Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 8 Jun, 00:18, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 20:41:44 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:19:01 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
On 4 Jun, 22:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

It has been modified. I can't dpo any beter without spending a lot more
time
and it I would prefer you used your imagination.....which you have done
below.

I think you could have done better with less effort,
it still shows the overall sphere moving which is not
correct.

Yes it is. The big sphere belongs to the larger star and moves with IT.

There are two aspects, first consider an alpha particle
in the solar wind at the radius of Pluto but far from
any of the planets. The motion of the Jupiter slightly
changes the gravitational _acceleration_ but not the
location or speed directly so from that point of view
changes in the sphere are limited to distances from the
source star comparable to the radius of its movement
round the barycentre.

On the other hand, we have detected signals from CMEs
running into the termination shock. There is significant
random variation from such outbursts. Basically the
effect of motion due to that of the source is far less
than the noise and showing the outer regions as unmoving
would be more accurate.

The
small sphere is centred around the smaller star. In actual fact the large
sphere should have a bump on it..but that's too hard.

Only close in.

I assume also , the shorter the period, the greater the phase lag between
sphere and star.

Probabably but it is moot beyond a small region in the centre.

If you want to do it properly, you should probably
calculate an inverse square for each star and add
them at each point and then plot a contour map but
that's a lot of effort for little gain.

Yes. I have shown the basic principle. That's enough at this stage.

It is misleading though, the sphere shouldn't be moving.

Did you read what I said in the other thread about using Maxwell's
equation to
explain this?

I didn't but I don't see that it relates to my point,
the light can only respond in one way so it must be
the combination and showing two separate spheres is
misleading.

Ah, but you shouldn't assume that light speed is completely determined by the
sphere. I have stressed that it is a weak effect, that takes time and distance.

It isn't an assumption, we calculated distances of circa
a light minute and the sphere is many light hours in radius.

(use fixed pitch)

-S |a |b

b--|---------------------------//--------------------------|---------------*-----------------------Earth

-s |a' |b'

S and s represent a binary pair of stars, orbiting a barycentre b. At
points a
and a', which are near the two stars and at rest wrt the baycentre,
Maxwell's
two constants are measured.
The resulting calculation shows light speed to be c+v and c-v respectively
wrt
the barycentre. (The readings are clearly affected by the movement of the
two
masses).

You get the permeability and permittivity of the
material and from that a refractive index. The
speed is then c/n relative to the material for
both stars. That would transform to the frame of
the barycentre in accordance with Fizeau's
measurements. It wouldn't be c+v or c-v but a
speed that depended primarily on the outward speed
of the material wrt the barycentre.

I'm not thinking in terms of 'solar wind' any more.
I'm suggesting other factors are responsible such as charge.

The only charges _are_ the solar wind.

I reckon if you measure Maxwell's two factors when moving relative to a star
you will not get c for an answer. the closer you ar to it, the greater will be
the deviation...just a hunch...

You don't get c, you get c/n and yes n it will be
greater in the denser material closer to the star.

In summary, my concept of EM reference spheres is fully supported and
explained by Maxwell's equations.

Not true, for a given set of measurements, Maxwell's
Equations only give a single value of speed. Ballistic
theory requires that, at least initially, light from
one star has a different speed from light from the
other so ballistic theory is always going to be
incompatible with Maxwell's Equations.

You didn't read my experiment.

I did but it doesn't illustrate the problem so I
wrote a similar version that does.

What I am saying is that if you perform experiments to measure the
permeability
and permittivity of space whilst MOVING TOWARDS THE SUN at v, then you
would
calculate light speed to be c+v.

What I am saying is that if you perform experiments to
measure the permeability and permittivity of space, you
get a single value for each. That tells you the speed
of light at that location relative to your instruments.
Light from a spacecraft moving towards you at 0.1c and
one moving away at 0.1c would both have that speed
according to Maxwell but would have different speeds
according to ballistic theory. Forget Maxwell's
Equations Henry, they are of no use to you.

On the contrary. If you had bothered to think about the experiment I described
you would understand why.

And if you read mine you should see why ballistic
theory is incompatible. Your version only has a
single light source so doesn't show the problem
that Maxwell's Equations give one value for the
speed while ballistic theory requires light from
different sources to move at different speeds.

True.
I don't think the solar wind is the main factor in this. I think it could
be
something to do with electric charge and the capacitance of volumes of
space.

Space has no charge though, it is only the charged
particles, mainly electrons, protons and alpha
particles, that cause the deviation from the
vacuum value.

That's oversimplifying the problem.
There is a 'field around every charge. It permeates space. What does that
imply?

That the absence of charges implies an absence of fields
and that the fields move with the charges. In our topic
the charges are those in the stellar wind.

I don't see your point, I am saying the change to
uniform speed is essentially complete before the
light leaves the sphere. Are you disagreeing?

Yes. I am assuming planets don't have significant 'spheres'.

Well they have an atmosphere perhaps but it is of
limited extent.

Very limited. It wont significantly affect the light from the star.

Right, so we can ignore planets and my point stands,
the change to uniform speed is essentially complete
before the light leaves the sphere of the star.

If ony one star is involved, light speed wrt the star's surface generally
doesn't change much as it passes through the sphere. It would still leave
the sphere at around c wrt the star and c+v wrt Earth.
However that wouldn't be true for short periods because the sphere would
most likely lag well behind the star.

OK, assume the inner regions of the sphere move with
the star but the outer regions lag so there is some
difference in speed between the star and the outer
edge of the sphere. My point is that since the speed
equalisation distance is much smaller than the sphere,
the light is in equilibrium, essentially moving at c/n
as it passes through the sphere and it leaves at c (or
c/n) relative to the edge of the sphere, not the star.

Two points:
We can probably assume the inverse square law applies...so what happesn son the
outskirts maty not be very important.

We know the distance is short overall. If the equalisation
factor varies as inverse square, the equalised speed would
be in equilibrium with the material close in but might
decouple in the farther regions, but the flow speed becomes
relatively constant there (variations due to CMEs and other
stellar events are more significant).

secondly, we cannot assume refractive index operates as it would in the case of
a pure 'matter medium'.

We can because refractive index is simply defined as the
ratio of the speed to c.

No need Henry. Close in it would be complex but the
light is always changing to be c/n relative to the
part of the sphere it is travelling through so by the
time it leaves at the termination shock (or whatever
boundary you choose), it is only the last bit that
defines the speed entering the ISM.

But the spheres aren't homogeneous by any means. Their 'strength' must
drop off
rapidly with distance for one thing.

Sure, they both drop at around inverse square but
so what? The light rapidly reaches c/n relative
to the mean motion of the mix.

As it departs the sphere, its speed approaches c wrt the mix...ie., basically,
wrt the star.

No, wrt the mix is correct but remember the mix is
moving at perhaps 400 km/s relative to the Sun and
should be something of that order for other stars
too.

It might be very slightly different from c due to an 'outer
layer' effect....and this could indeed explain certain small differences
between BaTh predictions and actual observed brightness curves.

Not really, all the light is moving at the same speed
so the c+v and c-v difference has been eliminated.

You need to study the history of science a bit,

(I've written a book on it, will that do?).

Maybe you should have learnt the subject before
writing the book, physics starts with observations
and tries to derive concepts to explain them.

that's basically what I said.
...the maths come later...

No, _empirical_ maths is how the observations are
made into usable tools, concepts follow from the
maths.

as verification and for technology to follow.

Maths is used to model an initial concept and do some quantitative
analysis..

Look at the development of quantum theory. It didn't
start with the corpusclar theory of light which was
conceptual and a dead end, it cam first from observation
to which The Rayleigh fitted a simple empirical formula.
It didn't attempt to give an explanation, it was just a
useful tool. That had the drawback of the ultra-violet
catastrophe which Wein solved again by fitting a better
curve to the data. Planck solved that and was driven to
the idea of quantisation in attempting to resolve the
problem at low frequencies. The concept came out of the
third iteration of empirical physics.

Planck merely fiddled with curves till he found one that fitted.

Exactly - the empirical maths came before the concept, and
Rayleigh and Wein's maths came before Planck's work.

.and these can be quite philosophical ..but it is
still physics.
I'm a firm believer in models George. They don't have to be mechanical but
they
will always be physical....because if they aren't already, they will
immediately define a new branch of physics.

They're nice to have - we all want to understand, but
physics isn't about understanding, it is about making
accurate predictions.

Predictions are indeed important. My program correctly predicts variable star
curves, using BaTh.

No, you still have your maths wrong.

Huygens tells you their direction of motion, your
handwaving doesn't so it isn't 'better', in fact
it isn't a theory since it doesn't allow you to
calculate the direction of the beam while Huygens'
method does.

Leonard Kellogg agrees with me.

I haven't seen his post yet.

George

It seems this went missing.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:44:06 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:45:29 -0700, George Dishman

wrote:


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.

Can you not get it into your head that Fourier
analysis is based on pure maths and applies to
_all_ arbitrary waveforms. It is nothing more
than the repeated application of a simple
identity.

If you are thinking of a monochromatic beam,

Why would I be thinking of a monochromatic beam
when I clearly said "_all_ arbitrary waveforms"?

You said you had used Fourier Transforms but it
looks as though you have no idea what they are at
all. An FT takes any arbitrary waveform and tells
you the amplitudes and phases of a series of sine
waves which, if added, reproduce the waveform.
In terms of light, it tells you what set of
monochromatic beams need to be mixed to create
the total.

the observed wavelength IS also
the individual photon wavelengh.

Yes, that is what I have been saying all along and
which you denied in the past.

If the latter is VDoppler or ADoppler shifted,
so is the whole beam.

Again, that is what I have been telling you.

It doesn't matter if individual photons move wrt others in the beam.

That's less clear. Obviously it can only happen
in ballistic theory but the effect would be that
sometimes overlapping photons add constructively
but sometimes destructively.

In fact it is quite possibly their random phase distribution that accounts
for
Huygen's Principle.

No, the principle works for an individual photon.
Again bear in mind that individual photons are
deflecte from a grating at the same angle as the
macroscopic waves.

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.

Yes in your model, you just don't understand
maths well enough to see the unavoidable
connection.

I understand the maths perfectly well George. I also know that what you
are
saying is not relevant to my model.

It is relevant since it defines how light is
observed to behave.

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.

Not possible Henry - how do you make a pure
sine wave out of components at a different
frequency? I'll give you a hint - it isn't
possible.

Of course it isn't.
I never said it was.

Yes you did, you said and RF CW signal was actually
amplitude modulated white light. The frequencies in
white light are many orders higher than RF.

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.

Nope, it is bloody obvious that the place on a
tube where most photons land is also the place
where the signal has its highest intensity.

Diffraction angle should be independent of the arrival phases of
individual
photons. Can you not see the possible link between phase randomicity and
reinforcement?

I can't see how you think that can explain why
each _individual_ photon is diffracted by the
angle.

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.

Yes so Henry.

There are two possibilities.
If it does as you say then the only way to check is to determine the
doppler
shift of the white light that makes up each pulse......not easy...

Not at all, and this is where you don't know how
to use the maths. You can take a monochromatic
beam and apply sine wave amplitude modulation.
That produces sidebands which can be separated
from the carrier by reflecting the modulated
beam from a grating. See the papers on terabit
WDM for the spectrum showing the sidebands and
the specification of a grating designed for this
purpose or see if you can find what part Fujitsu
or Alcatel used.

Each of the three resulting beams is itself
monochromatic at fc-fm, fc and fc+fm respectively.

Above you said:

the observed wavelength IS also
the individual photon wavelengh.

which is correct, so the photons in the lower sideband
all have a frequency of fc-fm.

You can confirm that by considering what you would
see if you took the extracted sideband of a WDM
channel carrying a single sine wave, shone it on
an echelle and then turned the brightness down
until you saw single photons on a PM tube.

Now if you emit that waveform from an accelerated
source, your Doppler equation applies to each of
the three beams separately. If you then recombine
them by the reverse method and detect it with a
photodiode, you get back the modulation. The
'bunching' of the waves in the modulation is
defined by the Doppler shift formula that was
applied to the three monochromatic beams so there
is a direct mathematical link between individual
photon Doppler and the pulse bunching formula. If
you want the sine waves in the modulation to move
at c+v, the photons must have the Doppler shift
corresponding to the bunching formula so they must
be fully compressible.

If it does not, then my claim that pulsar velocites are a lot smaller than
they
appear is correct.

We have analysed the pulsars and we derived results
from observations. It's one of the few areas where
we were able to work through and reach agreement.
The mathematical link from considering the effect
on sidebands tells us that photon Doppler must be
the same as macroscopic bunching formula.

That doesn't conflict with any of the observations
or experiments and is directly derivable from
ballistic theory, it only disagrees with your
'concept' of photon being like springs.

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.

Not if you can't even understand a simple
Fourier analysis, you are way behind most
undergraduates and every radio designer on
the planet.

The plain fact is, you can't understand MY model.

The plain fact is that I not only understand it
but have shown how your handwaving is incompatible
with ballistic theory while you can't even follow
the link despite numerous explanations.

Give some thought to the terabit WDM spectrum and
perhaps you will start to follow. At some point I
expect you to say "wait a minute, that's impossible"
for one specific reason and when you do I'll know
you've grasped the implications. In fact that aspect
is not only possible but the basis of the technology,
but I'm sure you'l argue it can't happen nonetheless.

George

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:57:23 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

It seems this went missing.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:44:06 +0100, "George Dishman"


Can you not get it into your head that Fourier
analysis is based on pure maths and applies to
_all_ arbitrary waveforms. It is nothing more
than the repeated application of a simple
identity.

If you are thinking of a monochromatic beam,

Why would I be thinking of a monochromatic beam
when I clearly said "_all_ arbitrary waveforms"?

You said you had used Fourier Transforms but it
looks as though you have no idea what they are at
all. An FT takes any arbitrary waveform and tells
you the amplitudes and phases of a series of sine
waves which, if added, reproduce the waveform.
In terms of light, it tells you what set of
monochromatic beams need to be mixed to create
the total.

I'm thoroughly aware of what a Fourier series can produce George.
It basically says that any periodic function can be expressed as a series of
terms containing multiples of the fundamental frequency.
Any curve can be broken down into separate single frequency components. However
if it is not periodic, then there is no point in trying....because you will get
a different answer every time you repeat the experiment.
I fail to see any connection between Fourier analysis and my theory of light
rays.

the observed wavelength IS also
the individual photon wavelengh.

Yes, that is what I have been saying all along and
which you denied in the past.

....not for monochromatic light.

If the latter is VDoppler or ADoppler shifted,
so is the whole beam.

Again, that is what I have been telling you.

But George, the bunching effect doesn't have to be in the same proportion.
The brightness can change by much more than the wavelength.

It doesn't matter if individual photons move wrt others in the beam.

That's less clear. Obviously it can only happen
in ballistic theory but the effect would be that
sometimes overlapping photons add constructively
but sometimes destructively.

I say this is purely a numbers effect.... Do you thnk there is interference
between individual photons making up a beam?

In fact it is quite possibly their random phase distribution that accounts
for
Huygen's Principle.

No, the principle works for an individual photon.
Again bear in mind that individual photons are
deflected from a grating at the same angle as the
macroscopic waves.

Well, there are many ways that can be interpreted.


maths well enough to see the unavoidable
connection.

I understand the maths perfectly well George. I also know that what you
are
saying is not relevant to my model.

It is relevant since it defines how light is
observed to behave.

Only in diffraction phenomena....
It doesn't tell us anything about light in transit.

Not possible Henry - how do you make a pure
sine wave out of components at a different
frequency? I'll give you a hint - it isn't
possible.

Of course it isn't.
I never said it was.

Yes you did, you said an RF CW signal was actually
amplitude modulated white light. The frequencies in
white light are many orders higher than RF.

I said this COULD BE done. An RF signal can be made by modulating white light.


Diffraction angle should be independent of the arrival phases of
individual
photons. Can you not see the possible link between phase randomicity and
reinforcement?

I can't see how you think that can explain why
each _individual_ photon is diffracted by the
angle.

Single photons form the same diffraction pattern that a beam of them would.
I'm suggesting that a photon's so called 'wave function' is none other than
the phase of its 'intrinsic oscillation' at the time of arrival.

Use my 'traveling oboe' model again George.

Yes so Henry.

There are two possibilities.
If it does as you say then the only way to check is to determine the
doppler
shift of the white light that makes up each pulse......not easy...

Not at all, and this is where you don't know how
to use the maths. You can take a monochromatic
beam and apply sine wave amplitude modulation.
That produces sidebands which can be separated
from the carrier by reflecting the modulated
beam from a grating.

Just as I said....
YOU said the grating would be sensitive to only the beam wavelength and NOT the
modulation wavelength. Have you changed your mind.

See the papers on terabit
WDM for the spectrum showing the sidebands and
the specification of a grating designed for this
purpose or see if you can find what part Fujitsu
or Alcatel used.

Each of the three resulting beams is itself
monochromatic at fc-fm, fc and fc+fm respectively.

How can you prove that?

Above you said:

the observed wavelength IS also
the individual photon wavelengh.

which is correct, so the photons in the lower sideband
all have a frequency of fc-fm.

That doesn't follow at all.

You can confirm that by considering what you would
see if you took the extracted sideband of a WDM
channel carrying a single sine wave, shone it on
an echelle and then turned the brightness down
until you saw single photons on a PM tube.

Don't speculate on what MIGHT happen George....

Now if you emit that waveform from an accelerated
source, your Doppler equation applies to each of
the three beams separately. If you then recombine
them by the reverse method and detect it with a
photodiode, you get back the modulation. The
'bunching' of the waves in the modulation is
defined by the Doppler shift formula that was
applied to the three monochromatic beams so there
is a direct mathematical link between individual
photon Doppler and the pulse bunching formula. If
you want the sine waves in the modulation to move
at c+v, the photons must have the Doppler shift
corresponding to the bunching formula so they must
be fully compressible.

George, this conclusion is based on too many assumptions.
I understand what you are saying but I don't accept a word of it. It is pure
speculation. However I agree that investigation of side band diffraction might
be able to tell us something interesting about the nature of photons.

If it does not, then my claim that pulsar velocites are a lot smaller than
they
appear is correct.

We have analysed the pulsars and we derived results
from observations. It's one of the few areas where
we were able to work through and reach agreement.
The mathematical link from considering the effect
on sidebands tells us that photon Doppler must be
the same as macroscopic bunching formula.

George, why do you always jump to outrageous conclusions when other possible
explanations are obvious?

That doesn't conflict with any of the observations
or experiments and is directly derivable from
ballistic theory, it only disagrees with your
'concept' of photon being like springs.

No, ....you're making it up as you go...and getting deeper and deeper iin
strife...

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.

Not if you can't even understand a simple
Fourier analysis, you are way behind most
undergraduates and every radio designer on
the planet.

The plain fact is, you can't understand MY model.

The plain fact is that I not only understand it
but have shown how your handwaving is incompatible
with ballistic theory while you can't even follow
the link despite numerous explanations.

You haven't found the correct link.
You are relying totally on classical wave models.

Give some thought to the terabit WDM spectrum and
perhaps you will start to follow. At some point I
expect you to say "wait a minute, that's impossible"
for one specific reason and when you do I'll know
you've grasped the implications. In fact that aspect
is not only possible but the basis of the technology,
but I'm sure you'l argue it can't happen nonetheless.

I understand this is a relatively new technique.
It MAY actually be able to tell us a few things about photon/photon
interaction.


George




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

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

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 00:18:44 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 8 Jun, 00:18, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 20:41:44 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:19:01 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
On 4 Jun, 22:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

It has been modified. I can't dpo any beter without spending a lot more
time
and it I would prefer you used your imagination.....which you have done
below.

I think you could have done better with less effort,
it still shows the overall sphere moving which is not
correct.

Yes it is. The big sphere belongs to the larger star and moves with IT.

There are two aspects, first consider an alpha particle
in the solar wind at the radius of Pluto but far from
any of the planets. The motion of the Jupiter slightly
changes the gravitational _acceleration_ but not the
location or speed directly so from that point of view
changes in the sphere are limited to distances from the
source star comparable to the radius of its movement
round the barycentre.

On the other hand, we have detected signals from CMEs
running into the termination shock. There is significant
random variation from such outbursts. Basically the
effect of motion due to that of the source is far less
than the noise and showing the outer regions as unmoving
would be more accurate.

George, I would like to dissociate my 'sphere' from the solar wind. There might
be a connection but I suspect other factors are far more important.

The
small sphere is centred around the smaller star. In actual fact the large
sphere should have a bump on it..but that's too hard.

Only close in.

Well let's not be too fussy at this stage. It obviously depends entirely on the
relative sizes of the two stars.

I assume also , the shorter the period, the greater the phase lag between
sphere and star.

Probabably but it is moot beyond a small region in the centre.

......depending entirely on relative sizes....

If you want to do it properly, you should probably
calculate an inverse square for each star and add
them at each point and then plot a contour map but
that's a lot of effort for little gain.

Yes. I have shown the basic principle. That's enough at this stage.

It is misleading though, the sphere shouldn't be moving.

Yes it should. Each star's sphere moves with the star.
Even in the middle diagram, the sphere should be slightly distorted...but I
didn't show that.
There will alway be some ADoppler...even though very small in the case of
contact binaries.

Did you read what I said in the other thread about using Maxwell's
equation to
explain this?

I didn't but I don't see that it relates to my point,
the light can only respond in one way so it must be
the combination and showing two separate spheres is
misleading.

Ah, but you shouldn't assume that light speed is completely determined by the
sphere. I have stressed that it is a weak effect, that takes time and distance.

It isn't an assumption, we calculated distances of circa
a light minute and the sphere is many light hours in radius.

You can't put a firm figure on the size. It varies from one star to another.

(use fixed pitch)

-S |a |b

b--|---------------------------//--------------------------|---------------*-----------------------Earth

-s |a' |b'

S and s represent a binary pair of stars, orbiting a barycentre b. At
points a
and a', which are near the two stars and at rest wrt the baycentre,
Maxwell's
two constants are measured.
The resulting calculation shows light speed to be c+v and c-v respectively
wrt
the barycentre. (The readings are clearly affected by the movement of the
two
masses).

You get the permeability and permittivity of the
material and from that a refractive index. The
speed is then c/n relative to the material for
both stars. That would transform to the frame of
the barycentre in accordance with Fizeau's
measurements. It wouldn't be c+v or c-v but a
speed that depended primarily on the outward speed
of the material wrt the barycentre.

I'm not thinking in terms of 'solar wind' any more.
I'm suggesting other factors are responsible such as charge.

The only charges _are_ the solar wind.

.....the whole star can be charged...in which case its relative movement will be
detectable...and affect the maxwellian calculation of 'c'.

I reckon if you measure Maxwell's two factors when moving relative to a star
you will not get c for an answer. the closer you ar to it, the greater will be
the deviation...just a hunch...

You don't get c, you get c/n and yes n it will be
greater in the denser material closer to the star.

Ignore n for the moment.

In summary, my concept of EM reference spheres is fully supported and
explained by Maxwell's equations.

Not true, for a given set of measurements, Maxwell's
Equations only give a single value of speed. Ballistic
theory requires that, at least initially, light from
one star has a different speed from light from the
other so ballistic theory is always going to be
incompatible with Maxwell's Equations.

You didn't read my experiment.

I did but it doesn't illustrate the problem so I
wrote a similar version that does.

where?


according to ballistic theory. Forget Maxwell's
Equations Henry, they are of no use to you.

On the contrary. If you had bothered to think about the experiment I described
you would understand why.

And if you read mine you should see why ballistic
theory is incompatible. Your version only has a
single light source so doesn't show the problem
that Maxwell's Equations give one value for the
speed while ballistic theory requires light from
different sources to move at different speeds.

George, you still haven't understaood my experimnt.

Take two stars x kms apart.

-v P1 P2
S1 | |
| | |
x | |
| | |
S2 | |
v-

I say that mu and e will have very different values when measured across the
line P1 but those differences decreasing with distance (line P2) from the
source stars.



That's oversimplifying the problem.
There is a 'field around every charge. It permeates space. What does that
imply?

That the absence of charges implies an absence of fields
and that the fields move with the charges. In our topic
the charges are those in the stellar wind.

George, you seem incapable of reasoning properly these days.
A bar magnet wrapped in a plastic bag filled with electrons doesn't need any
stellar wind to exist...

I don't see your point, I am saying the change to
uniform speed is essentially complete before the
light leaves the sphere. Are you disagreeing?

Yes. I am assuming planets don't have significant 'spheres'.

Well they have an atmosphere perhaps but it is of
limited extent.

Very limited. It wont significantly affect the light from the star.

Right, so we can ignore planets and my point stands,
the change to uniform speed is essentially complete
before the light leaves the sphere of the star.

Yes, molecular speeds are filtered out and light leaves the sphere at c/n wrt
the star and c/n+v wrt the observer. We can assume n approaches 1 at the
outskirts of the sphere.

ADoppler continues and my Bath brightness curves are vindicated.

Two points:
We can probably assume the inverse square law applies...so what happesn son the
outskirts maty not be very important.

We know the distance is short overall.

It might not be all that short.

If the equalisation
factor varies as inverse square, the equalised speed would
be in equilibrium with the material close in but might
decouple in the farther regions, but the flow speed becomes
relatively constant there (variations due to CMEs and other
stellar events are more significant).

I suppose there could be small phase diffferences and other effects.

secondly, we cannot assume refractive index operates as it would in the case of
a pure 'matter medium'.

We can because refractive index is simply defined as the
ratio of the speed to c.

Let's assume it is 1 on the outskirts anyway.


Sure, they both drop at around inverse square but
so what? The light rapidly reaches c/n relative
to the mean motion of the mix.

As it departs the sphere, its speed approaches c wrt the mix...ie., basically,
wrt the star.

No, wrt the mix is correct but remember the mix is
moving at perhaps 400 km/s relative to the Sun and
should be something of that order for other stars
too.

You 'mix' is not MY mix.

It might be very slightly different from c due to an 'outer
layer' effect....and this could indeed explain certain small differences
between BaTh predictions and actual observed brightness curves.

Not really, all the light is moving at the same speed
so the c+v and c-v difference has been eliminated.

NO. That is the case in the middle diagram.

Otherwise, the whole bloody sphere still moves at +/- v wrt the observer.

You need to study the history of science a bit,

(I've written a book on it, will that do?).

Maybe you should have learnt the subject before
writing the book, physics starts with observations
and tries to derive concepts to explain them.

that's basically what I said.
...the maths come later...

No, _empirical_ maths is how the observations are
made into usable tools, concepts follow from the
maths.

Concepts can indeed follow the revelation of the maths....maths which already
followed concepts derived from previous observations and the creative
endeavours of usually a single individual.

No amount of conventional teaching will ever turn the eric geeses of this world
into useful scientists.

Planck merely fiddled with curves till he found one that fitted.

Exactly - the empirical maths came before the concept, and
Rayleigh and Wein's maths came before Planck's work.

That is only one example. What about something like Boyle's Law?

In the case of the Bohr atom, the concept clearly came before the maths.

The same applies to my BaTh curve simulations.
The program was designed to perfom the maths AFTER the concept was fully
identified.
The results tend to verify the concept...
The results USING THE MATHS subsequently bring to light other concepts that can
be further modelled and investigateed with more refined maths.

They're nice to have - we all want to understand, but
physics isn't about understanding, it is about making
accurate predictions.

Predictions are indeed important. My program correctly predicts variable star
curves, using BaTh.

No, you still have your maths wrong.

It cant be too wrong George if it consistently comes up with the right answers.

Huygens tells you their direction of motion, your
handwaving doesn't so it isn't 'better', in fact
it isn't a theory since it doesn't allow you to
calculate the direction of the beam while Huygens'
method does.

Leonard Kellogg agrees with me.

I haven't seen his post yet.

George



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

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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:57:23 -0700, George Dishman

wrote:

It seems this went missing.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:44:06 +0100, "George Dishman"


Can you not get it into your head that Fourier
analysis is based on pure maths and applies to
_all_ arbitrary waveforms. It is nothing more
than the repeated application of a simple
identity.

If you are thinking of a monochromatic beam,

Why would I be thinking of a monochromatic beam
when I clearly said "_all_ arbitrary waveforms"?

You said you had used Fourier Transforms but it
looks as though you have no idea what they are at
all. An FT takes any arbitrary waveform and tells
you the amplitudes and phases of a series of sine
waves which, if added, reproduce the waveform.
In terms of light, it tells you what set of
monochromatic beams need to be mixed to create
the total.

I'm thoroughly aware of what a Fourier series can produce George.

Apparently not.

It basically says that any periodic function can be expressed as a series
of
terms containing multiples of the fundamental frequency.

The function doesn't need to be periodic, consider
the sum of two monochromatic components at 1Hz and
sqrt(2) Hz.

Any curve can be broken down into separate single frequency components.

That's better.

However
if it is not periodic, then there is no point in trying....because you
will get
a different answer every time you repeat the experiment.

Garbage.

I fail to see any connection between Fourier analysis and my theory of
light
rays.

That doesn't surprise me, but I've told you the link
many times. Here it is again: Take a monochromatic
source and modulate it with a rectangular wave. That
produces 'pulses' of the source or equivalently a
carrier and sidebands. You can separate the sidebands
from the carrier with a grating (c.f. terabit WDM).
If the pulses are to travel at c+v, the same Doppler
shift must apply to each of the component frequencies
as applies to the discrete pulses hence the Doppler
equation must be the same as that for the pulsar that
we worked out some time ago.

the observed wavelength IS also
the individual photon wavelengh.

Yes, that is what I have been saying all along and
which you denied in the past.

...not for monochromatic light.

Yes, even for monochromatic light. You started
with that and switched to white later. Anyway
as yyou said above "Any curve can be broken down
into separate single frequency components." so
what applies to one applies to the other.

If the latter is VDoppler or ADoppler shifted,
so is the whole beam.

Again, that is what I have been telling you.

But George, the bunching effect doesn't have to be in the same proportion.

Yes it does Henry - you said you were "thoroughly
aware of what a Fourier series can produce" so you
should already know that.

The brightness can change by much more than the wavelength.

It doesn't matter if individual photons move wrt others in the beam.

That's less clear. Obviously it can only happen
in ballistic theory but the effect would be that
sometimes overlapping photons add constructively
but sometimes destructively.

I say this is purely a numbers effect.... Do you thnk there is
interference
between individual photons making up a beam?

As I say, that's much more complex and since it
only applies in ballistic theory, I would have to
guess, but consider two photons in a laser beam
that partially overlap. If they are moving at
slightly different speeds, they will drift between
constructive and destructive interference as they
propagate until they move far enough to cease to
overlap.

In fact it is quite possibly their random phase distribution that
accounts
for Huygen's Principle.

No, the principle works for an individual photon.
Again bear in mind that individual photons are
deflected from a grating at the same angle as the
macroscopic waves.

Well, there are many ways that can be interpreted.

Not really, it is a simple fact that the probability
of single photon landing at some point on a screen
depends on its frequency (or wavelength).

maths well enough to see the unavoidable
connection.

I understand the maths perfectly well George. I also know that what you
are
saying is not relevant to my model.

It is relevant since it defines how light is
observed to behave.

Only in diffraction phenomena....
It doesn't tell us anything about light in transit.

It tells you the Doppler equation for monochromatic
light.

Not possible Henry - how do you make a pure
sine wave out of components at a different
frequency? I'll give you a hint - it isn't
possible.

Of course it isn't.
I never said it was.

Yes you did, you said an RF CW signal was actually
amplitude modulated white light. The frequencies in
white light are many orders higher than RF.

I said this COULD BE done. An RF signal can be made by modulating white
light.

********. Get your brain in gear Henry, think
about the Fourier transform of modulated light
and that of a CW signal.

Diffraction angle should be independent of the arrival phases of
individual
photons. Can you not see the possible link between phase randomicity and
reinforcement?

I can't see how you think that can explain why
each _individual_ photon is diffracted by the
angle.

Single photons form the same diffraction pattern that a beam of them
would.

Exactly what I said above Henry. You do like to
waste time, don't you.

I'm suggesting that a photon's so called 'wave function' is none other
than
the phase of its 'intrinsic oscillation' at the time of arrival.

Use my 'traveling oboe' model again George.

Yes so Henry.

There are two possibilities.
If it does as you say then the only way to check is to determine the
doppler
shift of the white light that makes up each pulse......not easy...

Not at all, and this is where you don't know how
to use the maths. You can take a monochromatic
beam and apply sine wave amplitude modulation.
That produces sidebands which can be separated
from the carrier by reflecting the modulated
beam from a grating.

Just as I said....

No, what you said several times was "There are NO
sidebands!". Do I need to dig up the quotes?

YOU said the grating would be sensitive to only the beam wavelength and
NOT the
modulation wavelength.

Exactly. If you modulate frequency fc with fm, you
get three components at fc-fm, fc and fc+fm and
when you shine that on a grating you see three
reflected lines

Have you changed your mind.

No, but you have. You previously said there were
NO sidebands (your emphasis) and now you agree not
only that there _are_ sidebands but they can be
separated from the carrier with a grating.

See the papers on terabit
WDM for the spectrum showing the sidebands and
the specification of a grating designed for this
purpose or see if you can find what part Fujitsu
or Alcatel used.

Each of the three resulting beams is itself
monochromatic at fc-fm, fc and fc+fm respectively.

How can you prove that?

I showed you the equation several times and you can
see from the links on WDM that the industry uses
gratings to confirm the performance of terabit
systems by examinimg the sidebands.

Above you said:

the observed wavelength IS also
the individual photon wavelengh.

which is correct, so the photons in the lower sideband
all have a frequency of fc-fm.

That doesn't follow at all.

You said above:

the observed wavelength IS also
the individual photon wavelengh.

and later:

Single photons form the same diffraction pattern
that a beam of them would.

so I'm not saying anything you haven't already
agreed.

You can confirm that by considering what you would
see if you took the extracted sideband of a WDM
channel carrying a single sine wave, shone it on
an echelle and then turned the brightness down
until you saw single photons on a PM tube.

Don't speculate on what MIGHT happen George....

I don't need to, WDM developers test systems by
looking at the spectrum, single photon detection
is a common experiment and heterodyning is used
for very accurate Doppler measurement including
photon counting detectors. It's all done on a
regular basis but there's no fuss at they are all
just mundane tools.

Now if you emit that waveform from an accelerated
source, your Doppler equation applies to each of
the three beams separately. If you then recombine
them by the reverse method and detect it with a
photodiode, you get back the modulation. The
'bunching' of the waves in the modulation is
defined by the Doppler shift formula that was
applied to the three monochromatic beams so there
is a direct mathematical link between individual
photon Doppler and the pulse bunching formula. If
you want the sine waves in the modulation to move
at c+v, the photons must have the Doppler shift
corresponding to the bunching formula so they must
be fully compressible.

George, this conclusion is based on too many assumptions.

No assumptions, just a series of steps all of
which are well known.

I understand what you are saying but I don't accept a word of it. It is
pure
speculation. However I agree that investigation of side band diffraction
might
be able to tell us something interesting about the nature of photons.

Not really, if you modulate a fine line with a
clean sine wave, you get three monochromatic lines.
Extract any one and it is no different to any other
monochromatic source.

If it does not, then my claim that pulsar velocites are a lot smaller
than
they
appear is correct.

We have analysed the pulsars and we derived results
from observations. It's one of the few areas where
we were able to work through and reach agreement.
The mathematical link from considering the effect
on sidebands tells us that photon Doppler must be
the same as macroscopic bunching formula.

George, why do you always jump to outrageous conclusions when other
possible
explanations are obvious?

Because I studied maths to a level that lets me
use it to reach such conclusions while you still
think these aspects are unconnected.

That doesn't conflict with any of the observations
or experiments and is directly derivable from
ballistic theory, it only disagrees with your
'concept' of photon being like springs.

No,

You seen all the maths above, and you claimed you
were familiar with Fourier so you shouldn't even
need me pointing it out.

....
Give some thought to the terabit WDM spectrum and
perhaps you will start to follow. At some point I
expect you to say "wait a minute, that's impossible"
for one specific reason and when you do I'll know
you've grasped the implications. In fact that aspect
is not only possible but the basis of the technology,
but I'm sure you'l argue it can't happen nonetheless.

I understand this is a relatively new technique.

It is a new application but the techniques fundamentally
the same as the earliest telephone trunk connections
where many conversations were sent down a single cable
using frequency division multiplexing.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 00:18:44 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

I started writing a reply to this post but had network
problems so it's stuck elsewhere. I'll post that tomorrow.

Predictions are indeed important. My program correctly predicts variable
star
curves, using BaTh.

You keep telling me that the luminosity of Cepheids is due
to ADoppler while the velocity curve is VDoppler so have a
look at this page. It is purely illustrative, drawn as graphs
in Excel and not real data. I just want you to get the idea.
The acceleration is constant for two periods with a raised
joining them. The velocity and radius are just the integrals
of course:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...lustrative.png

Compare that with this:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

I'm sure you can see that the velocity curve is the same in
both, just inverted. You will find the radius curve matches
that shown in other Cepheid documents we looked at though
I can't find the reference at the moment.

Now tell me, does the luminosity curve he

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

match the acceleration (ADoppler) or the velocity (VDoppler)
from he

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...lustrative.png

George

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:08:27 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:57:23 -0700, George Dishman

You said you had used Fourier Transforms but it
looks as though you have no idea what they are at
all. An FT takes any arbitrary waveform and tells
you the amplitudes and phases of a series of sine
waves which, if added, reproduce the waveform.
In terms of light, it tells you what set of
monochromatic beams need to be mixed to create
the total.

I'm thoroughly aware of what a Fourier series can produce George.

Apparently not.

It basically says that any periodic function can be expressed as a series
of
terms containing multiples of the fundamental frequency.

The function doesn't need to be periodic, consider
the sum of two monochromatic components at 1Hz and
sqrt(2) Hz.

You're adding two periodic functions. The result is periodic. You can't use an
irrational number.

Any curve can be broken down into separate single frequency components.

That's better.

However
if it is not periodic, then there is no point in trying....because you
will get
a different answer every time you repeat the experiment.

Garbage.

I don't think you understand what 'periodic' means.

I fail to see any connection between Fourier analysis and my theory of
light
rays.

That doesn't surprise me, but I've told you the link
many times. Here it is again: Take a monochromatic
source and modulate it with a rectangular wave. That
produces 'pulses' of the source or equivalently a
carrier and sidebands. You can separate the sidebands
from the carrier with a grating (c.f. terabit WDM).
If the pulses are to travel at c+v, the same Doppler
shift must apply to each of the component frequencies
as applies to the discrete pulses hence the Doppler
equation must be the same as that for the pulsar that
we worked out some time ago.

You're diverging and speculating.


Again, that is what I have been telling you.

But George, the bunching effect doesn't have to be in the same proportion.

Yes it does Henry - you said you were "thoroughly
aware of what a Fourier series can produce" so you
should already know that.

I have described my model George.
It works.
Individual photons DO NOT have to change in the same way as the bunching
pattern....but the phasing is the same.

I say this is purely a numbers effect.... Do you thnk there is
interference
between individual photons making up a beam?

As I say, that's much more complex and since it
only applies in ballistic theory, I would have to
guess, but consider two photons in a laser beam
that partially overlap. If they are moving at
slightly different speeds, they will drift between
constructive and destructive interference as they
propagate until they move far enough to cease to
overlap.

yes we could speculate about such happenings..

No, the principle works for an individual photon.
Again bear in mind that individual photons are
deflected from a grating at the same angle as the
macroscopic waves.

Well, there are many ways that can be interpreted.

Not really, it is a simple fact that the probability
of single photon landing at some point on a screen
depends on its frequency (or wavelength).

I would like to see a better explanation.



Yes you did, you said an RF CW signal was actually
amplitude modulated white light. The frequencies in
white light are many orders higher than RF.

I said this COULD BE done. An RF signal can be made by modulating white
light.

********. Get your brain in gear Henry, think
about the Fourier transform of modulated light
and that of a CW signal.

I didn't say it could be detected with a tuned circuit...although I'm not sure
it couldn't be at UHF.
I said an RF signal could be made. It can be detected optically.

Diffraction angle should be independent of the arrival phases of
individual
photons. Can you not see the possible link between phase randomicity and
reinforcement?

I can't see how you think that can explain why
each _individual_ photon is diffracted by the
angle.

Single photons form the same diffraction pattern that a beam of them
would.

Exactly what I said above Henry. You do like to
waste time, don't you.

Because you claimed this means the bunching pattern must be the same as the
individual photon shift.

beam from a grating.

Just as I said....

No, what you said several times was "There are NO
sidebands!". Do I need to dig up the quotes?

YOU said the grating would be sensitive to only the beam wavelength and
NOT the
modulation wavelength.

Exactly. If you modulate frequency fc with fm, you
get three components at fc-fm, fc and fc+fm and
when you shine that on a grating you see three
reflected lines

Have you changed your mind.

No, but you have. You previously said there were
NO sidebands (your emphasis) and now you agree not
only that there _are_ sidebands but they can be
separated from the carrier with a grating.

Sometimes I wonder if we're talking about the same things.

Each of the three resulting beams is itself
monochromatic at fc-fm, fc and fc+fm respectively.

How can you prove that?

I showed you the equation several times and you can
see from the links on WDM that the industry uses
gratings to confirm the performance of terabit
systems by examinimg the sidebands.

Above you said:

the observed wavelength IS also
the individual photon wavelengh.

which is correct, so the photons in the lower sideband
all have a frequency of fc-fm.

That doesn't follow at all.

You said above:

the observed wavelength IS also
the individual photon wavelengh.

and later:

Single photons form the same diffraction pattern
that a beam of them would.

so I'm not saying anything you haven't already
agreed.

You can confirm that by considering what you would
see if you took the extracted sideband of a WDM
channel carrying a single sine wave, shone it on
an echelle and then turned the brightness down
until you saw single photons on a PM tube.

Don't speculate on what MIGHT happen George....

I don't need to, WDM developers test systems by
looking at the spectrum, single photon detection
is a common experiment and heterodyning is used
for very accurate Doppler measurement including
photon counting detectors. It's all done on a
regular basis but there's no fuss at they are all
just mundane tools.

George, what happens in the lab and in outer space are totally different
things.
If white light leaves a remote star at c wrt that star, it has no other light
to worry about and can bunch together or separate without having to worry about
what its individual photons do.

Now if you emit that waveform from an accelerated
source, your Doppler equation applies to each of
the three beams separately. If you then recombine
them by the reverse method and detect it with a
photodiode, you get back the modulation. The
'bunching' of the waves in the modulation is
defined by the Doppler shift formula that was
applied to the three monochromatic beams so there
is a direct mathematical link between individual
photon Doppler and the pulse bunching formula. If
you want the sine waves in the modulation to move
at c+v, the photons must have the Doppler shift
corresponding to the bunching formula so they must
be fully compressible.

George, this conclusion is based on too many assumptions.

No assumptions, just a series of steps all of
which are well known.

I understand what you are saying but I don't accept a word of it. It is
pure
speculation. However I agree that investigation of side band diffraction
might
be able to tell us something interesting about the nature of photons.

Not really, if you modulate a fine line with a
clean sine wave, you get three monochromatic lines.
Extract any one and it is no different to any other
monochromatic source.

Well this is all very interesting stuff but it is not related to the main
discussion.



We have analysed the pulsars and we derived results
from observations. It's one of the few areas where
we were able to work through and reach agreement.
The mathematical link from considering the effect
on sidebands tells us that photon Doppler must be
the same as macroscopic bunching formula.

George, why do you always jump to outrageous conclusions when other
possible
explanations are obvious?

Because I studied maths to a level that lets me
use it to reach such conclusions while you still
think these aspects are unconnected.

I have a degree in applied maths George. However I DO tend to avoid maths if I
can see the answer anyway.

As I said above, we are not in a lab. We are dealing with white light from a
remote star... or pair of stars. None of your Fourier analysis or classical
wave stuff applies.

That doesn't conflict with any of the observations
or experiments and is directly derivable from
ballistic theory, it only disagrees with your
'concept' of photon being like springs.

No,

You seen all the maths above, and you claimed you
were familiar with Fourier so you shouldn't even
need me pointing it out.

...
Give some thought to the terabit WDM spectrum and
perhaps you will start to follow. At some point I
expect you to say "wait a minute, that's impossible"
for one specific reason and when you do I'll know
you've grasped the implications. In fact that aspect
is not only possible but the basis of the technology,
but I'm sure you'l argue it can't happen nonetheless.

I understand this is a relatively new technique.

It is a new application but the techniques fundamentally
the same as the earliest telephone trunk connections
where many conversations were sent down a single cable
using frequency division multiplexing.

well it might be one of your pet subjects but it has no relevance to brightness
curves that are predicted by BaTh.

George




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

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

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:21:00 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 00:18:44 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

I started writing a reply to this post but had network
problems so it's stuck elsewhere. I'll post that tomorrow.

Predictions are indeed important. My program correctly predicts variable
star
curves, using BaTh.

You keep telling me that the luminosity of Cepheids is due
to ADoppler while the velocity curve is VDoppler so have a
look at this page.

I tell you nothing of the sort!!!
I tell you both curves are due to ADoppler but the velocity curve does not have
the same degree of change. That idea is very simple George.

X = Y/K

It is purely illustrative, drawn as graphs
in Excel and not real data. I just want you to get the idea.
The acceleration is constant for two periods with a raised
joining them. The velocity and radius are just the integrals
of course:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...lustrative.png

Compare that with this:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

I'm sure you can see that the velocity curve is the same in
both, just inverted. You will find the radius curve matches
that shown in other Cepheid documents we looked at though
I can't find the reference at the moment.

Now tell me, does the luminosity curve he

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

match the acceleration (ADoppler) or the velocity (VDoppler)
from he

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...lustrative.png

You're not making sense George. What the hell are those three graphs?
They aren't cepheid curves.

George




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

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

On Jun 12, 1:20 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:21:00 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

It is purely illustrative, drawn as graphs
in Excel and not real data. I just want you to get the idea.
The acceleration is constant for two periods with a raised
joining them. The velocity and radius are just the integrals
of course:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...lustrative.png

Compare that with this:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

I'm sure you can see that the velocity curve is the same in
both, just inverted. You will find the radius curve matches
that shown in other Cepheid documents we looked at though
I can't find the reference at the moment.

Now tell me, does the luminosity curve he

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

match the acceleration (ADoppler) or the velocity (VDoppler)
from he

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...lustrative.png

You're not making sense George. What the hell are those
three graphs? They aren't cepheid curves.

As George plainly stated, his are illustrative curves, not
taken from actual data.

However, if you DO take actual radial velocity data and
differentiate to get acceleration curves, and integrate
to get radius versus time curves, you might figure out
what his curves are supposed to represent and their
relevance to the present discussion.

To anybody with even a modicum of mathematical background
beyond algebra, the meaning of his curves is obvious.

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 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:32:59 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jun 12, 1:20 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:21:00 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

It is purely illustrative, drawn as graphs
in Excel and not real data. I just want you to get the idea.
The acceleration is constant for two periods with a raised
joining them. The velocity and radius are just the integrals
of course:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...lustrative.png

Compare that with this:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

I'm sure you can see that the velocity curve is the same in
both, just inverted. You will find the radius curve matches
that shown in other Cepheid documents we looked at though
I can't find the reference at the moment.

Now tell me, does the luminosity curve he

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg

match the acceleration (ADoppler) or the velocity (VDoppler)
from he

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...lustrative.png

You're not making sense George. What the hell are those
three graphs? They aren't cepheid curves.

As George plainly stated, his are illustrative curves, not
taken from actual data.

However, if you DO take actual radial velocity data and
differentiate to get acceleration curves, and integrate
to get radius versus time curves, you might figure out
what his curves are supposed to represent and their
relevance to the present discussion.

To anybody with even a modicum of mathematical background
beyond algebra, the meaning of his curves is obvious.

Jerry

Quite obviously neither you nor George has the faintest idea of the BaTh and
how it produces brightness curves.

The typical luminosity curve of a cepheid, as shown in
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg
is 100% ADoppler derived using an eccentricity of around 0.25 and a yaw angle
of 60-70.

We can assume the velocity curve has about the same shape and phase as the
brightness curve but with a smaller percentage change.... due to my K factor.
That is, if the photon density increases by 1% due to ADoppler bunching then
individual photons in that bunch also shrink due to ADoppler but by only 1/K %.

It must be understood that by 'velocity curve' I mean that which is calculated
from the observed wavelengths using a grating and the conventional VDoppler
equation. It bears no similarity to the true source velocity curve.
Hence the gross errors in many velocity estimates throughout the whole of
astronomy.



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

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