Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 8 May, 00:06, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2007 11:17:54 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"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.

Desperate again George?

I'm having to teach you basic algebra yet again Henry.

Lambda_i is absolute and all we need.

Lambda_r doesn't enter into this.

Lambda_i isn't enough, if you want to use it you need
to know v and u as well but the grating doesn't measure
them. Remember all we know is the angle phi so you
can turn the second version round to get

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

but that's as far as you go. Your first equation isn't
usable because v and u aren't known so in BaTh a
grating doesn't measure Lambda_i, only Lambda_r.

The equation uses points of equal phase to calculate the angle of the wavefront
of the diffracted beam.

Yes, your basic equations are right but you are left
with two unknowns. Essentially the incident speed
and wavelength are 'conjugate' as you used the term
in relation to pitch and velocity in your simulation so
you don't know either. Going the extra step to express
it in terms of Lambda_r resolves the problem.

Let's assume that u =0, ie., the reflected light moves at c wrt the GRATING.

The result is as I said: Sin(phi)=D/lambda.(c/(c+v)), for 1st order
diffraction.

However knowing D and phi still leaves two unknowns,
lambda and v, so cannot be solved for either.

Speed is included in the equation....so the BaTh explains what is observed.

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

In the useable form, speed is not included in the equation.

SR does not.

SR gives the same equation but since we know the
speed is c we also have

Lambda_i = Lambda_r

in the frame of the grating.

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

The BaTh wins again.

Don't be stupid, both theories give the same equation.
However, in BaTh a grating cannot measure what you
call the 'absolute wavelength', only the reflected
wavelength. That's a limitation which suggests you
would need other instruments to find v and u.

The BaTh also explains sagnac.

Sagnac doesn't need an "explanation", it is a simple
measurement of OWLS from a moving source and the
result is c which falsifies Ritz's theory. There is a
superficial 'explanation' which I expected you to put
forward a couple of years ago but maybe you have
spotted the problem in it already. Anyway, as it stands
at the moment, you don't have a theory that is
compatible with Sagnac or the Shapiro delay.

The BaTh wins yet again.

Your obsession is getting the better of you, try to
calm down. For the grating (as for the MMX), both
theories give the same result and for Ives and
Stilwell, Sagnac and the Shapiro delay BaTh fails.

My point is simply that you guessed what the
equation would contain rather than working it out.
When you got round to it, I'm sure it only took a
few minutes but you have now discovered that your
assumptions were inaccurate, speed does not
appear in the final equation, only the reflected
wavelength:

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

You also suggested it used the frequency but that
also isn't true because you don't know c+u which
is needed to get frequency from Lambda_r.

George

In article ,
George Dishman wrote:

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Dishman wrote:
................
Are you denying ballistic theory says the speed is c+v relative to the
source? Are you denying it says the speed is asymptotic to c/n
relative to a medium where n is the refractive index of that medium?
I'm just applying your theory consistently.

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

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

George

Actually, I think Henry might have grasped it. That's why he wants
to use his theory only when he thinks it works. In situations when
it gets too obvious it doesn't work, he doesn't want to use it.

What he doesn't grasp is that an inconsistent theory isn't trustworthy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can easily match both George.

.. I would take the easy way out and probably agree with you.
However, since logic tells us that there is no mechanism outside of
fairyland
which would cause all starlight in the universe to travel towards little
planet
Earth at precisely c, and since I CAN match brightness curves very nicely,

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

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

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

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

K=1 Henry.

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

See below, you haven't.

If I assume it has a value of maybe 10000,
then everything falls into place, I can match hundreds of brightness
curves in
phase and magnitude with velocity curves.

But it is then self-contradictory so fails to be a theory
in the first place.

It isn't. It can have a value of 10000 ..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without K=1 you cannot match simple Doppler measurements
in the lab and K1 conflicts with c+v for the speed, it
is self-contradictory so proves itself wrong.

I now consider that Labs create and constitute their own strong EM FoRs.

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

An EM FoR is ...

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

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

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

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

Yes, that's what I was looking for.

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

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

N * lambda_r = D * sin(phi)


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

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

No, it certainly isn't.
I just hadn't gotten around to it.

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

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

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

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

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

..and it all fits nicely....

... apart from the phase.

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

The movement BETWEEN photons continues for some
time.

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

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

K is 1, period.

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

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


Just show me the equation and stop guessing.

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

Note, light speed is included in the BaTh equation.

Nope

lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

Otherwise it is the same as
the classical one.

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

But George, you are not distinguishing between a beam of light made from a
large number of identical photons, all moving at the same speed, and a
generated radio signal made up of intelligently bunched groupings of any
old photons.

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

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

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

You can't realy believe that a constant RF signal lasting ten years is
made of one single photon.

No, nor do I believe a mono-mode laser running for ten
years emits a single photon.

Well what's you model for this?

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

Why not a periodic variation in photon density?

Variations in flux also apply to both.

How does one 'phase relate' photons anyway?

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

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

Same as for a mono-mode laser, bz has told you already
so I won't repeat it.

BZ knows nothing....but he tries....

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

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

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

Yep, it also mean ADoppler is non-existent for binaries,
the light changes to speed c within 4.6 microns of leaving
the star's surface ;-)

That's c wrt the star George.

It is c wrt to the material with which it is interacting
to cause the speed change Henry, otherwise you cannot
transfer the energy and momentum to maintain conservation.

You can't assume it is 'material'. Just call it a 'local EM FoR'.

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

A local EM FoR is more than a cooordinate system.

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

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

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

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

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

Well I wont dwell on this ...

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

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

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

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

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

It is quite possible that there may be a compromise theory that might explain
the intricacies of starlight movement and still accommodate some aspects of
Einstein's modified aether theory.

I sense that you may be thinking along similar lines.

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

Well I have now solved the Sagnac mystery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BaTh wins again.

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

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

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

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

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

George

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 8 May 2007 00:41:49 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 8 May, 00:06, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2007 11:17:54 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"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.

Desperate again George?

I'm having to teach you basic algebra yet again Henry.

Lambda_i is absolute and all we need.

Lambda_r doesn't enter into this.

Lambda_i isn't enough, if you want to use it you need
to know v and u as well but the grating doesn't measure
them. Remember all we know is the angle phi so you
can turn the second version round to get

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

but that's as far as you go. Your first equation isn't
usable because v and u aren't known so in BaTh a
grating doesn't measure Lambda_i, only Lambda_r.

George, Lambda_i is known. It is absolute and universal for a particular
spectral line.
The difference between the measured angle and the expected one is a measure of
c+u/c+v
(Can we assume u is zero?).

The equation uses points of equal phase to calculate the angle of the wavefront
of the diffracted beam.

Yes, your basic equations are right but you are left
with two unknowns. Essentially the incident speed
and wavelength are 'conjugate' as you used the term
in relation to pitch and velocity in your simulation so
you don't know either. Going the extra step to express
it in terms of Lambda_r resolves the problem.

You are missing the point.
The BaTh says Lambda_i is absolute for any known spectral line.

Let's assume that u =0, ie., the reflected light moves at c wrt the GRATING.

The result is as I said: Sin(phi)=D/lambda.(c/(c+v)), for 1st order
diffraction.

However knowing D and phi still leaves two unknowns,
lambda and v, so cannot be solved for either.

No, lambda is known George.

Speed is included in the equation....so the BaTh explains what is observed.

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

George, if you want to measure lambda_r, you will have to put another grating
in the diffracted beam.

In the useable form, speed is not included in the equation.

SR does not.

SR gives the same equation but since we know the
speed is c we also have

Lambda_i = Lambda_r

in the frame of the grating.

You've definitely lost it this ime George.
We are talking about the BaTh....not SR....
Lambda_i is known.

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

The BaTh wins again.

Don't be stupid, both theories give the same equation.
However, in BaTh a grating cannot measure what you
call the 'absolute wavelength', only the reflected
wavelength. That's a limitation which suggests you
would need other instruments to find v and u.

They don't give the same equation. SR's one infers that the HST gratings would
NOT detect its own orbital movement. The BaTh equation says it will.

An definite victory for hte BaTh wouldn't you say?


The BaTh also explains sagnac.

Sagnac doesn't need an "explanation", it is a simple
measurement of OWLS from a moving source and the
result is c which falsifies Ritz's theory. There is a
superficial 'explanation' which I expected you to put
forward a couple of years ago but maybe you have
spotted the problem in it already. Anyway, as it stands
at the moment, you don't have a theory that is
compatible with Sagnac or the Shapiro delay.

I can see I will have to go right through this again.

The question George, now is, "does light reflect from a moving mirror at the
incident angle and speed, wrt the mirror...or does it reflect at c wrt the
mirror and at an angle detemined by the BaTh grating equation?"

The BaTh wins yet again.

Your obsession is getting the better of you, try to
calm down. For the grating (as for the MMX), both
theories give the same result and for Ives and
Stilwell, Sagnac and the Shapiro delay BaTh fails.

My point is simply that you guessed what the
equation would contain rather than working it out.
When you got round to it, I'm sure it only took a
few minutes but you have now discovered that your
assumptions were inaccurate, speed does not
appear in the final equation, only the reflected
wavelength:

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

Can you not get it into you head George, lambda_i is universal and known.

You also suggested it used the frequency but that
also isn't true because you don't know c+u which
is needed to get frequency from Lambda_r.

Assume u =0....although it might not be....

George



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

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

On 9 May, 00:41, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 8 May 2007 00:41:49 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 8 May, 00:06, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2007 11:17:54 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:mkqt331o5mk4ifujqvseogifnioaqpd62e@4ax .com...

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.

Desperate again George?

I'm having to teach you basic algebra yet again Henry.

Lambda_i is absolute and all we need.

Lambda_r doesn't enter into this.

Lambda_i isn't enough, if you want to use it you need
to know v and u as well but the grating doesn't measure
them. Remember all we know is the angle phi so you
can turn the second version round to get

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

but that's as far as you go. Your first equation isn't
usable because v and u aren't known so in BaTh a
grating doesn't measure Lambda_i, only Lambda_r.

George, Lambda_i is known. It is absolute and universal for a particular
spectral line.

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.

The difference between the measured angle and the expected one is a measure of
c+u/c+v
(Can we assume u is zero?).

No, you can't assume that but even if you did you
don't know v or lamda_i, the whole point of using a
grating is to _measure_ something you don't know.
Conventionally v=0, u=0 and lambda_r = lambda_i
but in BaTh none of those are known. The
measurement of phi tells you lambda_r only.

The equation uses points of equal phase to calculate the angle of the wavefront
of the diffracted beam.

Yes, your basic equations are right but you are left
with two unknowns. Essentially the incident speed
and wavelength are 'conjugate' as you used the term
in relation to pitch and velocity in your simulation so
you don't know either. Going the extra step to express
it in terms of Lambda_r resolves the problem.

You are missing the point.
The BaTh says Lambda_i is absolute for any known spectral line.

No it doesn't, it says Lambda _emitted_ is known but that
isn't the wavelength of the lght incident on the grating.

Let's assume that u =0, ie., the reflected light moves at c wrt the GRATING.

The result is as I said: Sin(phi)=D/lambda.(c/(c+v)), for 1st order
diffraction.

However knowing D and phi still leaves two unknowns,
lambda and v, so cannot be solved for either.

No, lambda is known George.

Sorry Henry, you forgot speed equalisation.

Speed is included in the equation....so the BaTh explains what is observed.

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

George, if you want to measure lambda_r, you will have to put another grating
in the diffracted beam.

No, the equation for a single grating in BaTh, what you
called the "grating equation" tells you Lambda_r, not
Lambda_i.


In the useable form, speed is not included in the equation.

SR does not.

SR gives the same equation but since we know the
speed is c we also have

Lambda_i = Lambda_r

in the frame of the grating.

You've definitely lost it this ime George.
We are talking about the BaTh....not SR....

You said "SR does not.", I just corrected your error.

Lambda_i is known.

No, or there would be no point in measuring it.

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

The BaTh wins again.

Don't be stupid, both theories give the same equation.
However, in BaTh a grating cannot measure what you
call the 'absolute wavelength', only the reflected
wavelength. That's a limitation which suggests you
would need other instruments to find v and u.

They don't give the same equation.

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

SR's one infers that the HST gratings would
NOT detect its own orbital movement.

Rubbish, don't try guessing Henry, you don't know
anything about SR so you're not going to get it right.
You know perfectly well that the conventional
grating equation is what I've shown above.

The BaTh equation says it will.

An definite victory for hte BaTh wouldn't you say?

Just wrong on every count, you can't even work out
what your own theory says about a grating.

The BaTh also explains sagnac.

Sagnac doesn't need an "explanation", it is a simple
measurement of OWLS from a moving source and the
result is c which falsifies Ritz's theory. There is a
superficial 'explanation' which I expected you to put
forward a couple of years ago but maybe you have
spotted the problem in it already. Anyway, as it stands
at the moment, you don't have a theory that is
compatible with Sagnac or the Shapiro delay.

I can see I will have to go right through this again.

The question George, now is, "does light reflect from a moving mirror at the
incident angle and speed, wrt the mirror...or does it reflect at c wrt the
mirror and at an angle detemined by the BaTh grating equation?"

Dealt with three years ago, the incident light moves at
c wrt the mirror so the question is moot, the reflected
light also moves at c wrt the mirror whichever model
you adopt and the incident and reflected angles are
equal. The Sagnac experiment doesn't have a grating
in it so I don't know why you even mention that, seems
like you have lost the plot this time Henry.

The BaTh wins yet again.

Your obsession is getting the better of you, try to
calm down. For the grating (as for the MMX), both
theories give the same result and for Ives and
Stilwell, Sagnac and the Shapiro delay BaTh fails.

My point is simply that you guessed what the
equation would contain rather than working it out.
When you got round to it, I'm sure it only took a
few minutes but you have now discovered that your
assumptions were inaccurate, speed does not
appear in the final equation, only the reflected
wavelength:

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

Can you not get it into you head George, lambda_i is universal and known.

Not according to ballistic theory. You still don't
understand the predictions of your own theory.

You also suggested it used the frequency but that
also isn't true because you don't know c+u which
is needed to get frequency from Lambda_r.

Assume u =0....although it might not be....

If it might not be then you can't assume, but even
if you do, you don't know v and you don't know
lambda_i or you wouldn't be trying to measure it
in the first place. The BaTh grating equation is:

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

That's all you can say.

George

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 8 May 2007 23:58:13 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 9 May, 00:41, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 8 May 2007 00:41:49 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 8 May, 00:06, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2007 11:17:54 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:mkqt331o5mk4ifujqvseogifnioaqpd62e@4ax .com...

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.

Desperate again George?

I'm having to teach you basic algebra yet again Henry.

Lambda_i is absolute and all we need.

Lambda_r doesn't enter into this.

Lambda_i isn't enough, if you want to use it you need
to know v and u as well but the grating doesn't measure
them. Remember all we know is the angle phi so you
can turn the second version round to get

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

but that's as far as you go. Your first equation isn't
usable because v and u aren't known so in BaTh a
grating doesn't measure Lambda_i, only Lambda_r.

George, Lambda_i is known. It is absolute and universal for a particular
spectral line.

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.

The difference between the measured angle and the expected one is a measure of
c+u/c+v
(Can we assume u is zero?).

No, you can't assume that but even if you did you
don't know v or lamda_i, the whole point of using a
grating is to _measure_ something you don't know.

Don't try to wriggle out with this distraction George.

Conventionally v=0, u=0 and lambda_r = lambda_i
but in BaTh none of those are known. The
measurement of phi tells you lambda_r only.

George, the wavelength of, say, Halpha is absolute and universal.

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.

The equation uses points of equal phase to calculate the angle of the wavefront
of the diffracted beam.

Yes, your basic equations are right but you are left
with two unknowns. Essentially the incident speed
and wavelength are 'conjugate' as you used the term
in relation to pitch and velocity in your simulation so
you don't know either. Going the extra step to express
it in terms of Lambda_r resolves the problem.

You are missing the point.
The BaTh says Lambda_i is absolute for any known spectral line.

No it doesn't, it says Lambda _emitted_ is known but that
isn't the wavelength of the lght incident on the grating.

This is a separate factor but like I said, it doesn't matter anyway. All
velocity changes during flight are accompanied by a corresponding shifts in
absolute wavelength.
The time, 'lambda/'c+v'' remains constant.
So diffraction angle remains the same.

Let's assume that u =0, ie., the reflected light moves at c wrt the GRATING.

The result is as I said: Sin(phi)=D/lambda.(c/(c+v)), for 1st order
diffraction.

However knowing D and phi still leaves two unknowns,
lambda and v, so cannot be solved for either.

No, lambda is known George.

Sorry Henry, you forgot speed equalisation.

forget it ....it doesn't matter.

Speed is included in the equation....so the BaTh explains what is observed.

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

George, if you want to measure lambda_r, you will have to put another grating
in the diffracted beam.

No, the equation for a single grating in BaTh, what you
called the "grating equation" tells you Lambda_r, not
Lambda_i.

please read again george.


In the useable form, speed is not included in the equation.

SR does not.

SR gives the same equation but since we know the
speed is c we also have

Lambda_i = Lambda_r

in the frame of the grating.

You've definitely lost it this ime George.
We are talking about the BaTh....not SR....

You said "SR does not.", I just corrected your error.

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

Lambda_i is known.

No, or there would be no point in measuring it.

It isn't measured. It is known and used to calculate relative source speeds.


Don't be stupid, both theories give the same equation.
However, in BaTh a grating cannot measure what you
call the 'absolute wavelength', only the reflected
wavelength. That's a limitation which suggests you
would need other instruments to find v and u.

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.

SR's one infers that the HST gratings would
NOT detect its own orbital movement.

Rubbish, don't try guessing Henry, you don't know
anything about SR so you're not going to get it right.
You know perfectly well that the conventional
grating equation is what I've shown above.

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

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

The BaTh equation says it will.

An definite victory for hte BaTh wouldn't you say?

Just wrong on every count, you can't even work out
what your own theory says about a grating.

You tried to introduce a red herring and it was promptly caught and eaten.

The BaTh also explains sagnac.

Sagnac doesn't need an "explanation", it is a simple
measurement of OWLS from a moving source and the
result is c which falsifies Ritz's theory. There is a
superficial 'explanation' which I expected you to put
forward a couple of years ago but maybe you have
spotted the problem in it already. Anyway, as it stands
at the moment, you don't have a theory that is
compatible with Sagnac or the Shapiro delay.

I can see I will have to go right through this again.

The question George, now is, "does light reflect from a moving mirror at the
incident angle and speed, wrt the mirror...or does it reflect at c wrt the
mirror and at an angle detemined by the BaTh grating equation?"

Dealt with three years ago, the incident light moves at
c wrt the mirror so the question is moot, the reflected
light also moves at c wrt the mirror whichever model
you adopt and the incident and reflected angles are
equal. The Sagnac experiment doesn't have a grating
in it so I don't know why you even mention that, seems
like you have lost the plot this time Henry.

Specular reflection is a limit case of grating diffraction.



My point is simply that you guessed what the
equation would contain rather than working it out.
When you got round to it, I'm sure it only took a
few minutes but you have now discovered that your
assumptions were inaccurate, speed does not
appear in the final equation, only the reflected
wavelength:

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

Can you not get it into you head George, lambda_i is universal and known.

Not according to ballistic theory. You still don't
understand the predictions of your own theory.

It doesn't affect the result if it DOES change during travel. Lambda_i/(c+vi)
is constant.

You also suggested it used the frequency but that
also isn't true because you don't know c+u which
is needed to get frequency from Lambda_r.

Assume u =0....although it might not be....

If it might not be then you can't assume, but even
if you do, you don't know v and you don't know
lambda_i or you wouldn't be trying to measure it
in the first place. The BaTh grating equation is:

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

That's all you can say.

I only need Lambda_e/(c+v).
The ratio remains constant during any extinction that takes place.


George



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

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

On 10 May, 01:30, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 8 May 2007 23:58:13 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 9 May, 00:41, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 8 May 2007 00:41:49 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 8 May, 00:06, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2007 11:17:54 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:mkqt331o5mk4ifujqvseogifnioaqpd62e@4ax .com...

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.

Desperate again George?

I'm having to teach you basic algebra yet again Henry.

Lambda_i is absolute and all we need.

Lambda_r doesn't enter into this.

Lambda_i isn't enough, if you want to use it you need
to know v and u as well but the grating doesn't measure
them. Remember all we know is the angle phi so you
can turn the second version round to get

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

but that's as far as you go. Your first equation isn't
usable because v and u aren't known so in BaTh a
grating doesn't measure Lambda_i, only Lambda_r.

George, Lambda_i is known. It is absolute and universal for a particular
spectral line.

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.

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

The difference between the measured angle and the expected one is a measure of
c+u/c+v
(Can we assume u is zero?).

No, you can't assume that but even if you did you
don't know v or lamda_i, the whole point of using a
grating is to _measure_ something you don't know.

Don't try to wriggle out with this distraction George.

It is not a distraction, a grating is a measuring instrument
and what it measures in BaTh is the _reflected_ wavelength,
nothing else. Other parameters my be inferred using
assumptions but they are not measured.

Conventionally v=0, u=0 and lambda_r = lambda_i
but in BaTh none of those are known. The
measurement of phi tells you lambda_r only.

George, the wavelength of, say, Halpha is absolute and universal.

You forget the Doppler shift due to proper motion of the
source. The grating has no idea the light is hydrogen
alpha, the fact is that the angle of deflection depends
_only_ on the reflected wavelength.

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.

snip repetition

....
George, if you want to measure lambda_r, you will have to put another grating
in the diffracted beam.

No, the equation for a single grating in BaTh, what you
called the "grating equation" tells you Lambda_r, not
Lambda_i.

please read again george.

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

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

Anything beyond that requires assumptions and calculations.

In the useable form, speed is not included in the equation.

SR does not.

SR gives the same equation but since we know the
speed is c we also have

Lambda_i = Lambda_r

in the frame of the grating.

You've definitely lost it this ime George.
We are talking about the BaTh....not SR....

You said "SR does not.", I just corrected your error.

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.

Lambda_i is known.

No, or there would be no point in measuring it.

It isn't measured. It is known and used to calculate relative source speeds.

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.

Don't be stupid, both theories give the same equation.
However, in BaTh a grating cannot measure what you
call the 'absolute wavelength', only the reflected
wavelength. That's a limitation which suggests you
would need other instruments to find v and u.

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.

SR's one infers that the HST gratings would
NOT detect its own orbital movement.

Rubbish, don't try guessing Henry, you don't know
anything about SR so you're not going to get it right.
You know perfectly well that the conventional
grating equation is what I've shown above.

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

That is your religion Henry, not reality.

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

Nope, the wavelength changes in reality.

The BaTh equation says it will.

An definite victory for hte BaTh wouldn't you say?

Just wrong on every count, you can't even work out
what your own theory says about a grating.

You tried to introduce a red herring and it was promptly caught and eaten.

Hook line and sinker.

....
Dealt with three years ago, the incident light moves at
c wrt the mirror so the question is moot, the reflected
light also moves at c wrt the mirror whichever model
you adopt and the incident and reflected angles are
equal. The Sagnac experiment doesn't have a grating
in it so I don't know why you even mention that, seems
like you have lost the plot this time Henry.

Specular reflection is a limit case of grating diffraction.

OK.

My point is simply that you guessed what the
equation would contain rather than working it out.
When you got round to it, I'm sure it only took a
few minutes but you have now discovered that your
assumptions were inaccurate, speed does not
appear in the final equation, only the reflected
wavelength:

Lambda_r = D * sin(phi)

Can you not get it into you head George, lambda_i is universal and known.

Not according to ballistic theory. You still don't
understand the predictions of your own theory.

It doesn't affect the result if it DOES change during travel. Lambda_i/(c+vi)
is constant.

Angle phi depends only on lambda_r.

You also suggested it used the frequency but that
also isn't true because you don't know c+u which
is needed to get frequency from Lambda_r.

Assume u =0....although it might not be....

If it might not be then you can't assume, but even
if you do, you don't know v and you don't know
lambda_i or you wouldn't be trying to measure it
in the first place. The BaTh grating equation is:

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.

George