Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

You gave a separate trivial equation that doesn't
relate to the other two and conflicts with them.
You need to revise the _set_ of equations to be
consistent.

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.

No problem, I'll wait but in the meantime all I can
do is use the current versions. As I say, it is
simply pragmatic.

... 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.

Your religiuos convictions are already well known,
but that doesn't mean they have an validity.

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.

I don't have to, but I choose to because it provides
an important tool for the analysis. The behaviour of
RF signals is well known and the application of Fourier
analysis tells you a huge amount. You theory (the
equations that is) must work if I use Fourier analysis.

In a partical sense, note that a grating is just a
physical implementation of Fourier, if I send a
waveform of complex shape as a single beam (say a
modulated CW laser) at a grating, a plot of intensity
versus angle is the same as a Fourier analysis with
a mapping of component frequency to angle.

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.

But the latter isn't a finding. What you say of
pulsars and eclipsing binaries is true because
the eclipse or Shapiro delay provides a phase
against which the velocity and luminosity
variations can be compared. You have no such
reference for a Cepheid so the "orbital" phase
is unknown.

The phase relatoinship between velocity and brightness can vary depending
on
the relative contributions of A and V doppler.

No, that's where Fourier comes in. The phase of
the luminosity and velocity curves must always be
identical, both being produced by TDoppler as we
have gone over many times before.

Actually there is an added complexity we have been
ignoring, the ballistic change of energy per photon
which might have a very small extra effect on phase
but I haven't given that any consideration yet.

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 have several time pointed out you were using the
phrase "frame of reference" incorrectly and while
it was possibly academic before, now it is coming
back to bite you. Ritzian theory uses Galilean
relativity and choice of reference frame is entirely
arbitrary. If you choose a different frame, you get
different values for v_s and v_i but the relationship
v_i = c + v_s at the moment of emission holds good in
all frames.

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?

I will ask again: How do you think that differs from
the equations I wrote?

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.

Agreed, it is dependent on the material in any region
just as refractive index will vary.

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?

I don't need to, you do. That said, it is obvious
that some stars shed mass in the 'stellar wind' at
higher rates than others. You only have to look at
Eta Carinae! The problem you will have doesn't lie
in the variability but will be in explaining why
there isn't a simple relationship between refractive
index and speed equalisation, and why the properties
of space depend on orbital acceleration.

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 ....

Jut a statement of fact, you cannot know whether an
equation will fit the data until you find out what
the equation is.

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.

The BaTh equations say both VDoppler and ADoppler
combine to produce TDoppler which affects both
velocity and luminosity with the same phase. You
have no theory to predict anything else, just
hand-waving that I can see won't work when you
try to convert it into a theory.

Where in YOUR equations are such differences accounted for?

In the thermodynamics of Cepheids and related star
type in the unstable region, see the overview I
cited before.

George

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

No Henry, you are still clueless despite the number
of times I have explained this, a "reference frame"
is what we refer measurements to, you are talking of
the "rest frame" of the material.

but it is
hardly practical to use that.

No, but it is the frame in which the equation holds
and can be converted to any other by a Galilean
Transform.

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.

You don't actually because the equation is first
order. Light entering at c-v and c+v wrt the source
leaves at c+v-dv and c-v+dv if th material is at rest
wrt the source or c+v-dv+du and c-v+dv+du if the
material is moving at speed u wrt the source - du is
a small delta proportional to u just as your dv is a
small delat proportional to v (they do not denote
differential forms).

What matters is the speed difference so the du which
affects both cancels. The only effect of motion of
the ISM is a tiny change in the time taken to get here
if the material is moving towards us and that doesn't
show up in any measurement.

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.

It probably only affects du above so it un-measurable
and inconsequential but I choose to write the equation
in a vaild way that avoids the digression, there have
been too many tangents already.

George

On May 20, 5:13 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.

Where is it EVER observed?

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

I rather thought you might resort to your magical light
speed unification explanation.

That means that c+v cannot explain the Mars Lander crashes,
nor can it explain the Hubble mirror problems, nor can it
explain ANYTHING, really.

BaTh fails, ALWAYS.

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

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

A spectrum analyser doesn't tell you anything about phase relationships.

Wrong.

A fourier transform of an amplitude vs time signal produces TWO spectra,
one of frequency vs amplitude, the other of frequency vs phase. The second
is usually ignored but if you want to perform signal processing in the
frequency domain and then transform back to the amplitude vs time domain,
you NEED to maintain the phase information and recombine the two spectra.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

Notice A(f) and phi(f), they represent the amplitude and the phase fourier
transforms of x(t) and BOTH contain information about x(t).

It just gives the relative amounts of each frequency.

WRONG.

I don't understand what you're talking about George...

RIGHT.

and neither do
you...

George does know of what he speaks.




--
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 news:4u5053lnnd2phc05q8gnv1rllhuc90v1cc@
4ax.com:

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.


let us test your theory. Let a = 25 deg and b = 65 degrees
----------------------------according to henri --------------

COS(a) - COS(b) = COS(a - b) - COS(a + b)

substituting

+ 5 p + + 5 p + + 2 p +
COS¦-----¦ - SIN¦-----¦ = COS¦-----¦
+ 36 + + 36 + + 9 +

or evaluating

0.483689 = 0.766044
-------------------------------------------

Cool, Henri just proposed that 0.48 and 0.77 are the same.





--
bz

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

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On 20 May 2007 06:45:46 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 20, 5:13 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 20 May 2007 01:24:31 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On May 19, 5:43 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

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.

Where is it EVER observed?

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

I rather thought you might resort to your magical light
speed unification explanation.

That means that c+v cannot explain the Mars Lander crashes,
nor can it explain the Hubble mirror problems, nor can it
explain ANYTHING, really.

BaTh fails, ALWAYS.

Your inability to back up your statements with facts reveals your present state
of desperation.

Jerry



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

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

On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:35:33 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:4u5053lnnd2phc05q8gnv1rllhuc90v1cc@
4ax.com:

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.


let us test your theory. Let a = 25 deg and b = 65 degrees
----------------------------according to henri --------------

COS(a) - COS(b) = COS(a - b) - COS(a + b)

substituting

+ 5 p + + 5 p + + 2 p +
COS¦-----¦ - SIN¦-----¦ = COS¦-----¦
+ 36 + + 36 + + 9 +

or evaluating

0.483689 = 0.766044
-------------------------------------------

Cool, Henri just proposed that 0.48 and 0.77 are the same.


Why are all relativists so plainly stupid?

According to me cos(a) -cos(b) is equivalent to writing 'cos(x+y) - cos(x-y)'


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

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

On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:25:02 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

A spectrum analyser doesn't tell you anything about phase relationships.

Wrong.

A fourier transform of an amplitude vs time signal produces TWO spectra,
one of frequency vs amplitude, the other of frequency vs phase. The second
is usually ignored but if you want to perform signal processing in the
frequency domain and then transform back to the amplitude vs time domain,
you NEED to maintain the phase information and recombine the two spectra.

Phase relationships between components can only be meaningful and important
when only exact harmonics are present.
Generally, any complex oscillation will contain many unrelated frequencies as
well as harmonics. Specific phase relationships between harmonics of different
fundamentals simply don't exist.


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

Notice A(f) and phi(f), they represent the amplitude and the phase fourier
transforms of x(t) and BOTH contain information about x(t).

It just gives the relative amounts of each frequency.

WRONG.

I don't understand what you're talking about George...

RIGHT.

and neither do
you...

George does know of what he speaks.



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

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

On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:53:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 May 2007 10:41:48 +0100, "George Dishman"


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 ...

No Henry, you are still clueless despite the number
of times I have explained this, a "reference frame"
is what we refer measurements to, you are talking of
the "rest frame" of the material.

George I understand perfectly well what I'm saying about reference frames.
I have tried to explain to you the difference in concept between what I have
been calling an 'EM reference frame' and a conventional 'reference frame'.
....and yes, it is something like the 'average rest frame of all the material
within the volume'.
I really don't see why you are havig so much difficulty with this. Is it
because you can't find 'EM reference frames' on google?


but it is
hardly practical to use that.

No, but it is the frame in which the equation holds
and can be converted to any other by a Galilean
Transform.

....but that's not the aim of this exercise.

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.

You don't actually because the equation is first
order. Light entering at c-v and c+v wrt the source
leaves at c+v-dv and c-v+dv if th material is at rest
wrt the source or c+v-dv+du and c-v+dv+du if the
material is moving at speed u wrt the source - du is
a small delta proportional to u just as your dv is a
small delat proportional to v (they do not denote
differential forms).

What matters is the speed difference so the du which
affects both cancels. The only effect of motion of
the ISM is a tiny change in the time taken to get here
if the material is moving towards us and that doesn't
show up in any measurement.

OK , you now have it....


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.

It probably only affects du above so it un-measurable
and inconsequential but I choose to write the equation
in a vaild way that avoids the digression, there have
been too many tangents already.

George




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

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

On 20 May 2007 05:37:54 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

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


It may take a little time George.

No problem, I'll wait but in the meantime all I can
do is use the current versions. As I say, it is
simply pragmatic.

Let's just get the concepts right before we delve too deeply into the maths
George.


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.

Your religiuos convictions are already well known,
but that doesn't mean they have an validity.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Time and Space are in any way
related.

Have you ever seen an equation that contains a (l+t) term?...or even a
sqrt(l^2+t^2)?

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.

I don't have to, but I choose to because it provides
an important tool for the analysis. The behaviour of
RF signals is well known and the application of Fourier
analysis tells you a huge amount. You theory (the
equations that is) must work if I use Fourier analysis.

In a partical sense, note that a grating is just a
physical implementation of Fourier, if I send a
waveform of complex shape as a single beam (say a
modulated CW laser) at a grating, a plot of intensity
versus angle is the same as a Fourier analysis with
a mapping of component frequency to angle.

Your model of a photon is that it is merely a 'snippet' of a larger wave and
can consequently be fourier analysed.
Mine is of a separate entity, with its own intrinsic oscillation. Monochromatic
light contains many photons having the same intrinsic frequency but no
particular phase relationship....but that could be wrong. An RF signal is
derived from photon density variation pattern in a beam of 'white photons'.
I say you can fourier analyse the pattern but not the individual photons.

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.

But the latter isn't a finding. What you say of
pulsars and eclipsing binaries is true because
the eclipse or Shapiro delay provides a phase
against which the velocity and luminosity
variations can be compared. You have no such
reference for a Cepheid so the "orbital" phase
is unknown.

I told you how and why I know what the orientation is.

The phase relatoinship between velocity and brightness can vary depending
on
the relative contributions of A and V doppler.

No, that's where Fourier comes in. The phase of
the luminosity and velocity curves must always be
identical, both being produced by TDoppler as we
have gone over many times before.

You miss the point entirely. It is the ratio of VDoppler to ADoppler that
determines the phase....over a 90 degree range.

Actually there is an added complexity we have been
ignoring, the ballistic change of energy per photon
which might have a very small extra effect on phase
but I haven't given that any consideration yet.

It's too small to worry about.

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.

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 have several time pointed out you were using the
phrase "frame of reference" incorrectly and while
it was possibly academic before, now it is coming
back to bite you. Ritzian theory uses Galilean
relativity and choice of reference frame is entirely
arbitrary. If you choose a different frame, you get
different values for v_s and v_i but the relationship
v_i = c + v_s at the moment of emission holds good in
all frames.

An EM reference frame or 'local EM FoR' is NOT identical to a conventional
geometric reference frame...nor is it internded to be.


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?

I will ask again: How do you think that differs from
the equations I wrote?

'dv/ds = (c/n-v) / R' should roughly apply in remote space. I think other
factors may be even more important near large mass centres.

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.

Agreed, it is dependent on the material in any region
just as refractive index will vary.

OK.... we're getting somewhere....

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?

I don't need to, you do. That said, it is obvious
that some stars shed mass in the 'stellar wind' at
higher rates than others. You only have to look at
Eta Carinae! The problem you will have doesn't lie
in the variability but will be in explaining why
there isn't a simple relationship between refractive
index and speed equalisation, and why the properties
of space depend on orbital acceleration.

Yes. ..and I have various possible theories...

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 ....

Jut a statement of fact, you cannot know whether an
equation will fit the data until you find out what
the equation is.

An initial approach might be to try to link R directly to orbit period.


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.

The BaTh equations say both VDoppler and ADoppler
combine to produce TDoppler which affects both
velocity and luminosity with the same phase. You
have no theory to predict anything else, just
hand-waving that I can see won't work when you
try to convert it into a theory.

VDoppler never contributes significantly to star brightness variation. It MIGHT
however explain some pulsar pulse rate variation.

Where in YOUR equations are such differences accounted for?

In the thermodynamics of Cepheids and related star
type in the unstable region, see the overview I
cited before.

George



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

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