reflection.

You are the one who still isn't getting it even though you wrote
the equation yourself.

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.

No George, you aren't even trying to pass the test. ...

Correct, that is basic logic. If you want to prove ADoppler exists
you have to show that a result could _not_ be explained by an
alternative. The luminosity curves you have suggested can be
explained by intrinsic variability in Cepheids and by eclipses in
contact binaries so you have no proof.

...and it is pure coincidence that the shape of just about all variable star
curve just happens to match the BaTh prediction for simple orbiting stars?

It doesn't, you admitted already there are harmonics you
can't explain. However, that's an aside.

The point is that it _could_ be coincidence and your task is
to provide _proof_ that coincidence cannot explain it. Consider
what would happen if we found an eclipsing binary where the
velocity curves were at their maxima during the eclipse and
were perfect sine waves. That would show the orbits were
circular and the phase would indicate ADoppler. That's what
you need.

Bottom line is that you have offerred no scientific proof at all
for the existence of ADoppler.

Some of us physicists can put two and two together George....

Putting coincidences together is what laymen do Henry, you
could never be a physicist.

....
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.

It isn't nonsense, George.

It is nonsense Henry, do a Fourier analysis if you
doubt me, you claimed you knew how to do that.

It is merely the mechanism of 'bunching', which you
illustrated yourself.

The bunching is valid and produces ADopppler as well as
VDoppler, but you will find it must apply at the same
level to pulses and cycles of a sine wave if you use a
Fourier analysis. That means K=1.

I keep telling you George, the intrinsic properties of individual photons must
be treated differently from those of the main 'bunching wave'.

And I keep telling you that if you do a Fourier analysis as
you claim you can, you will find that is impossible.

....
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.

The group movenent of photons IS ballistic.

Yes, and ballistics is classical.

...not 'classical wave'....

It is "classical" because it treats the universe as deterministic
and being able to be exactly calculated using some combination
of waves, particles and so on. Post-classical theory treats all
events as being definable only in terms of probabilities and
the classical laws emerge only through the statistics of large
numbers of individual events.

Whether it uses waves or ballistics is neither here nor there
but your current formulation simply uses classical waves with
a modified speed equation. Perhaps it would be clearer if you
wrote down what you think is the BaTh equation for a propagating
wave.

What happens inside individual
photons is also ballistic but to a much smaller and limited extent.

Your "photons" are classical wavetrains, not point particles.

My best model is the 'serated bullet' one, where the serations represent a
'standing wave' or a helical path carved in space by something that rotates as
it moves.

It doesn't model the BaTh equations, the best match I could
get was the coil of wire moving along its axis. The back can
catch and pass through the front and the speed of each part
is independent of all other parts. That accurately reflects the
BaTh maths though it is harder to visualise.

Nope

lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

Incident light speed is prsent in 'lambda_r', George.

lambda_r has units of length Henry, don't be an idiot.

Lambda_r=lambda_i.(c+u/(c+v)), assuming light leaves the grating at c+u.

lambda_r is what is measured by the grating. That may imply
other things _IF_ you make _ASSUMPTIONS_ but lambda_r is
the only quantity that is actually measured.

see above.
I didn't think I would have to teach YOU geometry George.

We always agreed the geometry Henry. I didn't think I would
have to teach you algebra Henry but it seems I do.

Otherwise it is the same as
the classical one.

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

No it doesn't.

Yes it does Henry, your previous guesses were wrong.

It measures the time ...

D * sin(phi) / N does not have units of time Henry.

OK.... strictly speaking, it combines TIME and ABSOLUTE incoming wavelength
with the observed diffraction angle to calculate relative source speed .

No Henry, strictly speaking the angle depends _only_ on the reflected
wavelength. It does _not_ measure the incident wavelength. You might
try to infer that but you can only do so by making an _assumption_
about the change of speed on reflection.

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.

Some people have recently claimed that this is true.

This has been the basis of instruments for many years, you
are way out of date again.

My understanding is that only quite recently has light been mixed with very
short microwaves to create observable beats.

Laser combs have been in use for many years. I couldn't say
how long but I heard of their use a long time ago.

It still doesn't tell us much about photon 'frequency' because beating is
really a 'wavelength based' phenomenon.

You miss the point, beating is a linear effect based on addition of
waves, the envelope exhibits the difference frequecy but if you
analyse the composite with Fourier you only have the original
frequencies. Heterodyning produces actual signal power at the
sum and difference frequencies which requires _multiplication_
of the source waves. It is exactly the same technique used in
radio receivers and means that light behaves exactly the same
as radio. Anything I can do with a CW 1MHz transmitter can in
theory also be done with a mono-mode laser beam given fast
enough components

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.

Doesn't each electron emit a stream of photons as it accelerates George?

Since all the electrons move together under the influence
of the signal applied to the antenna, they emit in phase.

I don't agree. I say they each emit randomly but the RATE at which they emit is
governed by the signal.

No, the rate of arrival is just the intensity for light or the
carrier power for RF.

The carrier 'frequency' relates to varying photon
density.

No, it is intrinsic, a single photon still gets deflected by a
grating
by the same amount as the stream from which it was taken.

Come on!..., you don't know what happens to photons in a radio wave.

Exactly the same as light Henry.

Well, I suppose their are plenty of individual 'RF wavelength' photons produced
by thermal radiation and weak molecular bond transitions. ....but they don't
make a radio wave.

They do, thermal radiation can be detected as microwaves
but it has a broadband spectrum because the photons are not
phase related.

Photons in the visible light region and higher can be
detected individually, as you pointed out. Lots of similar photons all going in
the same direction make a maser or laser beam. Question: What happens to
individual photons inside a maser cavity?

They bounce off the ends and have a small probability of
escaping. As they pass some atoms, the promt the emission
of additional photons in phase.

....
Because individual photons are particle-like and what happens inside them
doesn't influence the bunching process at all.

Your model is classical waves, not point particles, but you
don't even need that, just apply Fourier to the macroscopic
sum of the photons which is a clasical wave travelling at
c+v.

If I were to assume that intrinsic photon oscillations interact, a fourier
combination would produce either white light or complete destructive
interference...I'm not sure which.

It can produce either constructive or destructive interference.
White light is broadband with a uniform spread of intrinsic
frequency and uncorrelated phases.

George, think of a pure sinusoidal RF signal. I say the observed wave effect is
just a result of photon density variation...or 'bunching'.

Visible light on the other hand is generally not like that at all... but
consists of identical photons whose energies add together to form 'beam
intensity'.

Visible light and radio are known to be the same thing differing
only in the frequency range. The fact that we can multiple laser
combs with incident light or with microwave signals using the
old heterodyne technique proves that.

Since each photon carries the same energy, bunching gives
changes of intensity. If what you say were true, a single photon
wouldn't have any preferred deflection angle when hitting a grating
but in fact in a low rate stream from a monochromatic source all
the photons get deflected by the same amount even when the
arrival rate is random. See the video or stills I cited.

In my model, an EM beam of a particular wavelength can be produced in two quite
different ways. It can be the result of either lots of identical photons or it
can reflect the bunching pattern formed in groups of random photons all
traveling in the same direction.

Consider the electron radiation from an RF antenna again. Each electron
experiences varying acceleration as it moves up and down the antenna...but all
are linked in phase. The radiation from each electron must be entirely random
but the overall flux density of radiation is still controlled by the signal.

Facts:

1) the "flux density" is controlled by the voltage fed to the
antenna,
not the frequency.

2) Each photon has the same frequency as the frequency of the AC
fed to the antenna.

The individual photons don't have to be 'phase-linked' in any way.

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

It isn't just 'matter'. What is matter anyway?

Then call it the aether, whatever, "frame of reference" has an
entirely different meaning.

Not my EM FoR.

"Frame of reference" is purely mathematical, you are talking about
a combination of matter and an aether.


Well I wont dwell on this ...

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

You're unusually stubborn today George.

You arethe one continually causing confusion by insisting on
being wrong Henry, why do you stubbornly persist in saying
"frame of reference" when you know it means something
completely different to what you are trying to describe?

I have now provided a clearer definition.

The accepted terms for what you are describing are matter and/or
an aether. Frame of reference is the coordiante scheme used to
describe the motion of the matter and the flow of the aether.

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

Not this one...it's physical...

Still stubbornly insisting on being wrong Henry, why
don't you grow up a bit.

I have now provided a clearer definition.

You don't need a dfinition, both concepts have existing
terms to describe them. Stick with those accepted terms
Henry, I'll continue to point out where you get them wrong
for the benefit of lurkers who haven't seen this.

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.

But the reflected and incident speeds are NOT the same..

See above, both are c.

There is a subtle problem with reflection angles that we haven't considered at
all. I will get onto this soon.

No, no problem at all. The ratio of the angles depends on the
ratio of the speeds and since the speeds are the same, the
angles are the same.

Have another think about it George.

No need, we discussed this to death three years ago and you
discovered I was right, the diagram is still there.

We ignored a vital piece of information.

George, if you shoot from a moving car at an object lying at 45 degrees, what
is the direction of the bullet's CENTRAL AXIS when it hits?

I don't care, the thing measured in Sagnac is the time of flight
of the bullet.

...
If the object is also moving at your speed but perpendicularly away from the
road, how does that affect the angle at which the bullet will bounce of the
object (assuming specularly).

Do you mean vertically up from the Sagnac turntable? It would simply
go over the top of the detector. I'm not sure I understand your
question.

Photons are not 'little round balls'.

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.

it's wrong.

You drew it, it is correct and you agreed the algebra. Repeat
the analysis if you wish, it's only maths so you will get the
same result.

It's a lot more complicated.

You drew it and it correctly shows the full story as described
by ballistic theory. You also checked and agreed the equations
I worte relating to it which were in all honesty quite trivial. They
say there should be no fringe shift which is exactly what we
expect from ballistic theory, it predicts no shift.

Essentially what happens is that one beam moves around the ring at c+v/root2
and the other at c-v/root2 (wrt the non-rotating frame)...
The small difference in path length doesn't compensate for the difference in
travel times..

Do the algebra Henry, we showed the compensation
was exact including the "root2" factor.

Yes, I'm aware of what we did before.

Good, I can't be bothered digging it up again.

George

On 10 May 2007 05:33:11 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 10 May, 00:58, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 9 May 2007 05:52:35 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 9 May, 00:19, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 8 May 2007 01:39:46 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

George, I know TDoppler is the overall cause.
When I said, "That's only the VDoppler component", I was implying that the
VDoppler component was greater than the ADoppler component, which can be
ignored.

OK, in that case we agree. Please try to say TDoppler if that's
what you mean, it just wastes a lot of time clearing this up
each time.

Let's summarize.

Observed wavelengths of light are doppler affected by both VDoppler and
ADoppler according to BaTh. The sum of these effects we call TDoppler.
Their ratio determines the phasing of the velocity curve. The data we have and
the results of our discussions suggest that for some stars, VDoppler is
negligible and for others, including pulsars, ADoppler is negligible.

VDoppler cannot account for magnitude changes of greater than about 0.001.
ADoppler can produce changes up to about 3.2 quite easily.


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).

No you've gotten it all wrong again George.

I think you meant c+(v/10000)....but it doesn't even do that for very long.

I meant (c+v)/10000 but c+(v/10000) is also possible, your
theory is self-contradictory which means if I assume c+v I
can use it to prove (c+v)/10000 or vice versa or maybe that
black is white. The trouble with self-contradictory theories
is that they produce results that violate their own postulates
so the number you get depends on what route you take.

See, George, you have been missing the point all along.

What are you talking about? What I said was correct.

This is my current view.
The individual photons emitted over the whole orbit move in the range c +/ v
wrt to Earth. (assume, also, to the star's orbit centre).
Without any extinction, they continue in that manner and become bunched or
separated due to their velocity differences. The bunching pattern is in phase
with radial acceleration (so we call it an 'ADoppler' effect).
Close to the source, an observer would detect virtually no bunching and mainly
the VDoppler shift of the various photons.

I say that the individual photons are directly affected in much the same way
but by a much smaller amount. If, for instance, the photons in a bunch become
10% closer, they each shrink not by 10% but by maybe 0.01% or less. It is still
an ADoppler effect and will eventually outweigh the VDoppler contribution if it
continues for sufficiently long. I also suggest that individual photon ADoppler
is dampened out well before bunching stabilizes due to unification.

So the end result is, if the ends of a photon move at c+v+u and c+v-u, it is
the 'u' bit that falls exponentially to a lower value which I have loosely
described with the factor 'K'.



No Henry, you just don't understand how physical laws can be
used as tools so that one assumption, say c+v, leads to other
conclusions like the Doppler equation by purely mathematical
means.

What a strange this to say!

Not really, K=1 can be derived purely mathematically and you
are ignoring that which produces your inconsistency.

This is just the procedure I'm following in relation to star brightness curves
and the BaTh.

No, you are plucking a value of K out of thin air instead of
deriving it using Fourier analysis (or some other equivalent
approach, there's more than one way).

I hope I have now answered this.


It's all so simple if you open up your mind George.

Of course I can believe in anything if I allow for fantasies
but raw maths rules out your handwaving crap and this is
a science group, not sci-fi.

You like to model the maths to suit yourself.

You don't "model the maths" Henry, you use maths to
model the real world.

tell that to your relativist friends.

My theory is perfectly mathematically sound.

No, it is mathematically self-contradictory, I have
explained why dozens of times. Do a Fourier transform
and see for yourself.

George, let a stream of cars each 5 metres long move down the highway at 30
m/s. Let them be spaced 10 meters apart.
What happens when they come to a 15 m/s zone?
What happens when they come to a 10 m/s zone?
What happens when they reach a 9 m/s zone??????????

What would a highway look like if a condition applied that made car length =
car spacing/3000 ? ..or a more complicated fi\unction of spacing?


No, I can describe the speed of light in my office using a
coordinate system centred on the barycentre of the Bullet
Cluster, but the cluster does not define the speed in any
way whatsoever.

OK 'defines' wasn't the best word.

"Describes" or "labels" would be better but the key
point is that the FoR has no physical existence.

That's another one of your silly statements George.
The Earth's atmosphere is one such FoR. Is it "physical"?

In an EM FoR, light speed will TEND TOWARDS c/n wrt the frame's 'EM centre'.

c/n wrt the material which produces the refractive index n
as measured using a frame of reference in which that
material is at rest would probably be the clearest way to
state that.

Well that's the same thing really, the problem being that parts of the 'frame'
are all moving differently and have different 'strengths'......That's why I
stress the term 'loose' in the definition. EM FoRs are very poorly defined at
best.


The latter is another Wilsonian pseudo-geometric term that describes a kind of
average influence exerted by all the 'substance' inside the frame (ie., matter
and fields) on all light originating in or passing through it.

I trust that is now settled.

Just say 'matter' when you mean it and the problem goes away.

It's a lot more than ordinary matter....but I regard 'fields' as a form of
matter anyway...or vice versa....

I stil reckon there are three mass dimensions as well as three time and space.
,,,but that's another matter...



Wrong, measuring D, the grating spacing, and phi, the
deflection angle, tells me lambda_r. I know nothing more
than that. You certainly don't know lambda_i because that
depends on the source, gravitational redshift, cosmogical
redshift, speed equalisation, material conditions and
magnetic fields in the source and so on.

George, you obviously didn't follow my diagram. It describes BaTh not aether
theory. Have another look...

I didn't mention an aether. I'm fairly happy with your diagram.

The criterion is TIME not distance. My 'lambda' is your Lambda_i.
The time taken for ray 2 reach the grating after the previous wavecrest (front)
from ray 1 has been reflected to the end of line 'x' is Lambda_i/(c+v).
The time for ray 1's reflection to travel distance 'x' is Dsin(phi)/(c+u)

...these two times are equal.

The time for ray 1 is the distance from ruling 1 to the point on
the screen divided by the speed of ray 1. The time for ray 2 is
the distance from ruling 2 to the same point on the screen
divided by the speed of ray 2. You are assuming that the speed
of the two rays is the same, i.e. u1 = u2. That may not be the
case if the deflection angles differ as might be the case if the
screen were very close to the grating, however, if we assume
the rays are close to parallel then the speeds should be the
same and rays arrive in phase if the difference in distance is an
exact multiple of the reflected wavelength. That gives you the
grating equation:

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

get it now?

I always did, I derived the above directly from your first attempt.
The bottom line is that a manufacturer ould make a grating with
an attached protractor and mark the scale with Angstroms
instead of degrees and you could read off the reflected
wavelength. He cannot mark it in nanoseconds for you to read
a time and the reading in Angstroms is _not_ the incident
wavelength since BaTh allows for a change of speed on
reflection.

George I have added a few symbols to the diagram. Please refresh.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg

A, B and C represent wavefronts, ie., points of equal phase in the vertical,
monochromatic, incident beam, which is approaching the grating at c+v. Its
wavelength is known, absolute and universal.

Ray 1 is diffracted at C in all directions. It speed and wavelength are not
known. The condition for reinforcement with Ray 2, is that the former reaches
point P when Ray 2 just reaches the grating.

The description in the diagram tells the rest of the story.


Correct, that is basic logic. If you want to prove ADoppler exists
you have to show that a result could _not_ be explained by an
alternative. The luminosity curves you have suggested can be
explained by intrinsic variability in Cepheids and by eclipses in
contact binaries so you have no proof.

...and it is pure coincidence that the shape of just about all variable star
curve just happens to match the BaTh prediction for simple orbiting stars?

It doesn't, you admitted already there are harmonics you
can't explain. However, that's an aside.

The BaTh still applies to the harmonics.

The point is that it _could_ be coincidence and your task is
to provide _proof_ that coincidence cannot explain it. Consider
what would happen if we found an eclipsing binary where the
velocity curves were at their maxima during the eclipse and
were perfect sine waves. That would show the orbits were
circular and the phase would indicate ADoppler. That's what
you need.

Bottom line is that you have offerred no scientific proof at all
for the existence of ADoppler.

I have explained above how this can easiily happen. The velocity curve can be
VDoppler dominated whilst the brightness curve is ADoppler.

Some of us physicists can put two and two together George....

Putting coincidences together is what laymen do Henry, you
could never be a physicist.

There is a simple explanation...well maybe not that simple....


The bunching is valid and produces ADopppler as well as
VDoppler, but you will find it must apply at the same
level to pulses and cycles of a sine wave if you use a
Fourier analysis. That means K=1.

I keep telling you George, the intrinsic properties of individual photons must
be treated differently from those of the main 'bunching wave'.

And I keep telling you that if you do a Fourier analysis as
you claim you can, you will find that is impossible.

Experiment with the cars on the highway again. Use rubber cars if necessary.



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

The group movenent of photons IS ballistic.

Yes, and ballistics is classical.

...not 'classical wave'....

It is "classical" because it treats the universe as deterministic
and being able to be exactly calculated using some combination
of waves, particles and so on. Post-classical theory treats all
events as being definable only in terms of probabilities and
the classical laws emerge only through the statistics of large
numbers of individual events.

Whether it uses waves or ballistics is neither here nor there
but your current formulation simply uses classical waves with
a modified speed equation. Perhaps it would be clearer if you
wrote down what you think is the BaTh equation for a propagating
wave.

George, this is the way you would like the world to be.
I have provided an alternative htat matches the observed data.

What happens inside individual
photons is also ballistic but to a much smaller and limited extent.

Your "photons" are classical wavetrains, not point particles.

My best model is the 'serated bullet' one, where the serations represent a
'standing wave' or a helical path carved in space by something that rotates as
it moves.

It doesn't model the BaTh equations, the best match I could
get was the coil of wire moving along its axis. The back can
catch and pass through the front and the speed of each part
is independent of all other parts. That accurately reflects the
BaTh maths though it is harder to visualise.

Yes a coiled spring is a good analogy...except that the ends don't keep on
moving wrt each other, as you seem to think. They stop well before that
happens...but the length reduction is proportional to ADoppler not VDoppler!!!!


lambda_r is what is measured by the grating. That may imply
other things _IF_ you make _ASSUMPTIONS_ but lambda_r is
the only quantity that is actually measured.

see above.
I didn't think I would have to teach YOU geometry George.

We always agreed the geometry Henry. I didn't think I would
have to teach you algebra Henry but it seems I do.

See hte new diagram.



It measures the time ...

D * sin(phi) / N does not have units of time Henry.

OK.... strictly speaking, it combines TIME and ABSOLUTE incoming wavelength
with the observed diffraction angle to calculate relative source speed .

No Henry, strictly speaking the angle depends _only_ on the reflected
wavelength. It does _not_ measure the incident wavelength. You might
try to infer that but you can only do so by making an _assumption_
about the change of speed on reflection.

Your problem is that you are stuck with the 'constant c' model.

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.

Some people have recently claimed that this is true.

This has been the basis of instruments for many years, you
are way out of date again.

My understanding is that only quite recently has light been mixed with very
short microwaves to create observable beats.

Laser combs have been in use for many years. I couldn't say
how long but I heard of their use a long time ago.

It still doesn't tell us much about photon 'frequency' because beating is
really a 'wavelength based' phenomenon.

You miss the point, beating is a linear effect based on addition of
waves, the envelope exhibits the difference frequecy but if you
analyse the composite with Fourier you only have the original
frequencies. Heterodyning produces actual signal power at the
sum and difference frequencies which requires _multiplication_
of the source waves. It is exactly the same technique used in
radio receivers and means that light behaves exactly the same
as radio. Anything I can do with a CW 1MHz transmitter can in
theory also be done with a mono-mode laser beam given fast
enough components

Well unless you can do the experiment with a moving source we are none the
wiser.

Doesn't each electron emit a stream of photons as it accelerates George?

Since all the electrons move together under the influence
of the signal applied to the antenna, they emit in phase.

I don't agree. I say they each emit randomly but the RATE at which they emit is
governed by the signal.

No, the rate of arrival is just the intensity for light or the
carrier power for RF.

The carrier 'frequency' relates to varying photon
density.

No, it is intrinsic, a single photon still gets deflected by a
grating
by the same amount as the stream from which it was taken.

Gratings are sensitive to individual photon wavelength but not to phase
differences between photons.

Come on!..., you don't know what happens to photons in a radio wave.

Exactly the same as light Henry.

Well, I suppose their are plenty of individual 'RF wavelength' photons produced
by thermal radiation and weak molecular bond transitions. ....but they don't
make a radio wave.

They do, thermal radiation can be detected as microwaves
but it has a broadband spectrum because the photons are not
phase related.

That's right, there is no intelligent content.

Photons in the visible light region and higher can be
detected individually, as you pointed out. Lots of similar photons all going in
the same direction make a maser or laser beam. Question: What happens to
individual photons inside a maser cavity?

They bounce off the ends and have a small probability of
escaping. As they pass some atoms, the promt the emission
of additional photons in phase.

e maser cavity has to be tuned to the frequency...what does this tell us about
individual photon length?


If I were to assume that intrinsic photon oscillations interact, a fourier
combination would produce either white light or complete destructive
interference...I'm not sure which.

It can produce either constructive or destructive interference.
White light is broadband with a uniform spread of intrinsic
frequency and uncorrelated phases.

precisely.

George, think of a pure sinusoidal RF signal. I say the observed wave effect is
just a result of photon density variation...or 'bunching'.

Visible light on the other hand is generally not like that at all... but
consists of identical photons whose energies add together to form 'beam
intensity'.

Visible light and radio are known to be the same thing differing
only in the frequency range.

I say that is wrong.

The fact that we can multiple laser
combs with incident light or with microwave signals using the
old heterodyne technique proves that.

No it doesn't. Waves in 'photon density' would beat in exactly the same manner.

Since each photon carries the same energy, bunching gives
changes of intensity. If what you say were true, a single photon
wouldn't have any preferred deflection angle when hitting a grating
but in fact in a low rate stream from a monochromatic source all
the photons get deflected by the same amount even when the
arrival rate is random. See the video or stills I cited.

that's not true. My model WOULD result in all single photons being diffracted
by the same angle, in a momnochromatic beam..

In my model, an EM beam of a particular wavelength can be produced in two quite
different ways. It can be the result of either lots of identical photons or it
can reflect the bunching pattern formed in groups of random photons all
traveling in the same direction.

Consider the electron radiation from an RF antenna again. Each electron
experiences varying acceleration as it moves up and down the antenna...but all
are linked in phase. The radiation from each electron must be entirely random
but the overall flux density of radiation is still controlled by the signal.

Facts:

1) the "flux density" is controlled by the voltage fed to the
antenna,
not the frequency.

One would think the higher the frequency the higher the electron
acceleration....but I appreciate there are other factors.

2) Each photon has the same frequency as the frequency of the AC
fed to the antenna.

Hahahaho!
You don't know that George.



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

Not this one...it's physical...

Still stubbornly insisting on being wrong Henry, why
don't you grow up a bit.

I have now provided a clearer definition.

You don't need a dfinition, both concepts have existing
terms to describe them. Stick with those accepted terms
Henry, I'll continue to point out where you get them wrong
for the benefit of lurkers who haven't seen this.

It so happens George that the idea of EM FoRs is not mine. It came from Len
Gaasenbeek....and I largely agree with his concept even though I have modified
it considerably.



See above, both are c.

There is a subtle problem with reflection angles that we haven't considered at
all. I will get onto this soon.

No, no problem at all. The ratio of the angles depends on the
ratio of the speeds and since the speeds are the same, the
angles are the same.

Have another think about it George.

No need, we discussed this to death three years ago and you
discovered I was right, the diagram is still there.

We ignored a vital piece of information.

George, if you shoot from a moving car at an object lying at 45 degrees, what
is the direction of the bullet's CENTRAL AXIS when it hits?

I don't care, the thing measured in Sagnac is the time of flight
of the bullet.

But that will be affected by the angle of reflection...which I now know doesn't
equal the angle of incidence for a very subtle reason.

If the object is also moving at your speed but perpendicularly away from the
road, how does that affect the angle at which the bullet will bounce of the
object (assuming specularly).

Do you mean vertically up from the Sagnac turntable? It would simply
go over the top of the detector. I'm not sure I understand your
question.

Think of a photon as being like a long arrow.....maybe billions of wavelengths
long....When fired from a laterally moving object, its 'axis' will generally
not lie parallel to its velocity vector.

Photons are not 'little round balls'.

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.

it's wrong.

You drew it, it is correct and you agreed the algebra. Repeat
the analysis if you wish, it's only maths so you will get the
same result.

It's a lot more complicated.

You drew it and it correctly shows the full story as described
by ballistic theory. You also checked and agreed the equations
I worte relating to it which were in all honesty quite trivial. They
say there should be no fringe shift which is exactly what we
expect from ballistic theory, it predicts no shift.

I left out a vital factor.

Essentially what happens is that one beam moves around the ring at c+v/root2
and the other at c-v/root2 (wrt the non-rotating frame)...
The small difference in path length doesn't compensate for the difference in
travel times..

Do the algebra Henry, we showed the compensation
was exact including the "root2" factor.

Yes, I'm aware of what we did before.

Good, I can't be bothered digging it up again.

It was incomplete,

George



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

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

On 11 May, 01:54, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 10 May 2007 05:33:11 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 10 May, 00:58, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
George, I know TDoppler is the overall cause.
When I said, "That's only the VDoppler component", I was implying that the
VDoppler component was greater than the ADoppler component, which can be
ignored.

OK, in that case we agree. Please try to say TDoppler if that's
what you mean, it just wastes a lot of time clearing this up
each time.

Let's summarize.

Observed wavelengths of light are doppler affected by both VDoppler and
ADoppler according to BaTh.

Yes.

The sum of these effects we call TDoppler.
Their ratio determines the phasing of the velocity curve.

Yes, and the amplitude as well. That is published in the form
of the "velocity curve" based on the assumption that it is
VDoppler only.

The data we have and
the results of our discussions suggest that for some stars, VDoppler is
negligible and for others, including pulsars, ADoppler is negligible.

No, all the results from velocity curves so far indicate that
the TDoppler has the same phase as VDoppler so ADopppler
is negligible.

VDoppler cannot account for magnitude changes of greater than about 0.001.
ADoppler can produce changes up to about 3.2 quite easily.

Go back to what you said at the top, "George, I know TDoppler
is the overall cause."

TDoppler cannot produce luminosity changes of more than
about 0.002 mag (peak to peak) without corresponding
velocity curves in excess of 300 km/s.

....

This is my current view.
The individual photons emitted over the whole orbit move in the range c +/ v
wrt to Earth. (assume, also, to the star's orbit centre).

The speed is c+v in whatever frame but the "v" in Earth's frame
has a different value to that in the system's barycentre frame,
the difference being the proper motion of the system relative to
the Earth. I'm not disagreeing, just adding clarification.

Without any extinction, they continue in that manner and become bunched or
separated due to their velocity differences.
The bunching pattern is in phase
with radial acceleration (so we call it an 'ADoppler' effect).
Close to the source, an observer would detect virtually no bunching and mainly
the VDoppler shift of the various photons.

Correct.

I say that the individual photons are directly affected in much the same way
but by a much smaller amount.

That's where the problem arises. You model "photons" in a
classical way as nothing more than a sequence of waves.
Ballistic theory tells you the speed of any disturbance so
it applies to each wave individually. There is only one effect
working, each wave is emitted at c+v and thereafter its speed
decays towards c/n governed by the equation dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R

Since there is only one mechanism, there cannot be two
different rates of bunching.

In addition, you can do a simple Fourier analysis of a pulse-
modulated sine wave. If you apply the photon rules for Doppler
and then recombine the shifted frequencies, the pulses get
closer by an amount that is goverened entirely by the photon
formula. There is no leeway to choose an alternative.

If, for instance, the photons in a bunch become
10% closer, they each shrink not by 10% but by maybe 0.01% or less. It is still
an ADoppler effect and will eventually outweigh the VDoppler contribution if it
continues for sufficiently long. I also suggest that individual photon ADoppler
is dampened out well before bunching stabilizes due to unification.

So the end result is, if the ends of a photon move at c+v+u and c+v-u, it is
the 'u' bit that falls exponentially to a lower value which I have loosely
described with the factor 'K'.

Each wave is launched at some speed. You can call it c+v or
c+v+u or whatever but that value is what changes asymptotically
towards c. You cannot have two bits of speed behaving differently.

Those basic facts lead to:

Not really, K=1 can be derived purely mathematically and you
are ignoring that which produces your inconsistency.

This is just the procedure I'm following in relation to star brightness curves
and the BaTh.

No, you are plucking a value of K out of thin air instead of
deriving it using Fourier analysis (or some other equivalent
approach, there's more than one way).

I hope I have now answered this.

You have explained your handwaving view and I understand
what you are saying, but it is physically impossible.

....
George, let a stream of cars each 5 metres long move down the highway at 30
m/s. Let them be spaced 10 meters apart.
What happens when they come to a 15 m/s zone?
What happens when they come to a 10 m/s zone?
What happens when they reach a 9 m/s zone??????????

What would a highway look like if a condition applied that made car length =
car spacing/3000 ? ..or a more complicated fi\unction of spacing?

Draw a sine wave with 100 dots per cycle. Put each dot
on a car. Can you see that the speed of the sine wave
is directly related to frequency and wavelength. You cannot
arbitrarily choose two different formulae for the speed of
the cars and the frequency changes.

No, I can describe the speed of light in my office using a
coordinate system centred on the barycentre of the Bullet
Cluster, but the cluster does not define the speed in any
way whatsoever.

OK 'defines' wasn't the best word.

"Describes" or "labels" would be better but the key
point is that the FoR has no physical existence.

That's another one of your silly statements George.
The Earth's atmosphere is one such FoR.

No it isn't The set of numbers defined by longitude, latitude
and altitude are defined by the FoR, the atmosphere can
be described by wind speed within that FoR.

Is it "physical"?

The atmosphere is, latitude and longitude are not.

In an EM FoR, light speed will TEND TOWARDS c/n wrt the frame's 'EM centre'.

c/n wrt the material which produces the refractive index n
as measured using a frame of reference in which that
material is at rest would probably be the clearest way to
state that.

Well that's the same thing really,

Just I was just clarifying details. Sometimes you use a little
too much shorthand and I'm not sure if you are just being
economical or are genuinely mistaken.

the problem being that parts of the 'frame'
are all moving differently and have different 'strengths'......That's why I
stress the term 'loose' in the definition. EM FoRs are very poorly defined at
best.

Latitude and longitude are quite well defined.

The latter is another Wilsonian pseudo-geometric term that describes a kind of
average influence exerted by all the 'substance' inside the frame (ie., matter
and fields) on all light originating in or passing through it.

I trust that is now settled.

Just say 'matter' when you mean it and the problem goes away.

It's a lot more than ordinary matter....but I regard 'fields' as a form of
matter anyway...or vice versa....

Whatever, it is nothing to do with coordinates.

I stil reckon there are three mass dimensions as well as three time and space.
,,,but that's another matter...

Some other time.

....
The time for ray 1 is the distance from ruling 1 to the point on
the screen divided by the speed of ray 1. The time for ray 2 is
the distance from ruling 2 to the same point on the screen
divided by the speed of ray 2. You are assuming that the speed
of the two rays is the same, i.e. u1 = u2. That may not be the
case if the deflection angles differ as might be the case if the
screen were very close to the grating, however, if we assume
the rays are close to parallel then the speeds should be the
same and rays arrive in phase if the difference in distance is an
exact multiple of the reflected wavelength. That gives you the
grating equation:

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

get it now?

I always did, I derived the above directly from your first attempt.
The bottom line is that a manufacturer ould make a grating with
an attached protractor and mark the scale with Angstroms
instead of degrees and you could read off the reflected
wavelength. He cannot mark it in nanoseconds for you to read
a time and the reading in Angstroms is _not_ the incident
wavelength since BaTh allows for a change of speed on
reflection.

George I have added a few symbols to the diagram. Please refresh.http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg

It's fine Henry, but you don't know v or u or lambda_i. You can
mesure D with a ruler and phi with a protractor but that's all.
From them you get lambda_r as shown in my version:

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

From that, if you knew v and u, you could work out lambda_i
but it is not directly measured.

Putting a glass window or similar in front of the grating would
reduce the incident speed to exactly c by your speed equalisation
and then lambda_i = lambda_r but without that extra component
your grating only tells you lambda_r.

A, B and C represent wavefronts, ie., points of equal phase in the vertical,
monochromatic, incident beam, which is approaching the grating at c+v. Its
wavelength is known, absolute and universal.

What is the wavelength of a tunable dye laser? We are talking
about the equation that applies to any grating in general
regardless of what field it is being used in. The equation I gave

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

apples universally.

Ray 1 is diffracted at C in all directions. It speed and wavelength are not
known. The condition for reinforcement with Ray 2, is that the former reaches
point P when Ray 2 just reaches the grating.

That's correct, hence the length X must be an exact multiple of
the wavelength after reflection, that is obviously the condition for
reinforcement and it leads directly to my equation. You can also
get the same equation from your diagram but you need a little
algebra as I showed you.

The description in the diagram tells the rest of the story.

Correct, that is basic logic. If you want to prove ADoppler exists
you have to show that a result could _not_ be explained by an
alternative. The luminosity curves you have suggested can be
explained by intrinsic variability in Cepheids and by eclipses in
contact binaries so you have no proof.

...and it is pure coincidence that the shape of just about all variable star
curve just happens to match the BaTh prediction for simple orbiting stars?

It doesn't, you admitted already there are harmonics you
can't explain. However, that's an aside.

The BaTh still applies to the harmonics.

You miss the point, if there is a residual harmonic after you
adjust your orbital parameters for the best fit then it indicates
non-Keplerian motion, or to put it another way, orbital motion
does not match Cepheid curves even using BaTh.

The point is that it _could_ be coincidence and your task is
to provide _proof_ that coincidence cannot explain it. Consider
what would happen if we found an eclipsing binary where the
velocity curves were at their maxima during the eclipse and
were perfect sine waves. That would show the orbits were
circular and the phase would indicate ADoppler. That's what
you need.

Bottom line is that you have offerred no scientific proof at all
for the existence of ADoppler.

I have explained above how this can easiily happen.

"can" but not "must", you have to prove that alternative
explanations do NOT work. That's hard with a luminosity
curve since you cannot rule out intrinsic variation but it
_is_ possible with the velocity curves.

The velocity curve can be
VDoppler dominated whilst the brightness curve is ADoppler.

Nope, as you said at the top, ".. TDoppler is the overall cause."

Some of us physicists can put two and two together George....

Putting coincidences together is what laymen do Henry, you
could never be a physicist.

There is a simple explanation...well maybe not that simple....

The bunching is valid and produces ADopppler as well as
VDoppler, but you will find it must apply at the same
level to pulses and cycles of a sine wave if you use a
Fourier analysis. That means K=1.

I keep telling you George, the intrinsic properties of individual photons must
be treated differently from those of the main 'bunching wave'.

And I keep telling you that if you do a Fourier analysis as
you claim you can, you will find that is impossible.

Experiment with the cars on the highway again. Use rubber cars if necessary.

If you cannot do Fourier, then you can approach it that way.
The cars tell the same story, just use lots of cars per cycle
in your model of a photon and ensure they obey the same
speed rules.

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

The group movenent of photons IS ballistic.

Yes, and ballistics is classical.

...not 'classical wave'....

It is "classical" because it treats the universe as deterministic
and being able to be exactly calculated using some combination
of waves, particles and so on. Post-classical theory treats all
events as being definable only in terms of probabilities and
the classical laws emerge only through the statistics of large
numbers of individual events.

Whether it uses waves or ballistics is neither here nor there
but your current formulation simply uses classical waves with
a modified speed equation. Perhaps it would be clearer if you
wrote down what you think is the BaTh equation for a propagating
wave.

George, this is the way you would like the world to be.

Henry, this is what the word "classical" means in the context,
I'm not saying anything about how the world is, just explaining
the jargon.

I have provided an alternative htat matches the observed data.

It is still "classical", and it doesn't match the velocity curves.

Your "photons" are classical wavetrains, not point particles.

My best model is the 'serated bullet' one, where the serations represent a
'standing wave' or a helical path carved in space by something that rotates as
it moves.

It doesn't model the BaTh equations, the best match I could
get was the coil of wire moving along its axis. The back can
catch and pass through the front and the speed of each part
is independent of all other parts. That accurately reflects the
BaTh maths though it is harder to visualise.

Yes a coiled spring is a good analogy...except that the ends don't keep on
moving wrt each other, as you seem to think.

The model only reflects the equations of BaTh if each coil moves
according to those equations, independently of all others.

They stop well before that
happens...but the length reduction is proportional to ADoppler not VDoppler!!!!

Sorry Henry, Fourier analysis (or your cars if you do it right)
rules that out.

....
My understanding is that only quite recently has light been mixed with very
short microwaves to create observable beats.

Laser combs have been in use for many years. I couldn't say
how long but I heard of their use a long time ago.

It still doesn't tell us much about photon 'frequency' because beating is
really a 'wavelength based' phenomenon.

You miss the point, beating is a linear effect based on addition of
waves, the envelope exhibits the difference frequecy but if you
analyse the composite with Fourier you only have the original
frequencies. Heterodyning produces actual signal power at the
sum and difference frequencies which requires _multiplication_
of the source waves. It is exactly the same technique used in
radio receivers and means that light behaves exactly the same
as radio. Anything I can do with a CW 1MHz transmitter can in
theory also be done with a mono-mode laser beam given fast
enough components

Well unless you can do the experiment with a moving source we are none the
wiser.

Yes we are, the fact that they mix means they are both
time-varying voltages, they ahve to be the same physical
phenomenon with grossly different frequencies.

....
No, it is intrinsic, a single photon still gets deflected by a
grating
by the same amount as the stream from which it was taken.

Gratings are sensitive to individual photon wavelength but not to phase
differences between photons.

Right, but the relative phase is preserved on reflection and
it then affects the detector at the screen in the same way
that it would if the light fell directly on the detector without
the grating.

Come on!..., you don't know what happens to photons in a radio wave.

Exactly the same as light Henry.

Well, I suppose their are plenty of individual 'RF wavelength' photons produced
by thermal radiation and weak molecular bond transitions. ....but they don't
make a radio wave.

They do, thermal radiation can be detected as microwaves
but it has a broadband spectrum because the photons are not
phase related.

That's right, there is no intelligent content.

Photons in the visible light region and higher can be
detected individually, as you pointed out. Lots of similar photons all going in
the same direction make a maser or laser beam. Question: What happens to
individual photons inside a maser cavity?

They bounce off the ends and have a small probability of
escaping. As they pass some atoms, the promt the emission
of additional photons in phase.

e maser cavity has to be tuned to the frequency...what does this tell us about
individual photon length?

It tells us that the spectral line is narrow for some lasing
materials. At university, I worked with a group who were
developing a number of types of tunable lasers where the
lasing could work over a broad range and changing the
cavity meant you could sweep the laser wavelength over
a wide range.

If I were to assume that intrinsic photon oscillations interact, a fourier
combination would produce either white light or complete destructive
interference...I'm not sure which.

It can produce either constructive or destructive interference.
White light is broadband with a uniform spread of intrinsic
frequency and uncorrelated phases.

precisely.

OK, maybe I wasn't clear, the answer to "I'm not sure which" is
the latter of your two suggestions, interference not white light.

George, think of a pure sinusoidal RF signal. I say the observed wave effect is
just a result of photon density variation...or 'bunching'.

Visible light on the other hand is generally not like that at all... but
consists of identical photons whose energies add together to form 'beam
intensity'.

Visible light and radio are known to be the same thing differing
only in the frequency range.

I say that is wrong.

Tough, we couldn't use heterodyning if it were not correct.

The fact that we can multiple laser
combs with incident light or with microwave signals using the
old heterodyne technique proves that.

No it doesn't. Waves in 'photon density' would beat in exactly the same manner.

No, that is superposition, it produces beats of amplitude but at
the original frquencies. Heterodyning produces new frequencies.

Let me put it in lay terms again, two red laser of almost identical
frequency will produce variations in photon flux that could be seen
as a time-variation of brightness. Two red lasers heteodyned in a
non-linear crystal can produce blue light.

Since each photon carries the same energy, bunching gives
changes of intensity. If what you say were true, a single photon
wouldn't have any preferred deflection angle when hitting a grating
but in fact in a low rate stream from a monochromatic source all
the photons get deflected by the same amount even when the
arrival rate is random. See the video or stills I cited.

that's not true. My model WOULD result in all single photons being diffracted
by the same angle, in a momnochromatic beam..

No, your suggestion is that it depends on the variations
in arrival rate, not just the intrinsic frequency. The arrival
rate is random (something like a Poisson distribution from
memory).

In my model, an EM beam of a particular wavelength can be produced in two quite
different ways. It can be the result of either lots of identical photons or it
can reflect the bunching pattern formed in groups of random photons all
traveling in the same direction.

Consider the electron radiation from an RF antenna again. Each electron
experiences varying acceleration as it moves up and down the antenna...but all
are linked in phase. The radiation from each electron must be entirely random
but the overall flux density of radiation is still controlled by the signal.

Facts:

1) the "flux density" is controlled by the voltage fed to the
antenna,
not the frequency.

One would think the higher the frequency the higher the electron
acceleration....but I appreciate there are other factors.

Yes but the frequency of the RF photons is exactly the same
as the driving voltage. Bear in mind there is also thermal
emission from the same antenna, it's just a piece of wire
after all.

2) Each photon has the same frequency as the frequency of the AC
fed to the antenna.

Hahahaho!
You don't know that George.

You have got to be joking Henry !!!! If I send a 1MHz signal
to an antenna and then bounce the signal off a wire grid
grating, the angle of deflection is exactly as shown in your
diagram and as you said each photon isdeflected by an
amount determined by its intrinsic properties.

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

Not this one...it's physical...

Still stubbornly insisting on being wrong Henry, why
don't you grow up a bit.

I have now provided a clearer definition.

You don't need a definition, both concepts have existing
terms to describe them. Stick with those accepted terms
Henry, I'll continue to point out where you get them wrong
for the benefit of lurkers who haven't seen this.

It so happens George that the idea of EM FoRs is not mine. It came from Len
Gaasenbeek....

Then your confusion is understandable, I think English is
his second language.

.. we discussed this to death three years ago and you
discovered I was right, the diagram is still there.

We ignored a vital piece of information.

George, if you shoot from a moving car at an object lying at 45 degrees, what
is the direction of the bullet's CENTRAL AXIS when it hits?

I don't care, the thing measured in Sagnac is the time of flight
of the bullet.

But that will be affected by the angle of reflection...

Only to second order, the fringe shift is first order so a change
of angle does not explain the shift by many orders of magnitude

which I now know doesn't
equal the angle of incidence for a very subtle reason.

If the object is also moving at your speed but perpendicularly away from the
road, how does that affect the angle at which the bullet will bounce of the
object (assuming specularly).

Do you mean vertically up from the Sagnac turntable? It would simply
go over the top of the detector. I'm not sure I understand your
question.

Think of a photon as being like a long arrow.....maybe billions of wavelengths
long....When fired from a laterally moving object, its 'axis' will generally
not lie parallel to its velocity vector.

Wavefronts are always perpendicular to the motion,
remember Huygens.

Photons are not 'little round balls'.

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.

it's wrong.

You drew it, it is correct and you agreed the algebra. Repeat
the analysis if you wish, it's only maths so you will get the
same result.

It's a lot more complicated.

You drew it and it correctly shows the full story as described
by ballistic theory. You also checked and agreed the equations
I worte relating to it which were in all honesty quite trivial. They
say there should be no fringe shift which is exactly what we
expect from ballistic theory, it predicts no shift.

I left out a vital factor.

All the aspects that produce first order effects are
included.

Essentially what happens is that one beam moves around the ring at c+v/root2
and the other at c-v/root2 (wrt the non-rotating frame)...
The small difference in path length doesn't compensate for the difference in
travel times..

Do the algebra Henry, we showed the compensation
was exact including the "root2" factor.

Yes, I'm aware of what we did before.

Good, I can't be bothered digging it up again.

It was incomplete,

It included everything in your diagram and that is all
the first order effects.

George

On 11 May 2007 10:12:29 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 11 May, 01:54, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 10 May 2007 05:33:11 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 10 May, 00:58, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
George, I know TDoppler is the overall cause.
When I said, "That's only the VDoppler component", I was implying that the


OK, in that case we agree. Please try to say TDoppler if that's
what you mean, it just wastes a lot of time clearing this up
each time.

Let's summarize.

Observed wavelengths of light are doppler affected by both VDoppler and
ADoppler according to BaTh.

Yes.

The sum of these effects we call TDoppler.
Their ratio determines the phasing of the velocity curve.

Yes, and the amplitude as well. That is published in the form
of the "velocity curve" based on the assumption that it is
VDoppler only.

Yes...and in many cases it is wrong..because it is ADoppler based and the
VDoppler equation is used.

The data we have and
the results of our discussions suggest that for some stars, VDoppler is
negligible and for others, including pulsars, ADoppler is negligible.

No, all the results from velocity curves so far indicate that
the TDoppler has the same phase as VDoppler so ADopppler
is negligible.

Now that's nonsense George.
Cepheid velocity curves are almost in phase with their brightness curves, which
are unquestionably ADoppler derived.
I can't find many velocity curves for many long period variables or so called
'eclipsing binaries'.

VDoppler cannot account for magnitude changes of greater than about 0.001.
ADoppler can produce changes up to about 3.2 quite easily.

Go back to what you said at the top, "George, I know TDoppler
is the overall cause."

TDoppler cannot produce luminosity changes of more than
about 0.002 mag (peak to peak) without corresponding
velocity curves in excess of 300 km/s.

What are you talking about? Of course it can. The ADoppler component takes
over. Have another look at your 'bunching' program. You can get magnitude
changes of 3 using very small orbital velocities.
I have explained to you my theory as to why velocities aren't affected b
ADoppler as much as brighness but are still in phase with it.

This is my current view.
The individual photons emitted over the whole orbit move in the range c +/ v
wrt to Earth. (assume, also, to the star's orbit centre).

The speed is c+v in whatever frame but the "v" in Earth's frame
has a different value to that in the system's barycentre frame,
the difference being the proper motion of the system relative to
the Earth. I'm not disagreeing, just adding clarification.

....that's why I said 'assume proper motion is zero'.

Without any extinction, they continue in that manner and become bunched or
separated due to their velocity differences.
The bunching pattern is in phase
with radial acceleration (so we call it an 'ADoppler' effect).
Close to the source, an observer would detect virtually no bunching and mainly
the VDoppler shift of the various photons.

Correct.

I say that the individual photons are directly affected in much the same way
but by a much smaller amount.

That's where the problem arises. You model "photons" in a
classical way as nothing more than a sequence of waves.
Ballistic theory tells you the speed of any disturbance so
it applies to each wave individually. There is only one effect
working, each wave is emitted at c+v and thereafter its speed
decays towards c/n governed by the equation dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R

Since there is only one mechanism, there cannot be two
different rates of bunching.

You are still applying classical wave theory to particles. Refer to my
'highway/car analogy' again to see why it doesn't work.

In addition, you can do a simple Fourier analysis of a pulse-
modulated sine wave. If you apply the photon rules for Doppler
and then recombine the shifted frequencies, the pulses get
closer by an amount that is goverened entirely by the photon
formula. There is no leeway to choose an alternative.

You are again assuming that single photons are nothing more than 'snippets' of
the main wave. Photons have particle like properties that your approach cannot
even touch.

If, for instance, the photons in a bunch become
10% closer, they each shrink not by 10% but by maybe 0.01% or less. It is still
an ADoppler effect and will eventually outweigh the VDoppler contribution if it
continues for sufficiently long. I also suggest that individual photon ADoppler
is dampened out well before bunching stabilizes due to unification.

So the end result is, if the ends of a photon move at c+v+u and c+v-u, it is
the 'u' bit that falls exponentially to a lower value which I have loosely
described with the factor 'K'.

Each wave is launched at some speed. You can call it c+v or
c+v+u or whatever but that value is what changes asymptotically
towards c. You cannot have two bits of speed behaving differently.

Those basic facts lead to:

Not really, K=1 can be derived purely mathematically and you
are ignoring that which produces your inconsistency.

This is just the procedure I'm following in relation to star brightness curves
and the BaTh.

No, you are plucking a value of K out of thin air instead of
deriving it using Fourier analysis (or some other equivalent
approach, there's more than one way).

I hope I have now answered this.

You have explained your handwaving view and I understand
what you are saying, but it is physically impossible.

You are using the classical model. It is nothing like mine.
Nothing you say has relevance and while you continue in your 'closed mind'
mood, I will not bother to expain again.

George, let a stream of cars each 5 metres long move down the highway at 30
m/s. Let them be spaced 10 meters apart.
What happens when they come to a 15 m/s zone?
What happens when they come to a 10 m/s zone?
What happens when they reach a 9 m/s zone??????????

What would a highway look like if a condition applied that made car length =
car spacing/3000 ? ..or a more complicated fi\unction of spacing?

Draw a sine wave with 100 dots per cycle. Put each dot
on a car. Can you see that the speed of the sine wave
is directly related to frequency and wavelength. You cannot
arbitrarily choose two different formulae for the speed of
the cars and the frequency changes.

George, the length of the cars is not affect by the relative positions of the
cars....UNTILTHEY TOUCH!!!!!
I say photons don't have to touch. They shrink according to the surrounding
density of other photons. ...so their shrinkage is in phase with ADoppler but
much smaller in magnitude than the corresponding brighness variation.

I don't know why you find this difficult to comprehend.

No, I can describe the speed of light in my office using a
coordinate system centred on the barycentre of the Bullet
Cluster, but the cluster does not define the speed in any
way whatsoever.

OK 'defines' wasn't the best word.

"Describes" or "labels" would be better but the key
point is that the FoR has no physical existence.

That's another one of your silly statements George.
The Earth's atmosphere is one such FoR.

No it isn't The set of numbers defined by longitude, latitude
and altitude are defined by the FoR, the atmosphere can
be described by wind speed within that FoR.

The EM FoR ceases entirely where the atmosphere ends.

Is it "physical"?

The atmosphere is, latitude and longitude are not.

The centre of the atmosphere is the Earth's geometric centre. All speeds in the
atmosphere should and can be related to that point.

In an EM FoR, light speed will TEND TOWARDS c/n wrt the frame's 'EM centre'.

c/n wrt the material which produces the refractive index n
as measured using a frame of reference in which that
material is at rest would probably be the clearest way to
state that.

Well that's the same thing really,

Just I was just clarifying details. Sometimes you use a little
too much shorthand and I'm not sure if you are just being
economical or are genuinely mistaken.

Econcomical....eg above "(assume, also, to the star's orbit centre)" instead of
"assume zero proper motion"...

the problem being that parts of the 'frame'
are all moving differently and have different 'strengths'......That's why I
stress the term 'loose' in the definition. EM FoRs are very poorly defined at
best.

Latitude and longitude are quite well defined.

The centre of the Earth's atmosphere is well defined but the various swirls and
density gradients are not. I say the same applies to any large volume of space
that can be identified by some anomaly like a gas cloud or excess charge
density.



I always did, I derived the above directly from your first attempt.
The bottom line is that a manufacturer ould make a grating with
an attached protractor and mark the scale with Angstroms
instead of degrees and you could read off the reflected
wavelength. He cannot mark it in nanoseconds for you to read
a time and the reading in Angstroms is _not_ the incident
wavelength since BaTh allows for a change of speed on
reflection.

George I have added a few symbols to the diagram. Please refresh.http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg

It's fine Henry, but you don't know v or u or lambda_i. You can
mesure D with a ruler and phi with a protractor but that's all.
From them you get lambda_r as shown in my version:

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

From that, if you knew v and u, you could work out lambda_i
but it is not directly measured.

Putting a glass window or similar in front of the grating would
reduce the incident speed to exactly c by your speed equalisation
and then lambda_i = lambda_r but without that extra component
your grating only tells you lambda_r.

George, your equation is the classical one based on constant light speed. Mine
is a more general equation that takes into account variable incident speeds and
the posibiility that Vr is not = Vi.

If you make v=u, my equation is the same as yours.
If you set u=0, you have the equation for a transmission grating.


A, B and C represent wavefronts, ie., points of equal phase in the vertical,
monochromatic, incident beam, which is approaching the grating at c+v. Its
wavelength is known, absolute and universal.

What is the wavelength of a tunable dye laser? We are talking
about the equation that applies to any grating in general
regardless of what field it is being used in. The equation I gave

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

apples universally.

It applies...but it is of no value if the diffracted rays move at speeds other
than c.

Ray 1 is diffracted at C in all directions. It speed and wavelength are not
known. The condition for reinforcement with Ray 2, is that the former reaches
point P when Ray 2 just reaches the grating.

That's correct, hence the length X must be an exact multiple of
the wavelength after reflection, that is obviously the condition for
reinforcement and it leads directly to my equation. You can also
get the same equation from your diagram but you need a little
algebra as I showed you.

Just let u=v and my equation iss the same as the classical one.

My whole point is that your grating should not work in the HST while mine does.
Yours does not include variable grating speed wrt hte source.
The BaTh wins..

The description in the diagram tells the rest of the story.

Correct, that is basic logic. If you want to prove ADoppler exists
you have to show that a result could _not_ be explained by an
alternative. The luminosity curves you have suggested can be
explained by intrinsic variability in Cepheids and by eclipses in
contact binaries so you have no proof.

...and it is pure coincidence that the shape of just about all variable star
curve just happens to match the BaTh prediction for simple orbiting stars?

It doesn't, you admitted already there are harmonics you
can't explain. However, that's an aside.

The BaTh still applies to the harmonics.

You miss the point, if there is a residual harmonic after you
adjust your orbital parameters for the best fit then it indicates
non-Keplerian motion, or to put it another way, orbital motion
does not match Cepheid curves even using BaTh.

I accept that many variable stars like cepheids ARE probably huff puff
stars...(although there are possible orbit configurations that COULD
conceivably include harmonics).
The harmonics are also huffing and puffing such that their radial surface
velocities appear like those of a keplerian orbits with half, quarter....etc...
periods.

The point is that it _could_ be coincidence and your task is
to provide _proof_ that coincidence cannot explain it. Consider
what would happen if we found an eclipsing binary where the
velocity curves were at their maxima during the eclipse and
were perfect sine waves. That would show the orbits were
circular and the phase would indicate ADoppler. That's what
you need.

Bottom line is that you have offerred no scientific proof at all
for the existence of ADoppler.

I have explained above how this can easiily happen.

"can" but not "must", you have to prove that alternative
explanations do NOT work. That's hard with a luminosity
curve since you cannot rule out intrinsic variation but it
_is_ possible with the velocity curves.

George, the evidence lies in the fact that just about every brightness curve
can be matched by a BaTh prediction, in both shape and magnitude. By
considering both V and A doppelr effect, the velocity curves can also be
matched.
How much more evidence do you need to prove the logical conclusion that all
starlight in the universe is NOT magically adjusted (by hte fairies) to travel
towards little planet Earth at c.

The velocity curve can be
VDoppler dominated whilst the brightness curve is ADoppler.

Nope, as you said at the top, ".. TDoppler is the overall cause."

....and the proportions of A and V doppler vary widely.


I keep telling you George, the intrinsic properties of individual photons must
be treated differently from those of the main 'bunching wave'.

And I keep telling you that if you do a Fourier analysis as
you claim you can, you will find that is impossible.

Experiment with the cars on the highway again. Use rubber cars if necessary.

If you cannot do Fourier, then you can approach it that way.
The cars tell the same story, just use lots of cars per cycle
in your model of a photon and ensure they obey the same
speed rules.

Fourier doesn't apply to ballistic particles George.


Whether it uses waves or ballistics is neither here nor there
but your current formulation simply uses classical waves with
a modified speed equation. Perhaps it would be clearer if you
wrote down what you think is the BaTh equation for a propagating
wave.

George, this is the way you would like the world to be.

Henry, this is what the word "classical" means in the context,
I'm not saying anything about how the world is, just explaining
the jargon.

I have provided an alternative htat matches the observed data.

It is still "classical", and it doesn't match the velocity curves.

It matches everything.
Tha BaTh is complete. The BaTh wins....



It doesn't model the BaTh equations, the best match I could
get was the coil of wire moving along its axis. The back can
catch and pass through the front and the speed of each part
is independent of all other parts. That accurately reflects the
BaTh maths though it is harder to visualise.

Yes a coiled spring is a good analogy...except that the ends don't keep on
moving wrt each other, as you seem to think.

The model only reflects the equations of BaTh if each coil moves
according to those equations, independently of all others.

But the ends don't move because of spring resistance...which increases with
compression...that's quite similar to my photon model. Individual photons
resist ADoppler compression whilst the macroscopic bunching of all the photons
in the beam continues and is responsible for large brightness variations.

This is really quite a simple principle George. I cannot understand why you
find it so difficult.

They stop well before that
happens...but the length reduction is proportional to ADoppler not VDoppler!!!!

Sorry Henry, Fourier analysis (or your cars if you do it right)
rules that out.

The cars are 'particles'. Their spacing is wavelike. What happens to the
spacing doesn't affect the car lengths.
..


...
No, it is intrinsic, a single photon still gets deflected by a
grating
by the same amount as the stream from which it was taken.

Gratings are sensitive to individual photon wavelength but not to phase
differences between photons.

Right, but the relative phase is preserved on reflection and
it then affects the detector at the screen in the same way
that it would if the light fell directly on the detector without
the grating.

No George The diffraction angle should be independent of the arrival phase.

Come on!..., you don't know what happens to photons in a radio wave.


Photons in the visible light region and higher can be
detected individually, as you pointed out. Lots of similar photons all going in
the same direction make a maser or laser beam. Question: What happens to
individual photons inside a maser cavity?

They bounce off the ends and have a small probability of
escaping. As they pass some atoms, the promt the emission
of additional photons in phase.

e maser cavity has to be tuned to the frequency...what does this tell us about
individual photon length?

It tells us that the spectral line is narrow for some lasing
materials. At university, I worked with a group who were
developing a number of types of tunable lasers where the
lasing could work over a broad range and changing the
cavity meant you could sweep the laser wavelength over
a wide range.

That's good.

If I were to assume that intrinsic photon oscillations interact, a fourier
combination would produce either white light or complete destructive
interference...I'm not sure which.

It can produce either constructive or destructive interference.
White light is broadband with a uniform spread of intrinsic
frequency and uncorrelated phases.

precisely.

OK, maybe I wasn't clear, the answer to "I'm not sure which" is
the latter of your two suggestions, interference not white light.

the energy must be preserved.


Visible light on the other hand is generally not like that at all... but
consists of identical photons whose energies add together to form 'beam
intensity'.

Visible light and radio are known to be the same thing differing
only in the frequency range.

I say that is wrong.

Tough, we couldn't use heterodyning if it were not correct.

Yes we could. My theory doesn't change any practical aspect.

The fact that we can multiple laser
combs with incident light or with microwave signals using the
old heterodyne technique proves that.

No it doesn't. Waves in 'photon density' would beat in exactly the same manner.

No, that is superposition, it produces beats of amplitude but at
the original frquencies. Heterodyning produces new frequencies.

'beats of amplitude' also produce new frequencies George. Do the sums....


Let me put it in lay terms again, two red laser of almost identical
frequency will produce variations in photon flux that could be seen
as a time-variation of brightness. Two red lasers heteodyned in a
non-linear crystal can produce blue light.

That's very interesting. I'm not sure how it affects this discussion.

Since each photon carries the same energy, bunching gives
changes of intensity. If what you say were true, a single photon
wouldn't have any preferred deflection angle when hitting a grating
but in fact in a low rate stream from a monochromatic source all
the photons get deflected by the same amount even when the
arrival rate is random. See the video or stills I cited.

that's not true. My model WOULD result in all single photons being diffracted
by the same angle, in a momnochromatic beam..

No, your suggestion is that it depends on the variations
in arrival rate, not just the intrinsic frequency. The arrival
rate is random (something like a Poisson distribution from
memory).

NO NO.
I say gratings are sensitive to individual photon properties. ..but will also
diffract 'amplitude waves', amplitude being a sole function of the 'density of
photons'.


Facts:

1) the "flux density" is controlled by the voltage fed to the
antenna,
not the frequency.

One would think the higher the frequency the higher the electron
acceleration....but I appreciate there are other factors.

Yes but the frequency of the RF photons is exactly the same
as the driving voltage.

You don't know that.

Bear in mind there is also thermal
emission from the same antenna, it's just a piece of wire
after all.

2) Each photon has the same frequency as the frequency of the AC
fed to the antenna.

Hahahaho!
You don't know that George.

You have got to be joking Henry !!!! If I send a 1MHz signal
to an antenna and then bounce the signal off a wire grid
grating, the angle of deflection is exactly as shown in your
diagram and as you said each photon isdeflected by an
amount determined by its intrinsic properties.

But the wire grid doesn't diffract that because the sizes are wrong.
It diffrracts the generated wave frequency.


You don't need a definition, both concepts have existing
terms to describe them. Stick with those accepted terms
Henry, I'll continue to point out where you get them wrong
for the benefit of lurkers who haven't seen this.

It so happens George that the idea of EM FoRs is not mine. It came from Len
Gaasenbeek....

Then your confusion is understandable, I think English is
his second language.

Len has some good ideas.

.. we discussed this to death three years ago and you
discovered I was right, the diagram is still there.

We ignored a vital piece of information.

George, if you shoot from a moving car at an object lying at 45 degrees, what
is the direction of the bullet's CENTRAL AXIS when it hits?

I don't care, the thing measured in Sagnac is the time of flight
of the bullet.

But that will be affected by the angle of reflection...

Only to second order, the fringe shift is first order so a change
of angle does not explain the shift by many orders of magnitude

which I now know doesn't
equal the angle of incidence for a very subtle reason.

If the object is also moving at your speed but perpendicularly away from the
road, how does that affect the angle at which the bullet will bounce of the
object (assuming specularly).

Do you mean vertically up from the Sagnac turntable? It would simply
go over the top of the detector. I'm not sure I understand your
question.

Think of a photon as being like a long arrow.....maybe billions of wavelengths
long....When fired from a laterally moving object, its 'axis' will generally
not lie parallel to its velocity vector.

Wavefronts are always perpendicular to the motion,
remember Huygens.

In this case the photon axis is not perpendicular to the wavefront.



You drew it and it correctly shows the full story as described
by ballistic theory. You also checked and agreed the equations
I worte relating to it which were in all honesty quite trivial. They
say there should be no fringe shift which is exactly what we
expect from ballistic theory, it predicts no shift.

I left out a vital factor.

All the aspects that produce first order effects are
included.

Not this one.


Essentially what happens is that one beam moves around the ring at c+v/root2
and the other at c-v/root2 (wrt the non-rotating frame)...
The small difference in path length doesn't compensate for the difference in
travel times..

Do the algebra Henry, we showed the compensation
was exact including the "root2" factor.

Yes, I'm aware of what we did before.

Good, I can't be bothered digging it up again.

It was incomplete,

It included everything in your diagram and that is all
the first order effects.

We missed one.


George



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

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

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

I don't agree. I say they each emit randomly but the RATE at which they
emit is governed by the signal. The carrier 'frequency' relates to
varying photon density.


The carrier frequency is directly related to the energy of the individual
quanta and inversely proportional to the wavelength.

The 'density' is proportional to the intensity and, for a single frequency CW
signal, does not vary.





--
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 Thu, 10 May 2007 13:00:28 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

I don't agree. I say they each emit randomly but the RATE at which they
emit is governed by the signal. The carrier 'frequency' relates to
varying photon density.


The carrier frequency is directly related to the energy of the individual
quanta and inversely proportional to the wavelength.

That doesn't conflict with what I said. Of course a beam made of a million
identical photons will be a million times more intense than a single photon.

The 'density' is proportional to the intensity and, for a single frequency CW
signal, does not vary.

No conflict there...




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

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

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

On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:00:28 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

I don't agree. I say they each emit randomly but the RATE at which
they emit is governed by the signal. The carrier 'frequency' relates
to varying photon density.


The carrier frequency is directly related to the energy of the
individual quanta and inversely proportional to the wavelength.

That doesn't conflict with what I said.

'the carrier "frequency" relates to varying photon density' is in direct
conflict with 'the carrier frequency is directly related to the energy...'.

Of course a beam made of a
million identical photons will be a million times more intense than a
single photon.

The 'density' is proportional to the intensity and, for a single
frequency CW signal, does not vary.

No conflict there...

You seem to confuse intensity, energy, and density.


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