Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 14 May 2007 04:13:03 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Henry whined to George:

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

Name one eclipsing cepheid and I will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Includes numerical luminosity values as well as curves.

It's terrible seeing mature astronomers floundering like this

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

simply because Einstein led them on a wild goose chase.

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

Because all measurements of the speed of light so far have
given the same value: c, not c+v.

Hey, idiot, there has never been a OW light speed measurement from a moving
source.

That speed is measured every
day many thousands, and probably many millions of times, by
people all around the world. If the value changed by even one
part in 1,000,000, it would be noticed immediately. If you can
point out any situation where the speed has been measured to
be c+v, please do so.

The value of the constant known as 'c' is measured regularly in TW experiments
in which the source and 'mirror' are mutually at rest.. The BaTh says that this
should be true.
The BaTh wins again.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis



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

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

On Mon, 14 May 2007 11:33:25 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

You haven't changed the angle of the arrow.

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


I see a problem....

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

Probably not ...in terms of wavelength. ..but nobody uses far IR in ring laser
gyros.

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

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

That's a cosine effect.
....But not in sagnac.




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

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

On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:26:04 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

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

Jeff Root wrote in news:1179032688.092049.307790
:

George replied to Henry:

Individual photons resist ADoppler compression whilst the
macroscopic bunching of all the photons in the beam continues
and is responsible for large brightness variations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I thought I was quite clear.

Thermo dynamics requires that ordered things tend to disorder.

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

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

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

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

It can't happen.

It's just a direct application of Maxwell's equation.




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

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

On 14 May 2007 10:29:17 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 13 May, 06:04, Jeff Root wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

No George, you ignore what conflicts with - ney, destroys - YOUR theory.

Individual photons are susceptible to ADoppler but to a far lesser extent than
the inter-movement between photons. Thus the ADoppler shifts can be larger or
smaller than the VDoppler ones, depending on the separations and masses of the
source star(s).

It's all so simple really.


George



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

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

On 14 May 2007 03:47:02 -0700, Jerry wrote:

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

Henry Wilson replied to Jeff Root:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nor can you model Shapiro delay.

Your count of successful fits stands at ZERO.

Jerry

What's this?
......Defending your dying religion more important than your studies, Jerry?



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

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

On 14 May 2007 03:56:36 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Henry Wilson replied to Jeff Root:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where? What fraud? What deception?

Why all the mystery then?


-- Jeff, in Minneapolis



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

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

George replied to Jeff:

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

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

You made the wrong selection. The equations need to
accurately describe his analogies, not the other way around.

At present, the equations do not describe his analogies,
so they do not correctly define his theory. Rather than
ignoring what Henry says that conflicts with his theory,
you are ignoring some parts of what he says that conflicts
with what you know of EM signals.

The equations you are both using are wrong. They do not
describe partially-springy photons, so they do not describe
Henry's theory. Instead, the equations are a compromise
between Henry's theory -- as defined by his analogies --
and what you know about EM signals. That compromise is
one that Henry has not agreed to, and has not understood
because you have not said that it is a compromise. You
have represented it as Henry's theory, which it is not.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

On 14 May 2007 10:30:33 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

Another post my ISP dropped:

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


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

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

George, don't act dumb. I know you aren't.
You measure it in the lab...with the source and grating at rest.
Knowing the absolute wavelength of a particular spectral line, you can then use
a grating to measure the relative velocity of a star.




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

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

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

You DO know the absolute wavelength of certain spectral lines.

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

Maybe you aren't acting.....

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

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

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

It doesn't matter what u is.

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

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

You still don't get it Henry, my equation is just your
equation with the algebra that was beyond you completed.

YOUR equation is the simplified , constant c, one.
MINE is the general equation.

The fact that the HST detects its own orbital motion shows I'm correct and you
are wrong.

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

I have just told you how to measure it.
Since lambda_r can be found from phi and since lambda_i of a known spectral
line is absolute and universal, c+u/c+v can also be determined from teh
difference between phi and what it SHOULD be if v=u.

In fact we now have a way of checking the constancy of OWLS, albeit not a very
sensitive one. All we need is MY formula and light from a star with high
doppler shift.


Light sped is not in the SR equation.

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

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

That is only true if v=u.

You were referring to SR, v=u=0

I believe that u = c.

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

yes.

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

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

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

Somebody else might like a Noble .... no good to me.....

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

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

Nobody has done it so there's NO evidence either way.

BaTh can't lose.

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

THere possibly IS an experiment of that nature that might work.
Unfortunately I don't have a lab at the moment.


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

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

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

It does..but it isn't the general equation.


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

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

I told YOU that equation.

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


"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

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

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

Well done Henry. So your equation is

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

where lambda_i is the wavelength of the _incident_
light.

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

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

So your equation can also be written

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


I wrote that for somebody else then.

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

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

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

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

George, lambda_i is also known.

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

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

This is correct...which is the main reason I reckon u must = 0....or it
certainly cannot = v.

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

Moving the grating cannot affect the light.


Doppler shift Henry.

That doesn't affect the observed George.

It does in SR, and in reality.

but SR is wrong.




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

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

That's what I inferred. In steady INERTIAL state, the same number of
'wavecrests' must pass any point in the beam in unit time....whether the
'mirror' is moving wrt the source or not.



I already told YOU that George.

No, you said the grating equation was:

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

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

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

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

It's no big deal, taking credit for theleeding obvious....

You haven't studied the diagram George.

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

You keep repeating thngs I already know.

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

look who's talking....


George




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

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

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:nslh43hru3sbe10u8e1p3jd12cgdu9aa36@
4ax.com:

Hey, ____, there has never been a OW light speed measurement from a moving
source.


Jupiters moons have been used to measure the one way speed of light. That is
certainly a valid 'one way' speed of light determination. There are other
tests that have been made also.



--
bz

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

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
: ....
You've gotten it all wrong Bob.
Photon compression occurs during source acceleration. The end movement
is soon dampened out.


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

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

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

I thought I was quite clear.

Thermo dynamics requires that ordered things tend to disorder.

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

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

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

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

It can't happen.

It's just a direct application of Maxwell's equation.

Light moving at c, as measured from ANY inertial FoR is a direct
application of Maxwell's equations.

The 'unification' of the speeds of light for batches moving at c-v and c+v
is NOT 'a direct application of Maxwell's equations'.
Maxwell's equations make no provision for light to move at c-v or c+v.
Maxwell's equations require that all EM waves move exactly at c.

No c-v, no c+v under maxwells equations.

Try again. And let me know when your coffee suddenly freezes because
otherwise, there is no way to speed up those c-v photons.







--
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