Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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, 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.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Henry replied to George:

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

I have explained above how this can easily happen.

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

George, the evidence lies in the fact that just about
every brightness curve can be matched by a BaTh prediction,
in both shape and magnitude.

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

The data for the curve was recorded by an automated system.
It shows what appear to be almost eight cycles, each having
two peaks. I made the smooth curve through the data points
using a computer program which read the data from a datafile
and plotted it. The program added the intensity scale on
the right and the time scale along the bottom. I don't know
what the units are on the intensity scale, but they appear
to range from zero to 256. I presume that the person who
collected the data adjusted whatever needed to be adjusted
in order to make the curve range about equally on either
side of 128, at the middle of the scale. I do know the time
units, but for the purpose of this exercise, I'm withholding
that info until later. No Doppler data is available.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root wrote in news:1179032688.092049.307790
@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.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.

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.
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.




--
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

bz replied to Jeff:

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

I've (again) been thinking about making an animation to
show his photons in action, and I was going to completely
ignore that new property since it doesn't appear to be
essential to his theory.

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.

Henry hasn't agreed to that and I'm pretty sure he doesn't
want to. Acceleration squeezes photons, not crowding.

Perhaps the photons are not springy, perhaps they are like
styrofoam. Perhaps they only compress ONCE and stay
compressed?

That is one way I've been thinking of depicting them in the
animation. "Plastic" or "permanently deformable".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

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

lots of repretiitve stuff snipped.

I'll trim too.

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

No, you need to set u equal to the integral of

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

over the thickness of the grating.

If you want to be fussy...

Its better to get these things right rather than
clear it up later if you refer back. As I said
before it also raises questions over quarter-wave
plates.

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

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

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

apples universally.

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

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. 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

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.

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.

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 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.

....

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

The BaTh still applies to the harmonics.

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

I accept that many variable stars like cepheids ARE probably huff puff
stars...

Thank you. Now where is your proof that this mechanism
which we can successfully model with normal thermodynamics
is not the cause of the entire luminosity variation?

there is NO satisfactory hydrodynamic expanation for cepheid brightness
variations.

Apart from the one in the URL I gave you before. Keep
dreaming Henry you have anice little fantasy world set
up there. Maybe you could sell timeshares.

(although there are possible orbit configurations that COULD
conceivably include harmonics).
The harmonics are also huffing and puffing ...

You are losing the plot - you are in the process of
arguing that orbital harmonics are an _alternative_
to huff-puff.

Have you heard of stable 'figure of eight' orbits?
Are you aware that one planet can have almost double the period of
another?

Are you aware of what the word "alternative" means?

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

George, the evidence lies in the fact that just about every brightness
curve
can be matched by a BaTh prediction, in both shape and magnitude.

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.

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

By
considering both V and A doppelr effect, the velocity curves can also be
matched.
How much more evidence do you need

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.

to prove the logical conclusion that all
starlight in the universe is NOT magically adjusted (by hte fairies) to
travel
towards little planet Earth at c.

Still trying your pathetic strawman Henry, I do find
it amusing that you cannot find any valid criticism
of SR and have to resort to such childish tricks.

So you believe in fairies do you George?
-....or do you still believe the Earth is the centre of the universe?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Fourier doesn't apply to ballistic particles George.

Right, it applies to the macroscopic wave and tells you
the probabilistic distribution of the intrinsic frequency
property of the constituent particles.

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.

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.

...
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.

George

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

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

For any one photon that is true, but they still
preserve the phase relationship to other photons
on reflection.

That may be so. How does that affect this argument?

Beats me, the original question got snipped several
posts back. I'm in the mode of just correcting the
errors in your replies rather than proving a point.

precisely.

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

the energy must be preserved.

It is because there is always both constructive and
destructive interference at different angles. A
grating concentrates the energy in a particular
direction but still conserves the total.

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.

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

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

If they weren't both electrical phenomena, the voltages
could combine to elicit the non-linear transfer function
so the beams would pass through without producing the sum
and difference frequencies.

Let's not go into this too deeply..

No need to go too deep, just be aware that it only
works because the devices respond non-linearly to
the sum of the electric fields (voltages in everyday
terms) so both the light and the modulating signal
have to be EM.

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

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

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

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 might even learn something useful George.


Not from you Henry, you clearly know nothing about
the subject.

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

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

You need to learn the difference between beats and
heterodyning.

I am well aware there is a difference George.

Apparently not, you keep confusing the two phenomena.
Do some research.

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

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

NO NO.

Yes. Do the maths.

I say gratings are sensitive to individual photon properties. ..but will
also
diffract 'amplitude waves', amplitude being a sole function of the
'density of
photons'.

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.

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)]

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.

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.

Facts:

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

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

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

You don't know that.

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.

....
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.

....
All the aspects that produce first order effects are
included.

Not this one.

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.

George

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.



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

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

On 13 May 2007 03:38:34 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

bz replied to Jeff:

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

I've (again) been thinking about making an animation to
show his photons in action, and I was going to completely
ignore that new property since it doesn't appear to be
essential to his theory.

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.

Henry hasn't agreed to that and I'm pretty sure he doesn't
want to. Acceleration squeezes photons, not crowding.

Perhaps the photons are not springy, perhaps they are like
styrofoam. Perhaps they only compress ONCE and stay
compressed?

That is one way I've been thinking of depicting them in the
animation. "Plastic" or "permanently deformable".

You must haveva terribly frustrating existence root.
....not being able to come up with any new ideas....
You seem terribly envious of anyone who can...maybe you're in the wrong NG.
Try alt.lifelongfailures

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis



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

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

On 12 May 2007 23:11:04 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Henry replied to George:

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

I have explained above how this can easily happen.

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

George, the evidence lies in the fact that just about
every brightness curve can be matched by a BaTh prediction,
in both shape and magnitude.

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.

The data for the curve was recorded by an automated system.
It shows what appear to be almost eight cycles, each having
two peaks. I made the smooth curve through the data points
using a computer program which read the data from a datafile
and plotted it. The program added the intensity scale on
the right and the time scale along the bottom. I don't know
what the units are on the intensity scale, but they appear
to range from zero to 256. I presume that the person who
collected the data adjusted whatever needed to be adjusted
in order to make the curve range about equally on either
side of 128, at the middle of the scale. I do know the time
units, but for the purpose of this exercise, I'm withholding
that info until later. No Doppler data is available.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis



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

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

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, in Minneapolis