Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sun, 13 May 2007 15:13:25 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 12 May 2007 12:26:55 +0100, "George Dishman"

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.

Congratulations, you just discovered one of the problems
of BaTh, gratings don't tell you the incoming wavelength.

George, you are not showing much intelligence here.

If a grating is being used to measure the speed of a star wrt Earth, my
equation is perfectly adequate. The absolute wavelength a particular
spectral
line is known.

Henry, stop and think and try to understand. I have
said your equation is correct but it doesn't tell
the whole story. The terms relating to v, u and the
incident wavelength simplify to e the reflected
wavelength. That can be found from the simpler
equation I gave you above. Think of that as the first
step in a process.

Now to find the source motion, you need to measure
lambda_i.

No you don't. For any common spectral line, it is absolute, universal and
known.

That plus an assumption of the source
wavelength gives you the Doppler shift. The trouble
there is that you have no way to _measure_ v or u.
You can make assumptions of course, such as v=u=0
if you attach the grating to a refractor and then
you get a result, but they remain assumptions.

What we were talking about though was the general
"grating equation", not just its specific application
to astronomy. In that context, the general equation is

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

I would prefer to say "A general equation" not "THE general equation".
Mine is a more general one.

and the reason is fairly obvious when you look at the
diagram, there needs to be a whole number of waves in
the section marked "N lambda_r"

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

If the grating is being used to measure an unknown wavelength, then so
long as
the source is at rest wrt the grating, the procedure will be exactly the
same
as the standard one, using the standard equation.

The fact remains that the _general_ equation is what
I said, the requirement is a whole number of waves on
the _reflected_ beam, not the incident light.

Mine is better. It includes factors that are not permitted in your theory.

Obviously the frequency cannot change on reflection so
you can use the second equation

f = (c+v)/lambda_i = (c+u)/lambda_r

but don't confuse that with the grating equation. The
latter is a general equation in ballistic theory
relating to reflection from any surface.

That must be correct.

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

Now you are trying to use a constant speed model, u is
in general not equal to v in BaTh so you cannot make
that assumption.

How do you know what u is.

That's my point, you don't. You do know lambda_r
however because it can be found from D and phi.

You do indeed.
.......and since you know Lambda_i, you can now calculate c+u/c+v.

You have been claiming u=v to make out the BaTh fails to explain sagnac.
Have
you changed your mind George?

No, I have been pointing out that v=0 in Sagnac therefore
u=0 whether the speed is the same or rest to c or something
inbetween:

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

My whole point is that your grating should not work in the HST while
mine
does.

And my point is that your basic algebra is not even
up to schoolboy level whaich means you are not even
capable of working out the correct equation for BaTh
even though you got the diagram right, and even after
I did the algebra for you.

there is nothing wrong with my algebra. ..and you know it...

Other than the fact that you didn't finish it, right.

I initially wanted to make the assumption that u = 0.
That can be checked by comparing diffraction angles produced by identically
marked transmission and reflection gratings.



Sorry, they can also be exactly matched (better in fact)
by the huff-puff mechanism which you know exists. Show
me evidence from an eclipsing Cepheid that the phase is
that of ADoppler instead of VDoppler.

Name one eclipsing cepheid and I will.

http://ebola.eastern.edu/model_display.php?model_id=186

Orbital period 1.3668 days. Cepheid variable period 0.0583
days.

You have both luminosity and velocity on that page and you
can also note the Shapiro effect on the velocity curve which
clearly shows the near discontinuous change at the peak
that I drew and you criticised before.

I think all these velocity curves are nothing but guesses.
I don't believe anyone actually measured doppler shift at the same time as they
measured brightness.

The phase of the velocity curve is that of VDoppler while
that of the Cepheid is at an entirely frequency.

Who said it's even a cepheid?


I've been clear about what is needed, no amount of
matching ever constitutes any proof at all, you need
either to prove that huff-puff cannot match (which we
know it does) or you need to show that the velocity
curve is ADoppler related to the orbital phase using
asome secondary reference such as an eclipse or Shapiro
delay (though I can't see how you could measure that to
be honest, it's not like the pulsars).

George, in matching a curve, I have to select fairly precise values for
eccentricity and yaw angle.
For instance typical cepheids have eccentricity between about 0.15 and 4
and
yaw angle -50 to -70.

I don't need any of your vague - even imaginary - tools to tell me what's
happening.

You need another phase refernece to prove it matches
ADoppler instead of VDoppler. Without that you have
no way to disprove the alternative. So far you have
nothing.

No I don't. It tells me all I want to know.



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

Nope, VDoppler ADoppler in every case you have
offered so far, including Cepheids.

George, the whole theory behind brightness curves is based on the
'bunching' of
light, which as you know as an 'acceleration' effect....ADoppler....

No Henry the theory is the equations "c+v" and dv/ds ...
Luminosity curves are an _appliction_ of those equations.

'Bunching' and hence 'observed luminosity' is a result of differences in light
speed due to the star's orbital movement.

Cepheid and
most variable stars have brightness and velocity curves that match
ADoppler
predictions.

Prove it, I say they are totally due to the huff-puff
mechanism.

Nobody has managed to link the two effects yet...

So what are you on about?

You have no phase reference to show that the luminosity
matches ADoppler. I know you can never fidn one because
Cepheid variation is intrinsic, there is _no_ second
body involved, but the way science works, I don't have
to prove that, the onus is on you to provide proof that
the phase is what you claim.

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


Not in my model George.
It is of no use at all.

Ah so you haven't used Fourier at all I see. Fourier
analysis has always been the backbone of EM work. If
you look at the screen of a spectrum analyser, that
is what you are seeing.

What's this got to do with this topic?
The individual photons are particles.

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

It matches everything.

Crap, it fails Sagnac, Shapiro and Ives and Stilwell.

SR fails Sagnac.

ROFL, Henry you are totally clueless.

SR reverts to LET to explain sagnac. In fact it does so whenever it is called
upon to find a physical connection to anything .

Then you can back-calulate the speed and find it isn't
c+v. If your maths had progressed beyond schoolboy
level, you wouldn't need me to tell you that.

...says George, who can't even understand my simple grating equation....


Ah yes, that'll be the one I had to write for you:


"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

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

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

Well done Henry. So your equation is

lambda_i * (c+u)
sin(phi) = ---------------
D * (c+v)

where lambda_i is the wavelength of the _incident_
light.

The wavelength of the reflected light, lambda_r, is
given by

lambda_r c+u
-------- = ---
lambda_i c+v

So your equation can also be written

lambda_r
sin(phi) = --------
D

You have been claiming that the speed didn't appear in
the equation and that wavelength couldn't change. One
or the other is wrong. You also claimed the formula
used frequency instead of wavelength but that too isn't
true. Naturally you can replace the wavelength by speed
over frequency but that just reintroduces speed in the
equation.

The lesson Henry, is to work out the equation before you
start telling people what it contains.

I had already pointed this out:

lambda_r c+u
-------- = ---
lambda_i c+v

I told YOU.

George


Yes I know that...but it is still very strange that Huygens principle
infers
that 'something' is radiating out over the full solid 360 degrees.

Yes, that's what QED addresses. I have no idea how you
will approach doing a non-classical version of ballistic
theory.

George, when it comes to explaining how light travels across the universe from
one star to another I don't need QED or anything other than plain old
ballistics.
Emitted light has ONE reference, its source.



I suggest you try it, they don't. I do that sort
of stuff every day at work.

Well try this experiment.
Modulate a laser beam's intensity with a 1000 hz signal. Do the same with
another laser only with a 1005 hz signal.
Fire them both at a photocell and see what output you get.

Bad experiment, you should have known that the photocell
responds to the envelope, not the carrier.

You accept the output will be the beat.


There are no components at the amplitude variation
frequancy, you need to study the difference between
beats and heterodyning.

George, performing a smartarse act doesn't impress me.

Henry, yur "getting it wrong all the time" act impresses
me even less.

You are continually irelevancies. I think you're stalling for time.

Modulation is when the AMPLITUDE of a carrier if varied according to a
signal.
For pure sine modulation, the result is a product of two sine waves. ...or
a
cos(a) - cos(b) wave.

NO! If you modulate pure sines, it produces sin(a)*sin(b)
which can be written as 1/2[cos(a-b) - cos(a+b)]

That's what I said.

More generally for smaller modulation factors there
will be a DC bias on the modulating waveform (so you
still have a carrier when the modulation goes through
zero) so there is some energy at the carrier frequency
but there is _none_ at the modulating frequency.

There is energy in TWO waves. Both will be difffracted.

Beating is also the sum of two sinewaves which, as you should know, can
also be
expressed as a product of a sin and a cos wave.

Indeed, but the energy remains in the original
frequencies sa superposition applies. A photocell
measures the envelope, not the components.

So really there isn't much difference....

The fundamental difference which you keep getting wrong
is that the product produces sidebands while the sum
doesn't, and neither has any energy at the modulating
frequency.

The 'sum' doesn't have to. The two frequencies will both be diffracted anyway.
I think you're completely lost George.

You don't know that.

I do. A photon in a 1MHz signal is simply the smallest
amount of power that can be emitted at that frequency
and has a value given by Planck's constant and the
frequency of 1MHz.

Hahahahahaha!
What if it arrives at 2c?

So what? If a signal arrives at 1MHz moving at 2c, the
smallest amount would still be a signal of 1MHz.

Bear in mind Planck's equation was derived from the
emission of black body radiation so the equation only
holds at that instant in ballistic theory and you will
need an alternative equation for energy at a later
time.

I thought you meant the 1 MHz was in relation to the source.

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.

The axis is perpendicular to the surface by definition.
If not, rotation about the axis changes the orientation
of the surface.

George, coinsider again what I said.

If you fire an arrow towards a target from a moving car, its axis will not
be
in line with its direction of travel.

Therefore an arrow is a bad analogy for a wave which always
moves perpendicular to the wavefronts - Huygens again.

It's certainly a bad analogy from YOUR point of view because you didn't think
of it before and it collaposes your whole sagnac argument.



Yes this one, check the maths, it's just Pythagoras.

George, in light of my 'arrow revelation' if a photon is ten billion
wavelengths long, how many wavelengths will one end be LATERALLY displaced
from
the other as it hits the mirror?

I don't care Henry, lateral displacement has no effect
since the wavefront is perpendicular to the direction
of propagation. Consider two waves moving to the right:

|
|
---------+---
|
|

The second is displaced laterally:

|
---------+---
|
|
|

It changes nothing.

You haven't changed the angle of the arrow.

I have introduced a factor that has the potential to cause fringe shifts for
very small angular velocities. The back end of a photon will hit the mirror at
a different point from the front end. It can easily be displaced sideways by a
number of wavelengths even at very small rotational speeds.

George




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

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

On 13 May 2007 22:02:56 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Henry Wilson replied to Jeff Root:

You still have a problem with "can but not must".
To explore that a bit, I'd like to see if you can match
this intensity curve:

http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/curve1.png

I can...but how do I know you didn't just make it up.

Unless I give you some data that I would rather not, I
guess you can't know for sure. I can only say that I did
not make it up, and that I used a commercial program to
plot the data from a standard data file exactly as I said.

And if I had made it up I don't see what difference that
would make. If you can match the curve, you can match
the curve. If you can't, you can't.

.......Jeff Root, guilty of attempted fraud and deception.....




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

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

On 12 May 2007 22:23:59 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Henry whined to George:

Show me evidence from an eclipsing Cepheid that the
phase is that of ADoppler instead of VDoppler.

Name one eclipsing cepheid and I will.

AB Cassiopeia is an eclipsing binary in which a delta
Scuti type Cepheid is the primary. Also:

The MACHO Project LMC Variable Star Inventory: XII.
Three Cepheid Variables in Eclipsing Binaries
13 March 2002

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0201481

Luminosity curves are shown. Data was obtained in both V
and R and used in the analysis, but only the V curves are
shown in the paper.

Apparently some radial velocity data had been obtained but
full curves for both components of each system had not.
It was expected at that time that HST would obtain them
over the next several years.

The Nature of the Companion to the Eclipsing Overtone
Cepheid MACHO 81.8997.87
25 February 2004

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402607

Includes numerical luminosity values as well as curves.

It's terrible seeing mature astronomers floundering like this simply because
Einstein led them on a wild goose chase.

Why don't they just accept the obvious. Light speed is c wrt the source...c+v
wrt the observer.


-- Jeff, in Minneapolis



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 Sun, 13 May 2007 07:18:20 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

Jeff Root wrote in news:1179032688.092049.307790
:

George replied to Henry:

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.

Because I learned maths at a more advanced level than
you and can see that your claims are contradictory.

It does appear as if you are ignoring his springy photon
model and applying the math to a different model.

His 'springy photon' model is not viable as it is proposed.
He proposes that the springy photons compress due to pressure from other
photons.

Falsified by experimental data. Wavelength of light is independent of
the intensity of the light. Springy photons would get shorter in
wavelength as light intensity increased.

Perhaps the photons are not springy, perhaps they are like styrofome.
Perhaps they only compress ONCE and stay compressed? Again, not a viable
model. Lasers can start with low output and ramp up their output.
Henri's model would predict strong 'chirp' as the frequency got shorter
as intensity ramped up.

His 'springy BaTh photons' suffer two other problems:
[his model was proposed to handle pulsar pulses and the fact that the
phase of the velocity curve (doppler), the observed phase of Shapiro
Effect from eclipse do not match phase of the doppler and intensity
curve predictions from Henri's BaTh model.

You've gotten it all wrong Bob.
Photon compression occurs during source acceleration. The end movement
is soon dampened out.


1) space between pulses and pulses must compress by same amount due to
one kind of doppler effect. To get the phase right, Henri has to posit
some kind of compression taking place in different amounts on the space
between pulses(space between photons) and the pulses (photons).
2) The BaTh predicts a inverted Shapiro delay.

Finally, Henri's BaTh still has the problem I have mentioned elsewhere;
the 'velocity unification aka extinction' effect that BaTh needs to be
at all viable is so 'unlikely' as to be thermodynamically impossible AND
there are no known mechanisms to accomplish what needs to be
accomplished.

It is NOT thermodynamically impossible. You never sem to come up with an
argument as to why it should be.

I thought I was quite clear.

Thermo dynamics requires that ordered things tend to disorder.

Unification of velocity requires bringing an unexplainable order on a vast
scale to things which start out systematically disordered. Photons of
different wavelength from different emission lines with different
rotational doppler shifts, starting out at different times, at different
speeds (both slower than c and faster than c) must 'unify'.

The odds of such a thing happening on a small scale would be like flipping
a normal 'fair' coin and having it alway land heads up.

The odds of it happening on a cosmic scale are astronomically small.

It is much more likely that your hot cup of coffee should suddenly,
spontainiously, vaporize and leave behind cubes of frozen water.

It can't happen.




--
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 May 14, 4:50 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 May 2007 22:02:56 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Henry Wilson replied to Jeff Root:

You still have a problem with "can but not must".
To explore that a bit, I'd like to see if you can match
this intensity curve:

http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/curve1.png

I can...but how do I know you didn't just make it up.

Unless I give you some data that I would rather not, I
guess you can't know for sure. I can only say that I did
not make it up, and that I used a commercial program to
plot the data from a standard data file exactly as I said.

And if I had made it up I don't see what difference that
would make. If you can match the curve, you can match
the curve. If you can't, you can't.

......Jeff Root, guilty of attempted fraud and deception.....

Henri Wilson, known liar, accuses Jeff Root of fraud and deception?
YOU, falsifier of degrees, doctorer of photographs?
YOU, falsifier of quote chains?
YOU, hand-tuner of supposed fits to RT Aurigae?
YOU, who posted a hand-drawn fit to an overcontact binary star?

You yourself recently admitted that your program cannot model
"bumps". Now you claim that you can.
That's yet another lie, obviously.

And of course, you've never been able to accommodate
period noise or amplitude noise.

You can't even model the Algol secondary minimum in multiple
wavelength bands, much less simultaneously fit luminosity and
radial velocity data.

Nor can you model Shapiro delay.

Your count of successful fits stands at ZERO.

Jerry

Henry Wilson replied to Jeff Root:

You still have a problem with "can but not must".
To explore that a bit, I'd like to see if you can match
this intensity curve:

http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/curve1.png

I can...but how do I know you didn't just make it up.

Unless I give you some data that I would rather not, I
guess you can't know for sure. I can only say that I did
not make it up, and that I used a commercial program to
plot the data from a standard data file exactly as I said.

And if I had made it up I don't see what difference that
would make. If you can match the curve, you can match
the curve. If you can't, you can't.

......Jeff Root, guilty of attempted fraud and deception.....

Where? What fraud? What deception?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Henry whined to George:

Show me evidence from an eclipsing Cepheid that the
phase is that of ADoppler instead of VDoppler.

Name one eclipsing cepheid and I will.

AB Cassiopeia is an eclipsing binary in which a delta
Scuti type Cepheid is the primary. Also:

The MACHO Project LMC Variable Star Inventory: XII.
Three Cepheid Variables in Eclipsing Binaries
13 March 2002

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0201481

Luminosity curves are shown. Data was obtained in both V
and R and used in the analysis, but only the V curves are
shown in the paper.

Apparently some radial velocity data had been obtained but
full curves for both components of each system had not.
It was expected at that time that HST would obtain them
over the next several years.

The Nature of the Companion to the Eclipsing Overtone
Cepheid MACHO 81.8997.87
25 February 2004

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402607

Includes numerical luminosity values as well as curves.

It's terrible seeing mature astronomers floundering like this

Floundering like what? I don't see any astronomers floundering.
What are you referring to?

simply because Einstein led them on a wild goose chase.

Why don't they just accept the obvious. Light speed is c wrt
the source...c+v wrt the observer.

Because all measurements of the speed of light so far have
given the same value: c, not c+v. That speed is measured every
day many thousands, and probably many millions of times, by
people all around the world. If the value changed by even one
part in 1,000,000, it would be noticed immediately. If you can
point out any situation where the speed has been measured to
be c+v, please do so.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

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

You haven't changed the angle of the arrow.

I have introduced a factor that has the potential to cause fringe shifts
for very small angular velocities. The back end of a photon will hit
the mirror at a different point from the front end. It can easily be
displaced sideways by a number of wavelengths even at very small
rotational speeds.


I see a problem....

Lower frequencies, larger photons, would, by your theory, be 'skewed' by
even very slow motion of the source.

Skewed waves would display a noticable shift in wavelength, in addition to
that predicted by Doppler's formula.

Doppler radar would show very much different results than we observe. For
example, the doppler radar readings of hurrican winds would not match with
wind velocity data collected by other methods.



--
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 13 May, 06:04, Jeff Root wrote:
George replied to Henry:

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.

Because I learned maths at a more advanced level than
you and can see that your claims are contradictory.

It does appear as if you are ignoring his springy photon
model and applying the math to a different model.


"Jeff Root" wrote in message
ups.com...
George replied to Henry:

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.

Because I learned maths at a more advanced level than
you and can see that your claims are contradictory.

It does appear as if you are ignoring his springy photon
model and applying the math to a different model.

You're right, I am ignoring it. It isn't a question of
"applying the math to a different model", the math _is_
the model. What Henry is trying to do is use hand-waving
analogies to explain how photons can be springy but the
maths of the theory tells me that they aren't, it says
each wave of a burst initially travels at c+v and what
happens thereafter is a described by dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R.

That's the only 'model' that Henry has produced, and in
fact it was I who determined the second part for him.

All the stuff about cars and springs are just analogies,
teaching aids to try to explain the model, but the model
is actually the equations and the analogies are in
conflict with those so you have to make a choice.

The equations can be consistent with what we know of EM
signals, the analogies are not so that determines my
selection, and I ignore what he says that conflicts with
his theory.

George

Another post my ISP dropped:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 11 May 2007 07:47:37 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
On 11 May, 02:21, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 10 May 2007 04:09:06 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

No it isn't, you are forgetting that it gets changed by speed
equalisation. If the wavelength didn't change, there would
be no Doppler shift whatsoever.

That's another issue, leave it out for now.

We will come back to that below.

It is fundamental, the purpose of a grating is to
measure an unknown wavelength.

No it isn't. It uses the angle of diffraction to measure the velocity of
the
source, knowing the true absolute wavelength.

Rubbish, what is the "absolute wavelength" of a tunable
dye laser?

George, I'm going to cut this thread because it is only repeating what is
said
in the other one.

I'll do the same, we have covered most of the
ground already.

If you want to use a grating to measure ABSOLUTE wavelength, just make
sure the
source is at rest wrt the grating and there will be no problem.

And how do I do that for a distant star Henry, get real.

George the grating hasn't but the observer should know how to recognize
certain
lines..

The only way you can recognise a line id if you know
its wavelength Henry, that's why you use a grating to
measure it.

If you are using that in your grating, even if it HAS changed during
travel,
the assumption that it hasn't will still allow the observed
diffraction angle
to be used to calculate initial c+v.

It is an assumption Henry, the fact remains that what a
grating measures in BaTh is the reflected wavelength.

No George. Its diffraction angles are sensitive to wavelength ...

Exactly, that is what it does, nothing else. What use is
made of that result is nothing to do with the way a grating
works which is what we are discussing.

You DO know the absolute wavelength of certain spectral lines.

No you don't, the wavelength depends on the proper
motion of the source star and the cosmological and
gravitational redshifts.


It still says the same thing and it is still wrong, for a single
grating, the angle of deflection depends on the reflected
wavelength:

You're still bogged down in the constant c model.

ROFL, Henry the whole point of my argument is that the
change of speed on reflection means that lambda_r is
noit the same as lambda_i. If I was using "constant c"
the problem wouldn't arise.

It doesn't matter what u is.

Yes it does, the wavelength gets changed by (c+u)/(c+v).
If I was using "the constant c model" as you suggested
I would NOT need to distinguish between lambda_i and
lambda_r which I have done consistently. Your inaccurate
criticism belies a total failure to understand the true
situation.

The fact remains that my equation explains why hubble should detect its
own
motion whilst yours does NOT.

You still don't get it Henry, my equation is just your
equation with the algebra that was beyond you completed.
What _both_ equations show is that the angle phi depends
_only_ on the reflected wavelength, and in fact if lambda_i
is "absolute" then your equation suggests Hubble should
_not_ detect its own motion _unless_ the grating changes
the wavelength depending on the incident speed. Nothing in
your theory says that happens because you haven't shown
the BaTh equation for reflected speed.

SR does not predict that the HST should detect variations in
diffraction angle
due to its own orbit speeds.

Yes it does, it produces the same equation.

Light sped is not in the SR equation.

The equation is the same for both, N * lambda = D sin(phi).

The difference is that in SR lambda_r = lambda_i so we
don't need to distinguish.

That is only true if v=u.

You were referring to SR, v=u=0

I believe that u = c.

I think you mean u=0, the reflected speed is c+u.

It should for a transmission grating...so a comparison of
diffracted angles produced by the two types should give us a measure of
any
difference between u and v.

In fact, I now have an experiment.
Set up the HST to watch a particular star, monitor the angular change of
Hred
as it orbits, using both a transmission and a reflection grating.

Does the Hubble have both transmission and reflection
gratings fitted Henry? If not, are you going to pay for
the missing one to be installed? You're not living in the
real world.

Compare the
two.
If there's a difference, it will prove that u is not equal to v or c in my
equation as SR is definitely wrong. If there is no difference it wont tell
us
much at all.

SR says v=u and so far there is no evidence to
contradict that.

BaTh can't lose.

Let me give you a simpler experiment, you don't even
need a grating. If v =/= u the angle of reflection
from a mirror will differ from the conventional rule.
Set up an experiment in the lab like Ives and Stillwell
with light from a beam of atoms being reflected off a
mirror at 45 degrees. Then change the beam speed and see
if the light is reflected at a different angle. I think
you will find this is done quite often, for example
perhaps looking at the spectrum of accelerator beams,
but it shouldn't be hard to set up in the lab either.

The purpose of a grating is to make a measurement, that
is what the 'grating equation' does for you. The thing that
is measured is the reflected wavelength. Note that is
based on you diagram and I have a minor reservation
about it but you need to learn the basic principle before
we look in more detail.

George, gratings are used to determine wavelengths from sources at rest
wrt the
grating.

Gratings deflect light by an angle that depends on the
wavelength, period. Whether the source is moving or not
is not relevant.

The angle will be different, as you know. But moving the grating rather
than
the source ensures that nothing happens to the absolute 'wavelength'.

We are discussing the generic "grating equation" and
what I said remains true.

They don't give the same equation.

Yes they do, both give N * lambda = D * sin(phi)

The BaTh adds a .c/(c+v)...which is what is required.

No, the angle phi only tells you lambda_r, you have no
measure of v.

Study my diagram again George.

You seem to be incapable of doing basic algebra so
here is a corrected diagram that illustrates how a
grating works without requiring the extra step:

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

I told YOU that equation.

No you didn't. You gave a more complex version which
I had to simplify for you:


"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

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

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

Well done Henry. So your equation is

lambda_i * (c+u)
sin(phi) = ---------------
D * (c+v)

where lambda_i is the wavelength of the _incident_
light.

The wavelength of the reflected light, lambda_r, is
given by

lambda_r c+u
-------- = ---
lambda_i c+v

So your equation can also be written

lambda_r
sin(phi) = --------
D



The points you are missing is that Lambda_i is absolute and known...

No it isn't. We are talking about the generic equation for
a grating when it its used as a measuring instrument. So
far we have proved only

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

because in the instrument itself only D is known and phi
can be mesured.

and that my
equation will allow hubble to detect its own orbital motion with a grating
whilst yours will not.

Sorry Henry wrong on both points. If lambda_i is "absolute"
and v=u as a truly ballistic theory suggests then it couldn't
detect it because lambda_r = lambda_i which is unaffected by
Hubble's speed.

On the other hand in SR, the wavelength isn't absolute and
changes due to Doppler so SR gets it right.

Wavelength of light is intrinsic and cannot change just because a
grating is
moved somewhere, George.

That is your religion Henry, not reality.

The observed is never affected by the observer george.

Doppler shift Henry.

That doesn't affect the observed George.

It does in SR, and in reality.

It only affects the measuring
technique. If you measure a 0.7 um line to be 0.71 um, YOU have made an
error
of judgement somewhere and must compensate for it. In the case of
starlight of
course, you simply allow for the relative movement betwen you and the
star.

SR says gratings are purely wavelength sensitive, George.
SR must be wrong.

Nope, the wavelength changes in reality.

It certainly might change after hitting the grating. So might the
velocity...by
the same ratio. The frequency remains constant.

Nope, in reality frequency depends on observer motion
too Henry, Ives and Stilwell proved the second order
part of SR Doppler.

I said the frequency AFTER reflection must be the same as that BEFORE.
I think that is right.

No, you said the frequency remains constant which is
wrong. The incident and reflected frequencies are the
same but they vary with the velocity of the observer.

Angle phi depends only on lambda_r.

It depends entirely on Lambda_i and c+v/c+u

And that combination is lambda_r.

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

I already told YOU that George.

No, you said the grating equation was:

lambda_i * (c+u)
sin(phi) = ---------------
D * (c+v)

I had to do the algebra to show you that becomes:

lambda_r
sin(phi) = --------
D

Don't try to take the credit now Henry, it's taken
you a week to realise I was right all along.

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

That's all you can say.

I only need Lambda_e/(c+v).

You don't know v, angle phi depends _only_ on lambda_r
so that is what is measured, all else is conjecture.

You haven't studied the diagram George.

Since you apparently cannot understand the algebra
required by your own diagram, see the corrected one.

You keep repeating thngs I already know.

Then why do you keep arguing against them? I think
you only post for the fun of arguing.

George