Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 04:56:39 -0700, Leonard Kellogg
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote on May 21:

an RF signal made of amplitude variations in white light
will diffract the RF frequency.

Do I understand you to claim that amplitude modulating
white light at a given frequency produces electromagnetic
radiation of that frequency?

So, for example, light from a lightbulb amplitude
modulated by a sine wave at 10 kHz produces 10 kHz radio
waves? And modulated at 1 MHz produces 1 MHz radio waves
that can be picked up with an ordinary AM radio?

The question is, will such light be diffracted at the modulated frequency by a
grating.
I haven't made any claims about tuned circuits ..but I don't think you or
Geprge would know the answer anyway.

Leonard



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

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

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 04:24:49 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:0aj663diat0s3o51j8q3rga5st1147nh6g@
4ax.com:

OK Henry, it was a trivial slip but the serious point
is covered in my other post, WDM in terabit optical
telecomms shows that light behaves exactly as a high
frequency RF carrier with all the usual considerations
of bandwidth, sidebands, spectrum and so on applying
as normal.

Not white light....which is what I was talkking about...

No exemptions for white light. Modulation works the same no matter how many
frequencies are part of the 'carrier'. You may have trouble SEEING the
sidebands but they are there, otherwise the modulation could not be
recovered.

Show the equations for white light amplitude modulated at 1 mz.


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

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

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:53:51 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:24:14 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

Just try amplitude modulating white light from a thermal radiator
such as a filament lamp.

Done that when I was a kid. Easy enough to do right now.

Take a flashlight beam, focus it on a thin tinfoil diaphram, take the
diverging beam and collimate it with another lense.

Across the room, intercept the beam and focus it on a photocell,
amplify

Had a pair of optical telephones when I was a kid that worked exactly
like that. Here, looks like you can buy a kit and build your own....

I've built much better optical sensors than that....

Then you concede that white light, from a thermal radiator such as a
filament lamp, can be amplitude modulated?

Are you suffering from dementia or something?

That's what we have been talking about for the last two weeks.

actually, we were addressing the fact that phase is important which came
from the fact that BaTh predicts the wrong phase for the Shapiro delay.
And the fact that fourier transformation of the stellar intensity data and
velocity data could be useful in understanding possible causes for the
variation.

Typicaql....Change the subject when you are in tight spot....

In trying to convince you that phase was information that could be obtained
by fourier transmformation, we got onto the subject of modulation of
signals. This also tied in with your attempts to rationalize the behavior
of gratings and doppler shifted signals.

Anyway, you recently said
Just try amplitude modulating white light from a thermal radiator
such as a filament lamp.
when we were trying to chase the red herring that you kept dragging in
front of us. Your statement implied that you doubted that it could be done
or doubted that the modulation produced sidebands. It does produce
sidebands.

The modulating frequency, however, is not produced unless the modulation
process involves non linear mixing rather than modulation, as George has
pointed out repeatedly.

Fourier transforms have no place in the analysis of how light bunches as it
travels due to its different speeds.



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:aga763tud60o9h3746hb9980kn7j4g1q8a@
4ax.com:

Show the equations for white light amplitude modulated at 1 mz.


George already showed you. You just need to create the composite carrier
fc = convolution (f1,f2,f3...fn)
before you apply the modulation.




--
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
:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:53:51 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:24:14 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

Just try amplitude modulating white light from a thermal radiator
such as a filament lamp.

Done that when I was a kid. Easy enough to do right now.

Take a flashlight beam, focus it on a thin tinfoil diaphram, take
the diverging beam and collimate it with another lense.

Across the room, intercept the beam and focus it on a photocell,
amplify

Had a pair of optical telephones when I was a kid that worked
exactly like that. Here, looks like you can buy a kit and build your
own....

I've built much better optical sensors than that....

Then you concede that white light, from a thermal radiator such as a
filament lamp, can be amplitude modulated?

Are you suffering from dementia or something?

That's what we have been talking about for the last two weeks.

actually, we were addressing the fact that phase is important which came
from the fact that BaTh predicts the wrong phase for the Shapiro delay.
And the fact that fourier transformation of the stellar intensity data
and velocity data could be useful in understanding possible causes for
the variation.

Typicaql....Change the subject when you are in tight spot....

Yes, you provided many such examples during the course of the conversation.


In trying to convince you that phase was information that could be
obtained by fourier transmformation, we got onto the subject of
modulation of signals. This also tied in with your attempts to
rationalize the behavior of gratings and doppler shifted signals.

Anyway, you recently said
Just try amplitude modulating white light from a thermal radiator
such as a filament lamp.
when we were trying to chase the red herring that you kept dragging in
front of us. Your statement implied that you doubted that it could be
done or doubted that the modulation produced sidebands. It does produce
sidebands.

The modulating frequency, however, is not produced unless the modulation
process involves non linear mixing rather than modulation, as George has
pointed out repeatedly.

Fourier transforms have no place in the analysis of how light bunches as
it travels due to its different speeds.


Right, just as it has no place in "Alice in Wonderland".

If light did travel at different speeds, Fourier Transforms would be useful
in looking at the mixing products the would be produced as one group of
light waves caught up with another group of light waves of the same
frequency.




--
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

Henri Wilson replied to Leonard Kellogg:

Henri Wilson wrote on May 21:

an RF signal made of amplitude variations in white light
will diffract the RF frequency.

Do I understand you to claim that amplitude modulating
white light at a given frequency produces electromagnetic
radiation of that frequency?

So, for example, light from a lightbulb amplitude
modulated by a sine wave at 10 kHz produces 10 kHz radio
waves? And modulated at 1 MHz produces 1 MHz radio waves
that can be picked up with an ordinary AM radio?

The question is, will such light be diffracted at the
modulated frequency by a grating.

Yes, that is the question you want to answer, but before
you can discuss it, you first need to say clearly what
light you are talking about. That was the purpose of my
question, and I would like a direct answer. The two
examples I gave were just to make clear what I am asking.
You can ignore them if you like, but please answer the
basic question, repeated below.

I haven't made any claims about tuned circuits

Yes, all right. We can leave that for later.

..but I don't think you or George would know the answer
anyway.

George and I both know what actually happens, but George
may not understand what you are claiming. I am asking you
to be very explicit so that George will know exactly what
you meant when you said:

an RF signal made of amplitude variations in white light
will diffract the RF frequency.

Are you claiming that amplitude modulating white light at
a given frequency produces electromagnetic radiation of
that frequency?

Leonard

On 4 Jun, 06:49, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 09:10:42 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 05:49:13 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
...
Just look at the spectrum of a WDM system shown
in the diagram he

http://www.essexcorp.com/News/terabit.htm
...
You can try to tell me there are "no sidebands",
or that light and RF aren't both EM at different
frequencies, or that RF is just amplitude
modulated light but none that suggests anything
other than that you are utterly clueless about
modern telecoms systems and RF in general.

You and bob can discuss this as much as you want. I'm out...

Suit yourself but keep in mind that any ballistic
theory you come up with has to apply to modulated
light and that means its sidebands as well. The
result is that your "K" factor has to be 1, your
photons cannot be incompressible and ADoppler
applies to velocity curves exactly as it does to
the luminosity.

The photons are partly compressible. You know what happens when you compress a
spring. dx/dF becomes smaller as it compresses. They are still basically
ADoppler shifted.
On the other hand, movenent BETWEEN photons is virtually unrestricted.

I really don't know why you find this difficult.

I don't find it difficult to follow what you
are suggesting at all. What the difficulty lies
is in explaining to you why it is not possible
because that explanation uses Fourier analysis
and an understanding of RF that is beyond your
experience.

That in turn means when you see say 30km/s for the
apparent velocity curve of a Cepheid, it would also
produce a luminosity variation of 0.0002 magnitudes,
no more. The rest must be intrinsic (or eclipsing
etc.).

Forget it George. You simply can't understand how 'photon bunching' operates.

Oh I understand it far better than you Henry,
that's why I have been able to give you the
analytical formulae for the resulting Doppler
shift and time of flight while you are still
using simulations.

The disconnect arises because it seems you
cannot understand that the same Doppler
formula must apply to sidebands and carrier
in a pulsed signal. If those pulses are to
travel at c+v as ballistic theory requires
then the sine wave components each have to
comply with that Doppler formula.

The same must be true for any other sine wave,
be it a CW RF signal or a monochromatic light
source or an individual frequency in a white
source.

Of course the intrinsic frequency of a photon
which is part of a sine wave has to be the
same as that of the macroscopic wave from
the correspondence between the macroscopic
intensity and photon impact distributions
using a grating and a PM tube, which in turn
means individual photons are subject to the
same Doppler formula as macroscopic sine
waves.

What it all means is that photons from an
accelerated source _must_ compress by exactly
the same ratio as the bunching of the photons
that we analysed for the pulsars.

All your handwaving about photons being like
springs does nothing but indicate that you
don't really understand ballistic theory yet
and you haven't progressed beyond Sekerin's
error.

I explained all of this to you weeks ago but
rather than learn something about ballistic
theory, you have preferred to go off on
bizarre tangents claiming that modulated
light doesn't have sidebands or that Fourier
analysis doesn't work for light. Well my
previous post on terabit WDM shows that you
are talking nonsense. If you choose to ignore
the information I provided, that's your loss.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:46:07 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 00:12:05 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:

Yes, what it means is that the light speed is equalised
within the sphere, and since the sphere radius is always
much less than the critical distance for ADoppler, what
we always see is that the total, TDoppler as we called
it, is always dominated by VDoppler.

see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe

It appears to be wrong, the bottom diagram says
"Sphere move with barycentre." but the barycentre
doesn't move, the stars move round it.

You didn't read it properly George.

The quoted text is highlighted:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/emspheres.png

I quoted from the bottom one.

That's the middle one.

I have no complaint about the middle one.

The barycentre can be moving wrt Earth.

I didn't think you were illustrating the apparent
motion due to the Earth's orbit round the Sun but
the motion of the binary pair wrt their barycentre.

The bottom one say 'variable speeds' wrt the barycentrte, depending on the
relative masses of the two stars.

It does indeed, no problem there.

Brightness curves are all consequences of ADoppler.

Now you know that isn't true.

Now I know why it IS true in many cases and why it isn't true in
others..

It isn't true in all the cases where we have been
able to analyse the results, and your diagram
suggests it won't be true in the Cepheid case
where you have been unable to provide any evidence
(reasonably since there is no second body to measure).

You can't run away from the truth any longer George.
Every star has around it a 'sphere of EM control'. It might not stretch
out
very far.....or it might...depending on the type of star.

No problem.

A close binary pair will share a common sphere.

Yes. At distances much greater than the separation
between the stars as you have shown at the bottom,
the pair can be considered as a single point mass.
I have no problem with what you are _saying_, the
drawing just doesn't match that.

No BaTh predicts less than 0.002 magnitude change but
don't worry about it, you just discovered that since
the 'sphere' of stellar wind is far larger than the
orbital radii, ADoppler is irrelevant.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/EMspheres.exe

Other than your error above, it simply proves my
point.

YOUR error above George.

We will see.

The speed equalisation distance is less
than the radius of the sphere so generation of
ADoppler is finished before the light leaves it,
only VDoppler can exist apart from the top diagram,
and that is the one where you have proved it doesn't.

George, can you not see that when only one star is present the sphere
moves
with the star. It may be considered part of the star. ADoppler operates
perfectly normally.

Yes. That would apply to the top diagram where I can
envisage the second star which is not shown moving in
an orbit much larger than the sphere. The sphere is
gravitationally bound to the star and moves with it.
Think of the corona of a star in a wide binary.

For the bottom diagram however, the stars are close
and their atmospheres merge to produce a single sphere,
although possibly one might produce the majority of
the material depending on types.

The combined sphere is then gravtiationally bound to
the barycentre. In the bottom diagram you have shown
one large and one small star, and the smaller moves in
an orbit with greater radius. That implies the
barycentre is a point at rest on the screen between
the stars, i.e. the barycentre is not moving on the
screen.

Now your text says "Sphere move with barycentre."
which should be correct, the sphere should be centred
on the barycentre, but you show the sphere moving
instead of being still.

The same more or less applies to huff-puffs, although there
could be a phase lag.

You would need to show a single star with a sphere
that expands and contracts, but that's not very
accurate, the material is always moving outwards
and the variation would be either density or speed
variations, or both. It's quite a different problem.
I did some work on that earlier today but let's keep
it separate.

Those of Pulsars and contact binaries are largely
VDoppler derived.

Nothing but.

But remember, this requires that intrinsic photon wavelength changes
with
speed
changes...

Yes, your factor K = 1, remember.

K applies to accelerating sources.

Yes.

I'm not sure if the same K applies to speed
changes during travel. I don't think it does.

You defined it as being the ratio of what
happens during travel to what happens on
emission.

The changes during travel are much smaller than those at the source. They
don't
continue on after the speed changes.
I haven't looked at the numbers yet so can't really elaborate.

I don't disagree but that's another question.

so even though all light leaves the sphere at the same speed 'c' wrt
the barycentre, the spectral lines will still indicate the VDoppler
shifts
caused by the individual star movements.

Precisely. You're learning Henry albeit very slowly.

You aren't learning at all.

You haven't said anyhting I didn't already know
other than claims that have been shown to be wrong.

George, you didn't even read the demo properly.
It is correct. Please apologise.

I agree with your comment that the "Sphere move
with barycentre" (typos excluded of course) but
the barycentre is at rest and you show the sphere
moving.

Either the comment or the diagram must be wrong
so it is you who should apologise either way. In
reality, your stars are shown correctly and the
sphere should be at rest. The light emitted from
the stars is unified at c/n relative to the
material forming the sphere before the light
leaves it which means that ADoppler has no time
to have a significant effect, it is the VDoppler
of the star within the sphere that produces the
Doppler, exactly as is observed.

Some Cepheids have companions but their orbital
periods are unrelated to the Cepheid period. What I
said is that there is no evidence for Cepheids being
spectroscopic binaries which is what you would expect
if what is thought to be intrinsic variaton were
actually due to a companion.

I'm happy to go along with the idea that huff puff stars DO exist.

Fine.

That doesn't mean I believe ALL claimed cepheids are huff puffs.

There are other possible causes of variability such
as eclipses so I would agree with that too, what you
haven't done is use a Cepheid to show any evidence
supporting ballistic theory.

By far the main cause of brightness variation is c+v bunching.

Not acording to your theory. Your handwaving is
in conflict with both the equations and the
analyses that we have done so far.

you still don't get it.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/EMspheres.exe

Yep, that illustrates what I just said. You have to
realise that speed equalisation would be complete in
a few pixels at most, probably less than one, at that
scale.

That's not true. Certainly the influence will drop of with distance but it
could be operating weakly for thousands of times the star diameter....

The values we got were around a light minute, the
spheres are tens or hundreds of AU, of the order
of 10 to 100 times greater. The effect is a
decreasing exponential so perhaps between e^-10
and e^-100 of the total occurs outside the sphere.
That is completely negligible.

The carrier and modulation are not harmonically related
but unless you handle the phase of the Fourier data you
screw up the wave shape of the modulation.

well of scourse you do. You screw up yhe square wave.

Exactly, so preserving phase data is important,
and a Fourier Transform does that contrary to
your claims.

I wasn't talking about square waves.

Nor was I, Fourier applies to _all_ waveforms.

There is no component at fm, only the three I listed

You challenged me to prove you wrong - I have done that.

You haven't.

I have, the equation does not produce a component
at fm. Unless of course you can prove that maths
is wrong.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

Good idea, you know the maths is a simple identity
and cannot be wrong so the proof holds.

Ah so your reply "it is now complete" in response
to my "I've told you what is missing several times"
was yet another lie.

My BaTh theory of variable stars is now complete ...

Now who is changing the subject! We were discussing
you illustration of LET.

...or nearly...

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/EMspheres.exe

Nearly, the bottom diagram has the barycentre
moving in orbit :-)

No it hasn't. In the case of uneven stars, the 'sphere' (which will be
distorted) will moves wrt the barycentre. That's what I implied.

Yes and I agree that the sphere will be centred
on the barycentre, but you also showed both stars
moving round a common static point which should
be the barycentre. One or the other is wrong.

The physics (geometry) that causes it and the maths
that results from it.

Geometry is not physics.

All of physics is the application of maths to
model the real world, and geometry is just a
branch of maths.

Maths is Maths, physics is physics. Physical concepts don't need maths.

Physics is nothing but the application of maths,
if you don't have the maths, it isn't physics
or science, it is philosophy.

So you finally see the connection. My demo illustrates the second
postulate,
namely that light speed is independent of source speed.

SR ACTUALLY IS LET.

Admit it George.

Getting desperate again Henry, when you can
draw a diagram like Mikko's, you will know
what SR is. Until then I'll leave you with
your 19th century delusions.

It doesn't have a physical application.

Of course it does, look over the page and you will
see how it demonstrates the physical explaination
for the "Twins Paradox" and other fun games.

I can visualise a smooth _continuous_ pressure wave
moving along the instrument, and another moving the
other way so that their sum is a standing wave, or
I can visualise molecules bumping into each other with
hard vacuum between them. Classical or pariculate Henry,
but not both as they are different visualisations of the
same physical reality.

My point George is that variation in the movement of the car don't
affect
the wave in the oboe.

My point is that you still don't know the relationship
between the classical and particulate views.

Nor do I need to.

You do if you are going to get anywhere.

I have explained the wave/particle duality.

ROFL :-)

Now do the same on the moon with the oboe filled with air.
THAT'S WHAT A PHOTON IS LIKE GEORGE.

Complete garbage Henry. Your theory remains just two
small equations. Where is the maths that calculates
the intrinsic frequency from the diameter and length?
What is the equation of state of the material filling
the photon, density, viscosity, pressure, speed ofsound?
What are the sides and ends of a photon made
from to containg this medium?

Use you own imagination George
...oh sorry, I forgot, relativists can't do that.

Henry, you forgot science doesn't do that It is
driven by experiment. Go join a philosophy group,
you'll feel more at home there.

Science starts with concepts George. THe experimentation and maths
follows.

A typical layman mistake Henry, science starts with
observation from which empirical maths is derived
and finally concepts may or may not be added.

ROFL, Henry, the corpuscular theory of light was known
to Newton. The modern theory started with Planck in 1914.

all right, ignore 'first'...

OK Henry, it was a trivial slip but the serious point
is covered in my other post, WDM in terabit optical
telecomms shows that light behaves exactly as a high
frequency RF carrier with all the usual considerations
of bandwidth, sidebands, spectrum and so on applying
as normal.

Not white light....which is what I was talkking about...

All light Henry, look at the terabit WDM work.

It is obvious Henry, you don't have a clue what
the term "frame" means.

it's an 'EM speed control sphere'.

Nope, it is the mathematical coordinate system
in which your sphere can be described by the
equation:

(x - x_b)^2 + (y - y_b)^2 + (z - z_b)^2 r^2

where (x_b, y_b, z_b) is the location of the
barycentre.

But can you not see that, for unequal stars, the sphere will not be a
perfect
sphere. The larger star will have a larger sphere.

No, the flows merge to produce a combined effect,
but even if one star produces all the material, the
tidal forces fall as the inverse cube while the
material density falls as inverse square so at large
distances, the sphere behaves as if governed by the
combined mass unmoving at the barycentre, just as
you said but didn't draw.

No Henry, the energy and momentum it carries are
what make it different from nothing.

What that supposed to be? An exercise in meaningless
oversimplification?

I may have overestimated your knowledge, I assumed
you knew what energy and momentum were.

I'll rephrase the question.
How does the energy and momentum contained in an amount of 'nothing'
make
it
distiguishable from any other amount of 'nothing'?

Come on George! Answer please....

You presume "contained in", the energy/momentum _is_
the thing that is not "nothing".

So what makes it not 'nothing'?

Energy and momentum Henry, you seem to be going
round in circles.

Quite the opposite, I've realised you have got so
obsessed with the analogy, you have lost track of
what you were trying to model in the first place.
Remember Huygens method?

Don't change the subject again George.

Huygens tells you that the direction of motion is
perpendicular to the wavefronts. You define the
shaft of the arrow as being the axis of the photon
and an axis of symmetry must be perpendicular to
the surface hence is the same as the direction of
motion by Huygens. If your arrow motion isn't
directed along the shaft, the analogy doesn't work.
I haven't changed the subject at all Henry, you are
just so wrapped up in your blinkered view of an
arrow that you have forgotten what you are trying
to model.

That's the point. Huygens doesn't apply to light particles.

ROFL, come on Henry, Huygens applies to wavefronts
which tell you the direction of propagation of the
energy. You are back to saying the energy goes east
while the photons go north :-)

I may not have time to reply more before the weekend
now, lots of real life getting in the way.

Make sure you study: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/EMspheres.exe

I don't have any real problem with it other than
the obvious bug, see above.

It is correct. You simply didn't read it properly.

Let's see:

1) You said "Sphere move with barycentre."

2) The barycentre of the stars is at rest on the screen.

3) The centre of the sphere is not at rest.

One of the three must be wrong so if any apologies
are due, the ball is in your court.

In your other reply you said:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:16:48 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
....
I admit the bottom one is misleading....the sphere of the heavier star
will
dominate and move wrt the barycentre.

That is true, and you show the red star moving less
but still moving which is correct. That's not the
problem. The stars are OK but the sphere should not
be moving at all. The middle diagram is correct.

George

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:31:26 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:53:51 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:24:14 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

Just try amplitude modulating white light from a thermal radiator
such as a filament lamp.

Done that when I was a kid. Easy enough to do right now.

Take a flashlight beam, focus it on a thin tinfoil diaphram, take
the diverging beam and collimate it with another lense.

Across the room, intercept the beam and focus it on a photocell,
amplify

Had a pair of optical telephones when I was a kid that worked
exactly like that. Here, looks like you can buy a kit and build your
own....

I've built much better optical sensors than that....

Then you concede that white light, from a thermal radiator such as a
filament lamp, can be amplitude modulated?

Are you suffering from dementia or something?

That's what we have been talking about for the last two weeks.

actually, we were addressing the fact that phase is important which came
from the fact that BaTh predicts the wrong phase for the Shapiro delay.
And the fact that fourier transformation of the stellar intensity data
and velocity data could be useful in understanding possible causes for
the variation.

Typicaql....Change the subject when you are in tight spot....

Yes, you provided many such examples during the course of the conversation.


In trying to convince you that phase was information that could be
obtained by fourier transmformation, we got onto the subject of
modulation of signals. This also tied in with your attempts to
rationalize the behavior of gratings and doppler shifted signals.

Anyway, you recently said
Just try amplitude modulating white light from a thermal radiator
such as a filament lamp.
when we were trying to chase the red herring that you kept dragging in
front of us. Your statement implied that you doubted that it could be
done or doubted that the modulation produced sidebands. It does produce
sidebands.

The modulating frequency, however, is not produced unless the modulation
process involves non linear mixing rather than modulation, as George has
pointed out repeatedly.

Fourier transforms have no place in the analysis of how light bunches as
it travels due to its different speeds.


Right, just as it has no place in "Alice in Wonderland".

If light did travel at different speeds, Fourier Transforms would be useful
in looking at the mixing products the would be produced as one group of
light waves caught up with another group of light waves of the same
frequency.

Stop trolling bob...


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

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

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:45:29 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 4 Jun, 06:49, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 09:10:42 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .


The photons are partly compressible. You know what happens when you compress a
spring. dx/dF becomes smaller as it compresses. They are still basically
ADoppler shifted.
On the other hand, movenent BETWEEN photons is virtually unrestricted.

I really don't know why you find this difficult.

I don't find it difficult to follow what you
are suggesting at all. What the difficulty lies
is in explaining to you why it is not possible
because that explanation uses Fourier analysis
and an understanding of RF that is beyond your
experience.

For christ's sake George, can uyyou not get it into your head that this is not
a purely wave phenomenon.
It has nought to do with fourier analysis.

That in turn means when you see say 30km/s for the
apparent velocity curve of a Cepheid, it would also
produce a luminosity variation of 0.0002 magnitudes,
no more. The rest must be intrinsic (or eclipsing
etc.).

Forget it George. You simply can't understand how 'photon bunching' operates.

Oh I understand it far better than you Henry,
that's why I have been able to give you the
analytical formulae for the resulting Doppler
shift and time of flight while you are still
using simulations.

The disconnect arises because it seems you
cannot understand that the same Doppler
formula must apply to sidebands and carrier
in a pulsed signal. If those pulses are to
travel at c+v as ballistic theory requires
then the sine wave components each have to
comply with that Doppler formula.

Not in my model.

The same must be true for any other sine wave,
be it a CW RF signal or a monochromatic light
source or an individual frequency in a white
source.

The intrinsic oscillations of incividual photons is independent of their
combined effect.

Of course the intrinsic frequency of a photon
which is part of a sine wave has to be the
same as that of the macroscopic wave from
the correspondence between the macroscopic
intensity and photon impact distributions
using a grating and a PM tube, which in turn
means individual photons are subject to the
same Doppler formula as macroscopic sine
waves.

this is the part that you insist on getting wrong.

What it all means is that photons from an
accelerated source _must_ compress by exactly
the same ratio as the bunching of the photons
that we analysed for the pulsars.

Not so George.

All your handwaving about photons being like
springs does nothing but indicate that you
don't really understand ballistic theory yet
and you haven't progressed beyond Sekerin's
error.

I am obviously way ahead of both YOU and Sekerin.

I explained all of this to you weeks ago but
rather than learn something about ballistic
theory, you have preferred to go off on
bizarre tangents claiming that modulated
light doesn't have sidebands or that Fourier
analysis doesn't work for light. Well my
previous post on terabit WDM shows that you
are talking nonsense. If you choose to ignore
the information I provided, that's your loss.

You've lost it George. You were doing quite well up till now.


George



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

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