Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 19 May 2007 03:08:32 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 16, 4:59 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 15 May 2007 23:58:39 -0700, Jerry wrote:

No crap, Henri. Experiments such as you have proposed in the past
to measure one-way speed of light are effectively being performed
on a continuous basis in tracking interplanetary spacecraft. They
aren't even experiments anymore, but instead are simply routine
engineering considerations. DSN determinations of spacecraft
radial velocity are accurate to 0.05 millimeters per second, and
range determinations are routinely accurate to three meters.
(Scientific American, August 2006, p 100)

Any discrepancy in signal timings resulting from c+v effects
should have been noticed long ago.

c+v effects simply don't exist.

Is that why those Mars probes crashed?
Is that why the HST didn't work until somebody woke up....
Is that why pioneer has an anomalous redshift?

The Mars probes crashed because a mixup in Metric versus English
units resulted in a timing failure during the landing sequence.
Tracking to Mars was every bit as accurate as I have indicated.

Ballistic theory does not alter the equations of geometric optics,
especially if, as you propose, HST is orbiting within the local
whatever-you-call-it local H-aether frame of the Earth. The mirror
was polished incorrectly because it was unit-tested with an
incorrectly assembled null corrector, but the engineers at
Perkin-Elmer had been so confident of their unit test results that
they never gave the mirror assembly any sort of overall system
test; furthermore, the engineers ignored the test results from
two secondary test instruments that indicated that the miror was
incorrectly figured.

The Pioneer anomaly is not explainable as a c+v effect. If you
want to claim that it is, please show your calculations.

Yes, Yes Jerry,, keep your head in the sand, it wont worry me....

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Spacecraft tracking information provides an extremely stringent
test of c+v.

Consider the Cassini orbiter.

Cassini's precise orbital parameters about Saturn vary because
they are occasionally adjusted to redirect the probe to fly by
various of Saturn's moons. As an order-of-magnitude estimate,
however, let us assume that v towards and away from Earth varies
from about +/- 10 km/s during Cassini's orbit about Saturn.

On average, Saturn is, say, about 1.5x10^9 km from the Earth.
That means that signals from Cassini take about 5000 seconds to
reach Earth.

If ballistic theory holds, then signals from Cassini would be
expected to be advanced and retarded by roughly 10/300000x5000
seconds as Cassini approaches and recedes from Earth each orbit.

That amounts to a several TENTHS OF A SECOND anomaly, which is
simply not observed.

It IS observed but it it is not recognozed because the orbit itself is in error
due to c+v.


Ballistic theory utterly FAILS, Henri.

B-----------A
-v-










C
_____________

Observer C 'watches' light moving from distant star A to distant orbiting star
B.

On May 19, 5:23 am, Jerry wrote:
On May 15, 5:34 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

On 14 May 2007 16:09:46 -0700, Jerry wrote:
Anyhow, I note that you have not tried to deny any of my charges.
You know perfectly well that if you try to deny them, I will
provide links to every one of your fraudulent statements.

There are NONE.

I had made it very clear what I would do if you tried to deny
my charges.

Henri Wilson's Use of Deceptive Language or,
Would You Buy A Used Ballistic Theory From This Man?http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus..._deception.htm

Henri Wilson's Faked Diplomahttp://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri_wilsons_faked_dipl...

Jerry

Christ, I can use mspaint better than this man!

On 19 May 2007 05:23:20 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 15, 5:34 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 14 May 2007 16:09:46 -0700, Jerry wrote:

Anyhow, I note that you have not tried to deny any of my charges.
You know perfectly well that if you try to deny them, I will
provide links to every one of your fraudulent statements.

There are NONE.

I had made it very clear what I would do if you tried to deny
my charges.

Henri Wilson's Use of Deceptive Language or,
Would You Buy A Used Ballistic Theory From This Man?
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus..._deception.htm

Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ed_diploma.htm

...Agh! Go away and roll a few old geriatrics over....

Silly girl...

Jerry



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

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

On May 19, 4:03 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

[...]

Say Ralph, why do you continue to post as Henri Wilson when that is
obviously not your name?

On May 19, 5:43 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 May 2007 03:08:32 -0700, Jerry wrote:

The Mars probes crashed because a mixup in Metric versus English
units resulted in a timing failure during the landing sequence.
Tracking to Mars was every bit as accurate as I have indicated.

Ballistic theory does not alter the equations of geometric optics,
especially if, as you propose, HST is orbiting within the local
whatever-you-call-it local H-aether frame of the Earth. The mirror
was polished incorrectly because it was unit-tested with an
incorrectly assembled null corrector, but the engineers at
Perkin-Elmer had been so confident of their unit test results that
they never gave the mirror assembly any sort of overall system
test; furthermore, the engineers ignored the test results from
two secondary test instruments that indicated that the miror was
incorrectly figured.

The Pioneer anomaly is not explainable as a c+v effect. If you
want to claim that it is, please show your calculations.

Yes, Yes Jerry,, keep your head in the sand, it wont worry me....

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Spacecraft tracking information provides an extremely stringent
test of c+v.

Consider the Cassini orbiter.

Cassini's precise orbital parameters about Saturn vary because
they are occasionally adjusted to redirect the probe to fly by
various of Saturn's moons. As an order-of-magnitude estimate,
however, let us assume that v towards and away from Earth varies
from about +/- 10 km/s during Cassini's orbit about Saturn.

On average, Saturn is, say, about 1.5x10^9 km from the Earth.
That means that signals from Cassini take about 5000 seconds to
reach Earth.

If ballistic theory holds, then signals from Cassini would be
expected to be advanced and retarded by roughly 10/300000x5000
seconds as Cassini approaches and recedes from Earth each orbit.

That amounts to a several TENTHS OF A SECOND anomaly, which is
simply not observed.

It IS observed but it it is not recognozed because the orbit
itself is in error due to c+v.

That piece of bull**** doesn't work, Henri.

The proposed several tenths of a second timing anomaly in the
receipt of signals from the Cassini orbiter would imply errors
in the orbit of around +/-50000 km.

You are caught in a web of contradictions, Henri.

Ballistic theory fails again.

Snip irrelevant attempt at distraction

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Faked Diploma
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri_diploma.htm

Henri Wilson's Use of Deceptive Language or,
Would You Buy A Used Ballistic Theory From This Man?
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus..._deception.htm

RT Aurigae versus Emission Theory or,
Henri Wilson's Faked Program Output
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm

Henri Wilson Attempts to Rewrite the Historical Record
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri_history.htm

On 19 May 2007 03:05:50 -0700, George Dishman wrote:



Sorry Henry, this is old but it got dropped
and I didn't notice.


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

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

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

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

No what is known is the wavelength emitted. That's
not the same as the wavelength incident on the grating
because of speed equalisation.

Don't complicate the issue George.


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

lambda_r = D * sin(phi) / N

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

No it isn't. In general, v, u and lambda_i are not
known. In the specific astronomical field you can
probably identify the source line and also assume
v=0 because of speed equalisation (hence u=0 as well)
but in the _general_ case you can't.

In BaTh, the distance between 'wavecrests' of any particular spectral line is
absolute and universal. It is also known.


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

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

The factors are "permitted" and shown in the diagram,
but in general their values are not known. As I said
before your equation isn't wrong, but you need extra
information to use it. Mine is derivable solely from
the construction of the device.

Yours is the one that needs more information.


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

That must be correct.

I don't think there is that much between us here,
really what you take as "general".

For a particular spectral line, Lambda_i is absolute and known (ignoring
possible unification changes).

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

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

How do you know what u is.

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

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

No you don't know lambda_i, but you can probably
assume the emitted wavelength (say lambda_e) and
you then need to calculate the effect of speed
equalisation.

Yes, there is additional information.
The diffraction angle displacement might not directly indicate source velocity.


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

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

I initially wanted to make the assumption that u = 0.

If you view reflection as a process of absorption and
synchronous re-emission then that would be natural in
ballistic theory but the reflected angle would be
grossly changed for a high speed source. I replied
regarding that elsewhere.

...and that might be true.....

That can be checked by comparing diffraction angles produced by
identically
marked transmission and reflection gratings.

Or easier, just a single mirror and change the source
speed.

It isn't possible to move sources at high speeds in the lab, George....but we
can use heavily shifted starlight.


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

I think all these velocity curves are nothing but guesses.

They are direct measurements.

I don't believe anyone actually measured doppler shift at the same time as
they
measured brightness.

No, they might do them some days or even years apart
but they check the phasing when doing the second
measurement. Go back and look at some of the papers
we have discussed before where it is mentioned.

Only about half the curves are measured anyway because of the eclipse.
I doubt if there is much cross checking of brightnes/velocity phase.

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

Who said it's even a cepheid?

The term "Cepheid" is a classification based on
observed properties. Its properties fall into that
category therefore it is a Cepheid.

As far as I'm concerned George, the whole of astronomy is in chaos becasue of
Einsteiniana. Categories mean nothing.

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


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

No I don't. ...

Yes you do, you have no evidence otherwise, just an
unsubstantiated guess. You might think it's a nice
match but you cannot prove it to anyone else.

In matching curves, I have to use quite specific values for the main
parameters, yaw angle and ecentricity. I can get those right to better than
about 3%


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

'Bunching' is a prediction of the 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.

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

See the presentation I cited.

it wont make any difference to the fact that the curves are predictable from
c+v.

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

What's this got to do with this topic?

It is a simple and purely mathematical way to derive
the velocity curves from the luminosity curves which
proves your K=1.

A spectrum analyser doesn't tell you anything about phase relationships. It
just gives the relative amounts of each frequency.
I don't understand what you're talking about George... and neither do you...

The individual photons are particles.

Then why do they get deflected by a specific angle
on a grating?

They are particles with a characteristic intrinsic oscilation and 'wavelength'.
Thee intrinsic wave is the one that is diffracted in monochromatic light.


SR fails Sagnac.

ROFL, Henry you are totally clueless.

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

You know nothing of SR Henry, everything you say about
it is _pure_ LET.

....because that's what it becomes in physical reality.


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

I had already pointed this out:

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

I told YOU.

Whatever, if that's the case, stop telling me
I am wrong when you now claim it was your idea
in the first place.

It is not wrong.
My approach tells the full story about gratings.

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

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

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

Sure Henry, tell me how plain old ballistics gets
a single particle (a photon) to bounce off a grating
in the direction given in your diagram:

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

Tell me how a water wave is diffracted George..

Emitted light has ONE reference, its source.

And a particle might bounce off one ruling (or grid
wire) or another, but how can it hit both?

A photon isn't a steel ball bearing George, if that's what you think...

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

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

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

You accept the output will be the beat.

The photocell measures the envelope so screws up your
test. What you need to do is view them both at a prism
or grating and see what deflection angles you get. I
say you will get two lines of varying brightness, one
varying at 1000Hz and the other at 1005Hz but you won't
get a line at 5Hz. If you do a Fourier analysis as I
keep suggesting, you will find that falls out
automatically as a consequence of the mathematical
identity.

What you say is correct...but not relevant.



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

You are the one stalling Henry, how long have I been
saying that a Fourier transform will give you the
answer? You claimed you had used it but you are still
making excuses and posting crap.

You're posting irrelevancies in an attempt to stall for time.

cos(a) - cos(b) wave.

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

That's what I said.

You said "cos(a) - cos(b)", not "cos(a-b) - cos(a+b)"

George, if you understood maths you would realise there is no diference.

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

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

No Henry, there is energy in _three_ waves, not the
_four_ that you have been telling me. If you modulate
sin(a) with sin(b), you get energy at a, a-b and a+b
but not a frequency b.

There wont be any in a if the amplitudes are equal.

You should know that if you have
worked with sound and amplifier systems. If you didn't
realise we were talking of at least three components
then you need to stop and think a bit more carefully,
we may need to backtrack and clear this up before you
follow the argument.

It's irrelevant. I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

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

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

I know _exactly_ what happens when you modulate a signal
Henry, I work for a comms firm. You are making basic
mistakes and confusing additive beats with modulation,
they are quite different.

I'm no longer interested.



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

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

Rubbish, it just doesn't apply, the axis of _any_
symmetrical surface must be perpendicular to the
surface otherwise the angles differ on opposite
sides of the axis - in which case it isn't an axis!

You WOULD argue like that. I doubt if you understand what I'm talking about.


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

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

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

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

The second is displaced laterally:

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

It changes nothing.

You haven't changed the angle of the arrow.

Correct, you asked "how many wavelengths will one end
be LATERALLY displaced" so I was discussing lateral
displacement.

I have introduced a factor that has the potential to cause fringe shifts
for
very small angular velocities.

No you haven't, lateral displacement does not cause a
delay, the vertical wavefronts in the above diagrams
are the same distance from the edge of the screen.

A displacement _would_ affect the path length for
geometrical reasons but it is still second order,
not first you your "explanation" for the graph
y=x is an effect that produces the curve y=x^2.
It doesn't work.

If the back end of a photon has to travel a couple of wavelengths more than the
front, I should imagine we are looking at a first order effect.

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.

Here are the diagrams with 3 waves

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


Progressive lateral displacement:

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

Still no change in arrival time (fringe shift) for
any of the wavefronts.

If an arrow is fired at 50 mph from a car moving at 200 mph, what part of the
arrow will most likely hit a target 45 degrees away?

George




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

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

On 20 May 2007 01:24:31 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 19, 5:43 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 May 2007 03:08:32 -0700, Jerry wrote:

The Mars probes crashed because a mixup in Metric versus English
units resulted in a timing failure during the landing sequence.
Tracking to Mars was every bit as accurate as I have indicated.

Ballistic theory does not alter the equations of geometric optics,
especially if, as you propose, HST is orbiting within the local
whatever-you-call-it local H-aether frame of the Earth. The mirror
was polished incorrectly because it was unit-tested with an
incorrectly assembled null corrector, but the engineers at
Perkin-Elmer had been so confident of their unit test results that
they never gave the mirror assembly any sort of overall system
test; furthermore, the engineers ignored the test results from
two secondary test instruments that indicated that the miror was
incorrectly figured.

The Pioneer anomaly is not explainable as a c+v effect. If you
want to claim that it is, please show your calculations.

Yes, Yes Jerry,, keep your head in the sand, it wont worry me....

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Spacecraft tracking information provides an extremely stringent
test of c+v.

Consider the Cassini orbiter.

Cassini's precise orbital parameters about Saturn vary because
they are occasionally adjusted to redirect the probe to fly by
various of Saturn's moons. As an order-of-magnitude estimate,
however, let us assume that v towards and away from Earth varies
from about +/- 10 km/s during Cassini's orbit about Saturn.

On average, Saturn is, say, about 1.5x10^9 km from the Earth.
That means that signals from Cassini take about 5000 seconds to
reach Earth.

If ballistic theory holds, then signals from Cassini would be
expected to be advanced and retarded by roughly 10/300000x5000
seconds as Cassini approaches and recedes from Earth each orbit.

That amounts to a several TENTHS OF A SECOND anomaly, which is
simply not observed.

It IS observed but it it is not recognozed because the orbit
itself is in error due to c+v.

That piece of bull**** doesn't work, Henri.

The proposed several tenths of a second timing anomaly in the
receipt of signals from the Cassini orbiter would imply errors
in the orbit of around +/-50000 km.

You are caught in a web of contradictions, Henri.

Ballistic theory fails again.

The effect you are refering to occurs and is observed regularly.

Of course there is a an amountof light speed unification around any large
planet. Have you taken that into account?




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

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

On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:45:56 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 18 May 2007 15:16:55 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

The equations _are_ the theory. The analogies are
just inaccurate handwaving.

George, the truth is you, like other relativists simply don't have the
ability
to appreciate analogies like this one.

The truth Henry, is really quite pragmatic, is simply
can't type "partially-springy photons" into a piece of
software and expect it to show me a graph of the Doppler
shift for a binary system. That requires an equation.
Nor can you tell me what the shift will be by guessing
until you too have an equation to apply. The mechanical
picture may give you a feel for the situation but until
you take the next step, it isn't usable.

I gave you the equation. Are you wasting time again?

Whilst I accept that mechanical models must have limitations, I also
realise
that for a particle to be 'different from nothing' it must have properties
...

Sure, but it's all just talk until you can write down
the equations that represent those properties and the
mechanics that describes their interactions.

It may take a little time George. You're not the only person with head inb
sand.

... that
are describable in 3space, 1 time, the conditions under which all our
experiments are carried out.

Not true, there is no a priori reason why the universe
should be 3D + time and if you insist on that religious
conviction you force yourself into an aether theory.

There are three time subdimensions. Time couldn't flow if there weren't.
Time is not related to space.



George, Fourier analysis doesn't apply to particles or even damped systems
like
the one I have idescribed for photons.

Fourier analysis applies to _any_ repetitive phenomenon,
you should know that if you have used them. Damping
merely adds a time dependence to the coefficients.

Well you don't have to bother with it to understand my model.


The equations you are both using are wrong. They do not
describe partially-springy photons, so they do not describe
Henry's theory.

The equations _are_ the theory, "springy photons" is
"hand-waving" or "speculation".

Speculation that works....that's a good start....

It doesn't work at all. You'll find that out when
you try to work out the equations.

I'm merely reporting the findings.
Variations regarding Pulsars and short period binaries are largely VDoppler
related, variable star curves are brought about mainly by ADoppler.
The phase relatoinship between velocity and brightness can vary depending on
the relative contributions of A and V doppler.


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

where v is the scalar speed (magnitude of the
velocity), s is the distance travelled measured
along the path, n is the refractive index and
R is an arbitrary constant with units of length
since we cannot determine the slope of the first
order relationship theoretically.

This is not exactly what I claim George.

Well it's about time you raised this then, we have
been using it for weeks.

You haven't given a reference for speed in your equation.

I've said it so many times, I took it for granted
you would know. Ballistic theory is Galilean
invariant so the first equation applies in _any_
inertial frame. The velocity of the source in that
frame is v_s.

For that purpose you
can use either the source barycentre or the observer.

I think you are still getting this confused by
thinking of "frame of reference" as being something
physical. It is _purely_ the coordinate system we
have chosen so can be any inertial reference at all.

Don't be ridiculous, George.

I say that light emitted in a particular direction at speeds between c+v
and
c-v wrt the source barycentre (or c(+/-)v+u wrt the observer) will tend
towards
a common speed as it travels. That speed is not necessarily c wrt the
barycentre...and it will continually fluctuate minutely as the light
passes
through different spaceconditions.
Relative to an Earth observer it will be c+(?) until it approaches ground
level, where it is c/n.

How do you think that differs from the equations I
wrote? You see again you are just talking without
offering any physics. If my equations are not your
theory, tell me the correct ones. If you can't do
that I have no alternative but to use what you see
above to write the software.

I have just providied a perfectly good physical picture. What more do you want
George?

What you and I have been trying to establish is the rate at which
unification
occurs.

That would be the factor R in the above equations.
Change the equations and the factor may appear in
some different way and certainly could have a
different value. Until you define the equations
that constitute your theory, you have no way forward.

R wont be constant. This is a statistical effect.

For some reason it appears to be related to the period of oscillation
..or to the sizes and closeness of the two members of a binary.

Nope, it is a property of the ISM. Each charged
particle would have an effect on the wave dependent
only on the particle type (and photon frequency of
course, I mean all electrons would have a similar
influence but that might differ from protons).
Particle column density would be the controlling
parameter.

Probably....but the point is, the effect definitely appears to be stronger
around some objects than others. Can you explain that?

Prior to my addition, Henry's theory was "c+v",
that's all. I have done some work for him in
adding the speculation about speed equalisation
into the theory as a second equation. He has not
really commented on that proposal but it seems to
me to be directly derivable from his verbal claims
("hand-waving").

.....Handwaving that just happens to fit the data.....

It is impossible to say whather it fits or not
until you turn it into a theory and then apply
those equations to the experimental situation
(observations). I have given that process some
thought and it is clear you will hit a major
problem very quickly but it's not easy to explain
so I'll wait for you to find it yourself.

I can't see any major problem ....

The equations above are not a "compromise" in any
way other than being limited to the speed of light
along a path. Obviously I'm not offering a Ritzian
version of Maxwell's Equations. They fully represent
what Henry has said of c+v for the launch and his
speed equalisation.

Now Jeff, if you want to offer a set of equations
that represents "partially-springy photons" that
you think can model what we know of EM then by all
means post them, but I think it can't be done and
I'll give you some simple example waveforms to
which you can apply your equations to see what you
get.

My photons are more 'critically damped' than 'partially springy'.

Both mean negligible VDoppler, trivially falsified,
but there is a bigger problem before you even get
to that step.

Bottom line Henry, is that the two equations I wrote
above are the only theory we have, and until you
offer some alternative those are all we have to use
in writing the software models.

George, velocity curves of contact binaries obey VDoppler. Those of longer
period variables like cepheids obey ADoppler.
Where in YOUR equations are such differences accounted for?


George




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

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

On Sat, 19 May 2007 10:41:48 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 15:16:55 +0100, "George Dishman"

I forget to mention the second equation in my
other reply.

.... I have used my
knowledge of EM to suggest that final speed is
c/n rather than c to match the dispersion of
pulsar pulses hence we get:

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

where v is the scalar speed (magnitude of the
velocity), s is the distance travelled measured
along the path, n is the refractive index and
R is an arbitrary constant with units of length
since we cannot determine the slope of the first
order relationship theoretically.

This is not exactly what I claim George.
...
You haven't given a reference for speed in your equation.

For simplicity it is stated in the rest frame of
the ISM which produces the refractive index n. It
would be quite easy to use the Galilean invariance
of ballistic theory to write a more general version
for other frames by including the velocity of the
ISM in the chosen frame.

That's no good George. The source is the only sensible frame to use.
Every identifiable volume of space will define a reference frame but it is
hardly practical to use that. Light may enter a 'pocket of space' at c+v wrt
that pocket and leave at c+v-dv.....You still need to know the relative speed
of the pocket wrt the original source position.

Note that it may highlight another problem of
ballistic theory in that it should be falsified by
Fizeau's experiments on the drag of light in flowing
water if he had enough sensitivity.

That's another matter I want to look into eventually.

George







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

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

On Sat, 19 May 2007 10:33:49 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 14 May 2007 10:30:33 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:



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.

There are three wavelengths Henry, that emitted at
the star, what hits the grating and what is reflected.
Your lab measure tells you the first. The angle of
reflection tells you the third, but you have no way
to know the second, lambda_i.

George, as you know, all atoms emit certain spectral lines. A grating of known
spacing can be used in the lab to determine the absolute wavelenths of each
line. The only criterion is that the source be at rest wrt the grating.
For traveling light, that wavelength is absolute and invariant, except during a
speed change, in which case lambda/v is constant (since the frequency of
'wavecrest passage' MUST BE constant)..

When 0.7 um light from a star arrives outside the earth's atmosphere at c+v
(wrt Earth) and reaches ground traveling at c, its wavelength will have changed
to 0.7.c/(c+v). The diffracted angle will still accurately indicate the source
speed. Using the known absolute value of Lambda_i in MY equation will give that
correct answer even though the actual wavelength on arrival is not exactly
that.


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.....

You just aren't thinking about it carefully enough,
speed equalisation changes wavelength.

Yes. ...but we haven't been considering that.

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.

Don't be stupd Henry, I am telling you that you
cannot assume lambda_i = lamda_r BECAUSE THE SPEED
CHANGES. How could that be a "constant c" equation?

It doesn't matter if the speed changes because the speed also changes and the
frequency of arrival remains constant. My equation still works.

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.

No, you have said how to mwasure lambda_e, not lambda_i.

Since lambda_r can be found from phi

Yes.

and since lambda_i of a known spectral
line is absolute and universal,

No, the emitted wavelength lambda_e can be inferred
frm lab experiments but that is NOT lambda_i.

Absolute values of Lambda for a great many spectral lines are well documented
George.

c+u/c+v can also be determined from teh
difference between phi and what it SHOULD be if v=u.

If you can assume v=u then that adds a thrid equation to
the set so then you _can_ solve for the three wavelengths
but otherwise you have two equations in three unknowns
and it cannot be solved.

I just told you, if lambda_i differs from the standard on arrival, it is
because of a correcponding speed change and does not affect the result.

....Not if my equation is used, anyway. Yours will give the wrong explanation.

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.

Sagnac built his experiment to do just that. The
answer is that the speed is c relative to the lab.

If OWLS could be measured in the lab using a truly OW experiment with source at
rest wrt observer, then it would be found to be c...or rather, c/n.

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

Don't be silly.

Such experiments will probably be done when SR is finally put to rest.

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.

The equation for the angle of reflection from a
mirror has been used many, many times including
reflecting light from relativistic sources and
no discrepancy has ever been found.

.....not conclusive...

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.

You don't need a lab, research existing experiments.

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.

It is the general equation for the grating, you
are merging it with another general equation, that
for the change of speed on reflection in ballistic
theory.

I really don't think this is worth arguing about
Henry, both equations are correct.

OK good....but mine's more general and more correct...



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.

No, lambda_e can often be treated as known but
lambda_i is changed. You should be able to
reformulate your equation in terms of lambs_e
and v_s, the source speed rather than lambda_i
and v_i, the incident values.

L_e is indeed the absolute and known value. If incident light is not traveling
at c wrt its original source, then L_i will be L_e.vi/c

Its value is not known but that does not matter.

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.

But then light reflects from a simple mirror
at the wrong angle.

...NO.
....only if incident light is not c.

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.

Changing the coordinate system which is used to
measure the wavelength can and does.

coordinate lengths are absolute whether they are moving relatively or not.

Doppler shift Henry.

That doesn't affect the observed George.

It does in SR, and in reality.

but SR is wrong.

Not true, other than aspects like gravity which
is covered by its extension to GR, it has never
given a wrong prediction.

Has it ever occured to you that GR tells us absolutely nothing about gravity?
It merely redefines space so that light speed will always appear to be 'c' even
if it isn't.

Ballistic theory gets
the Sagnac experiment wrong, the Shapiro delay
wrong, Ives and Stilwell and those are onyl the
ones we have discussed so far.



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 think what you are trying to say is correct but
you are still being ambiguous. The number of waves
per second can vary even with inertial motion if
it is not along the line of sight (consider
perpendicular, the old train going through the
station as it passes with you on the platfrom) but
you can say the reflected frequency is the same as
the incident.

What I meant was that if you send a laser beam through a glass plate, a column
of water and a lump of crystal, the same number of wavecrests will pass any
point along the path per unit time, so long as the components remain mutually
at rest. Pretty trivial really.

George




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

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