Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Jun 18, 5:39 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:18:16 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jun 17, 9:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Because anything periodic will have a definite number of
cycles in a unit of time.
The time unit used will have to be defined to suit the
periodicity.

You are therefore claiming that Fourier Analysis is worthless
for the analysis of practically any form of real data, which
are not generated as the sum of pure sine and cosine series.

Try again.

It is possible to express any curve or section of a curve in
terms of sines and cosines, including phase relationships.....
but frankly I don't see the point if the curve is not periodic.

Then you lack knowledge and imagination. Just for example:

Deconvolution is best performed in the frequency domain, where
the complex algorithms for removing the effects of blurring due
to a point spread function turn into simple matrix multiplication.
The PSF in the spatial domain becomes an optical transfer
function in the frequency domain, etc.
http://quarktet.com/GallerySignature.html

Since photographs are not periodic, there is a problem with edge
effects, but methods are available for dealing with them.

....and YES, there IS a section of my medical imagery textbook
that touches on the subject. Even -medical students- learn more
about this than you.

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 20 Jun, 00:39, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:12:43 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article .com,
Edward Green wrote:

On Jun 17, 10:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:06:53 -0700, Edward Green
wrote:
Because anything periodic will have a definite number of cycles in a unit of
time.

I suppose we can say that.

The time unit used will have to be defined to suit the periodicity.

If you mean that any periodic function will have time intervals in
which it goes through a whole number of cycles, that is true. But it
is not necessary that any two periodic functions have any common
interval in which they both go through a whole number of cycles: in
particular, if two functions whose periods are related by a factor of
sqrt(2) had a common period, that would imply sqrt(2) could be
expressed as a ratio of whole numbers, which is false.

Henri is probably confusing Fourier series with Fourier transforms.

I'm not confusing anything. I don't even want to discusss fourier transforms or
series here because it is quite irrelevant to the argument.

henry waishes to ignore the subject because it defines
the value of his "K" constant and eliminates his silly
hand-waving.

George has made the claim that when and if a monochromatic light beam is
amplitude modulated, two side bands will result.

George has provided documents on terabit WDM spectra
that illustrate such sidebands and on components that
the use of sidebands measurements to define performance
so their existence is not in question. Nor is the fact
that channels and sidebands are routinely extracted
from the multi-channel optical signal by gratings and
one of the components mentioned was such a grating
designed specifically for that task in a WDM system.

George then claims that the
side bands will consist of monochromatic photons. ....as proved with single
photon diffraction by gratings.

Individual photon detection of low intensity light
reflected from a grating is a common udergraduate
experiment.

I challenge this claim.

Henry has produced nothing that casts any doubt on
the information (not 'claims') that I have supplied.

While a Fourier series indeed must be applied to an integral number of
periods of an arbitrary periodic wave form (as Henri repeatedly
claims), the Fourier transform has no such limitation. The Fourier
transform can be applied to any function, periodic as well as
non-periodic. What the Fourier transform basically does is to
transform a function from the "time domain" to the "frequency domain".
There's an inverse Fourier transform too, which transforms it back
from the "frequency domain" to the "time domain".

There's a particularly popular numeric implementation of the Fourier
transform called the FFT - the Fast Fourier Transform.

One way of implementing e.g. a low pass filter would be to FFT a
signal to the frequency domain, zero out all function values abouve
some threshold frequency, and then inverse-FFT it back to the time
domain. Today's DSP's can do that -- in real time -- and obtain
filter characteristicts much better controlled than the old analog
way, with resistors, capacitors and coils.

No problem...

Of course there is no problem, it is a method used
in many modern products, but it refutes Henry's claim
that signals to be processed had to be composed of
harmonics of the sampling frequency.

For whatever connection this has with the fixed stars: frankly, I
haven't been following the thread!

It wouldn't have helped much, there is little connection
with anything else in the thread. Henry went off on a
tangent trying to change the subject.

George

On Jun 19, 11:17 pm, Jerry wrote:

The restoration of the
penguin imag ewas especially notable, since the restored image
shows up the grid used to reduce scattered X-rays, and I could
detect no trace of the grid on the originalimage.

So thats what that grid is! I will add that tidbit to the caption.

On Jun 20, 9:38 am, JimAtQuarktet wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:17 pm, Jerry wrote:

The restoration of the
penguin image was especially notable, since the restored image
shows up the grid used to reduce scattered X-rays, and I could
detect no trace of the grid on the original image.

So thats what that grid is! I will add that tidbit to the
caption.

Yes. Without a grid, a spot on the X-ray film receives not
only direct rays coming in a straight line from the X-ray tube,
but also rays scattered by passage through the body. The result
is a haze that reduces contrast.

A grid consists of thin strips of lead glued together with strips
of aluminum forming a sort of "Venetian blind" that blocks the
indirect scattered X-rays. Usually two layers are stacked together
at right angles to make a criss-cross.

In trauma centers, grids with parallel strips of lead are used,
since you never know exactly what you're going to need to X-ray
next. Otherwise, grids with non-parallel strips are used which
are optimized for a particular focal distance.

The following includes a neat animated gif:
http://www.mitaya.co.jp/grid-QA-1e.htm
http://www.mitaya.co.jp/sanransen.gif

Jerry

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:26:09 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:27:41 +0100, "George Dishman"
The theory fits as long as you realise that only
VDoppler is measured in any of the three scenarios
we have tested. The question of the 'K' factor is
actually unimportant because it only affects the
ADoppler part and that is reduced to negligible
levels by speed equalisation. The whole 'K' topic
is a red herring.

George, you refuse to even try to understand the BaTh model and keep
raving about standard wave theory.

That is because everything you have said about your
ideas is classical. The actual theory is only two
equations which apply to the speed of the classical
waves. You have waved your hands about photon
compression but even that treats each photon as a
packet of waves and the speed equations of your
theory still apply.

You should distinguish between changes in speed during travel and changes
in
source speed during emission.

I do, that's why there are two equations. What does
that have to do with the fact that your model is
purely classical?

I can't help you any more.

If you ever provide a set of equations addressing a
probabalistic approach to photons then I am ready to
listen, but don't try the old trick of berating
someone for not grasping something you have _never_
presented, I'm far too old a hand at this lark to be
caught that way.

George, I have presented my perfectly sound model many times.

No, you used to present a sound model but when I
pointed out you had made an error in the maths you
invented a silly self-contradictory version rather
than fix the error.

You refuse to
even acknowledge it.

Rubbish, I have told you why it is self-contradictory
many times.

No, they actually behave as QED says they do, but
if you want photons in a _ballistic_ theory to
behave in a way "that fits the data" then individual
photons _will_ have to change frequency by exactly
the same factor as the bunching.

This is nonsense George. You have absolutely no evidence for that.

Of course I do, the sidebands of any optical system
prove it, and just to keep you happy I even showed
you the terabit systems where a comb of frequaencies
covers a broad band - essentially "white" light.

There are no side bands when white light is modulated.

Sorry Henry, modualtion sidebands are a fact of life
with which all comms engineers are familiar.

I have plenty of evidence that this doesn't happen.

No, you have shouted it lots of times but never
presented any evidence at all. Your claims about
Cepheid curves are blatantly wrong.

My simulated curves are invariably almost exact.

I'm not talking about your curves, I am talking
about what is measured. The measured luminosity
curve is a match for the differentiated radius
(which is the same as the radial velocity) but
is nothing like the second derivative.

You simply cannot tolerate the truth.

I simply can differentiate, you apparently cannot.

Interstellar light is ballistic.

Expect ann your analyses have shown it to have
no ADoppler whatsoever, which would be the
indicator of what you claim.

George, I know you aren't as stupid as you are making out.

Quite the opposite, the problem is that you can't
understand how to use sidebands to determine the
Doppler shift of photons while I can.

But you are using the wrong model...the classical one.

Your model _is_ classical.

you should understand how 'photon bunching' occurs. You should be able
to
see
that what individual photons do is not governed by the bunching itself.

Not entirely, but noting that modulation of a
monochromatic source produces sidebands which
can be extracted with a grating provides the
link.

I don't think it tells you anything.

It does with some thought but it isn't obvious.
Still, that's what science is about, conclusions
must sometimes be drawn from a chain of evidence,
not just single items.

...and I think the experiment involved beating, not modulating...

Nope, beating is addition, modulation is
multiplication. Beating does not create sidebands.

George, the wavelengths of photons in a bunched section of starlight is
just
that, the wavelengths of those photons. It is essentially in phase with
the
bunching and is maybe proportional to the amount of bunching ....but it
is not
directly connected to the inter movement of photons.

I have explained repeatedly that you do the proof
with a monochromatic source. You can then extrapolate
to white light if you wish but it adds no new
information.

When light is emitted by an accelerating source, photons will continue to
move
relatively as they travel. This movement is virtually uninhibited apart
from a
small and separate unifying factor involving very long distances.

The 'ends' of individual photons start out with similar differences in
speeds
but this movement is quickly dissipated by internal 'damping'.

There is no point in repeating hand-waving that is
incompatible with ballistic theory Henry, I have
pointed out dozens of times that the speed of
pulses of a modulated signal would not be c+v if
that were true. Do the analysis and see for yourself.

If a certain orbiting star emitted monochromatic light, its brightness
would
appear to vary cyclically due to photon bunching, The doppler shift of its
light would also appear to vary cyclically in the same phase but by a much
smaller amount.

Nope, by exactly the same amount.

What the distant observer sees is the colour of the individual photons. If
he
applies VDopler equations to calculate source velocities, he will usually
be a
long way out.

Comparing the derivative of the radius with the Doppler
derived velocity shows that the numbers are accurate.

It doesn't, it is deflected in three beams, one at the
carrier frequency and two at the sidebands. This is
how components like optical modulators are tested.

There are NO side bands with white light George.

The industry measures the quality of optical components
in the same way RF engineers do, by measuring sidebands,
only they are extracted using gratings. You can bleat
all you like but telling me things don't exist when I
know that they are the basis of those measurements is
a waste of time.

You are raving again.

Sorry Henry, you are telling me an entire industry
cannot exist - tell it to the marines as they say.

George, please provide the equations that describe the 'side bands' when
white
light is modulated by a 1 mhz signal.




Here it is again (frequencies are angular of course to
reduce the line length by omitting the 2 pi factors):

sin(fc.t)*(1+M*sin(fm.t)) = sin(fc.t)+M/2*(cos((fc-fm).t)-cos(((fc
+fm).t))

where fm is the modulating frequency and fc is any
frequency component of the white light.


..and this is not related to ADoppler bunching...

Yes it is, it tells you the ADoppler equation
directly from the postulate that the speed of
pulsed energy is c+v.

George, if you want to fiddle around with silly equations that are not
related
to the movement of photons in a c+v light beam then go ahead.

Those "silly equations" _are_ ballistic theory Henry,
your hand-waving is just worthless philosophising.

I suppose you
also reckon the lengths of cars on a highway can be fourier analysed
too.

Not quite, but daily traffic flow could be, and the
link you are missing is that the 'intrisic frequency'
of photons in sidebands is the same as the frequency
of the sideband. Translating that into your cars
means that the length of the cars changes in the
same proportion as the gap between them. It's a wierd
analogy but you chose it.

That is quite the opposite of my analogy.

Yes Henry, but it correctly reflect ballistic theory
while your version contradicts it.

d(gap length)/(d(car length)=K(t)

I will use my computer program. It shows me exactly how the movement
takes
place.

It may tell you what you want (though I haven't figured
out why you want it) but it doesn't represent how light
behaves when it is modulated.

George you have no evidence that individual 'monochromatic' photons are
responsible for the side bands of modulated monochromatic light.

Of course we have Henry, photomultiplier experiments
with low intensity monochromatic sources and gratings
where individual photons are detected are hardly new.
I've shown you images and videos of them on the web
already.

You are applying classical wave theory and have no 'particle model' for
light
at all.

Deterministic particles are _classical_ Henry. You
have no theory that incorporates the probabilistic
nature of Quantum Mechanics so your theory is entirely
classical.

Yes so, light behaves as if it was in a perfect vacuum
with 'strange things' like refractive index being
entirely explainable as the interactions with matter.

Light behaves 100% ballistically below the WDT.

I guess WDT=0 then because it just never shows up in
any measurement.

Intergallactic and most interstellar light travels through 'empty' space
and is
ballistic.

Except that you have shown that its speed gets equalised
to c within an upper bound of light minute or so for
pulsars and something probably comparable for contact
binaries. In fact you have shown that neither of those
shows _any_ hint of ballistic motion, and when you get
round to thinking seriously about Cepheids, you will
find the same is true for them.

Most star brightness variation is a direct consequence of the 'c+v
bunching' of photons.
The evidence is plainly there.

Then present some because to date all your claims have
turned out to prove exactly the opposite when considered
in detail.

....
All pulses move at different speeds, just as cars do on a race track,
the
fast
ones catch the slower ones. Bunching occurs. The car lengths aren't
affected.
I modify this to say photons DO change lengths but only slightly.

And I point out that the known behaviour of
sidebands of monochromatic light requires the
ratio of gap to length to remain fixed.

You have no evidence for that.

a) Photomultipler tube + grating + low intensity source.

b) Sidebands in optical communications which behave
normally with gratings.

Taken together, they provide the proof.

....
No "Henry", I don't believe you at all. Do you
deny that you claimed the forged certificate was
your qualification? I wasn't party to the original
discussion but you haven't denied the accusation
and there's no question it is faked.

Both certificates are my qualifications.

Then just tell me why the name has been faked?

George, I have been quietly amused by this prolonged 'inquisition'.
Do you have little crawly, paper eating insects called 'silverfish' in
the UK?
They are everywhere here and are hard to eradicate.
Over time, they can do terrible damage to all kinds cellulose products
like art
works and important documents...which often need restoration...usually
imperfect.

I see, so you have particulary picky silverfish that
eat only gourmet signatures? If you are telling the
truth, show an undoctored closeup of the original.

That isn't a "restored" document in the jpeg, it
is a photograph of an apparently undamaged document
which has been altered with a crude graphic program
like MS Paint.

I don't give a stuff who believes it
or who doesn't. I'm not trying to get a job.

They wouldn't do you any good since you obviously
don't understand basic maths any more. I'm rusty
myself but nothing like the problems you are having.

I don't seem to be suffering in any way...

Other than being incapable of doing basic calculus?

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

You have got to be joking! How can writing a program
that took seconds to get a crude estimate be better
than a single line that gives a perfect analytical
answer?

It wasn't a crude estimate.
The sum of a GP to infinity is exact.

Your computer doesn't calculate infinite steps.



'Rusty'? or completely corroded?

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...d66b5674ca019d

the Google link collapsed the lines, sorry for
the formatting mess from now on

I merely used te approximation c+v=
1/(c-v)....which is pretty close
for all practical situations as youwill
no
doubt agree. The
program runs more quickly with my equation than with an
exponential.Everything you say just emphasises that you have
noidea about basic maths. That must be why I can't write
programs like this: If Option1.Value = True Then
molecV1 = tempfac * (Int((830 / ((Rnd * 100) + 1))) - 8)
'molecular velocities - mean velocity= 30*tempfac x c If Rnd
0.5 Then sinechange = -molecV1 Else sinechange = molecV1 End
If Yone = vone * velocity(r) * Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw)
'include YAW angle in radial velocity component Tat(r)
= (DoverC / (1 + sinechange - Yone)) + (PP * r) 'travel time
plus starting lag, inner star 'seenvel(r) = Yone
'true source velocity towards observer If Tat(r)
Tmin Then Tmin = Tat(r) If Tat(r) Tmax Then Tmax =
Tat(r) If velratio 0 Then If overt = False
Then 'no overtone Ytwo = velocity(r) * Vtwo *
Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw) If lag = 0 Then'lag =
Clag Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + sinechange + Ytwo))
+ (PP *r) 'travel time plus starting lag, outer star. one
orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat If Tbt(r) Tmin Then
Tmin = Tbt(r) If Tbt(r) Tmax Then Tmax =
Tbt(r) 'Maximum light travel time over 1 orbit
Else 'Ylag = Cos(Vangle(r + xlag) - (pimod * yaw)) Tbt(r)
= (DoverC / (1 + sinechange + (velocity((r + Xlag) Mod
(points - 1)) * Ylag * Vtwo))) + (PP * r) If
Tbt(r) lagmin Then lagmin = Tbt(r) If Tbt(r)
lagmax Then lagmax = Tbt(r) End IfIt is
exactly why you have to write appalling code likethat instead of a
single line analytic solution.

Sorry about the line length
problem.

No problem just Usenet.

It was just an example. ..not related
to GPs or anything else we have been discussing.

Indeed, but my point was that while you wrote a program
to calculate the time taken by simulating the motion of
a light pulse one light day at a time, I could show that
the result was

t = d/c - vR/c^2

and that one line would give a more accurate answer
than your iterative approximation.

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

Real
curves don't have sharp discontinuities like the ones you have
drawn.

Exactly, but if you take the second derivative of the radius,
you _do_ get such sudden changes, almost discontinuites, so
that is what ADOppler would look like. The reality is that
luminosity curves are sawtooth shapes which are fairly close
to the first derivative which would be VDoppler in ballistic
theory.

My program shows how individual
photons move relatively and bunch together. I even include the
altermnative method that you described. You must have complete
faith in it George.Yep, that part is fine. Apply the same
equation forthe velocity and your program will be right.

George, think of photons as like coil springs.

No Henry, think of photomultiplier experiments. Better than
that, note that Cepheid curves match the first derivative of
the radius, not the second derivative(assuming you still
remember how to differentiate).

....
Wrong again, even for your hand-waving. I
won'ttell you the correct answer, if you really hada degree
you could show the complete derivationand you couldn't prove the
above keeping a speedof c+v no matter how you tackle it.
Forget your classical wave stuff George. This is BaTh.BaTh is
'classical wave stuff' Henry, you have neveroffered anything _but_
classical theories. You livein Newton's deterministic "clockwork
universe" so itis all totally classical.

Classical wave theory failed to explain the particle nature
of light 100years ago George. I have a model - backed by
evidence - that brings the two theories together.

You describe your "particles" as nothing more than bursts of
waves, and your theory is still completely deterministic, not
probabilistic, so it is still entirely classical and my classical
criticism is therefore still valid.

George

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:42:45 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jun 18, 5:39 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:18:16 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jun 17, 9:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Because anything periodic will have a definite number of
cycles in a unit of time.
The time unit used will have to be defined to suit the
periodicity.

You are therefore claiming that Fourier Analysis is worthless
for the analysis of practically any form of real data, which
are not generated as the sum of pure sine and cosine series.

Try again.

It is possible to express any curve or section of a curve in
terms of sines and cosines, including phase relationships.....
but frankly I don't see the point if the curve is not periodic.

Then you lack knowledge and imagination. Just for example:

Deconvolution is best performed in the frequency domain, where
the complex algorithms for removing the effects of blurring due
to a point spread function turn into simple matrix multiplication.
The PSF in the spatial domain becomes an optical transfer
function in the frequency domain, etc.
http://quarktet.com/GallerySignature.html

Since photographs are not periodic, there is a problem with edge
effects, but methods are available for dealing with them.

...and YES, there IS a section of my medical imagery textbook
that touches on the subject. Even -medical students- learn more
about this than you.

If I wanted to learn about it I would...but frankly, I'm not particularly
interested because it is not related to anything I am working on.


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




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

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

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:43:33 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 20 Jun, 00:39, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:12:43 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article .com,

Henri is probably confusing Fourier series with Fourier transforms.

I'm not confusing anything. I don't even want to discusss fourier transforms or
series here because it is quite irrelevant to the argument.

henry waishes to ignore the subject because it defines
the value of his "K" constant and eliminates his silly
hand-waving.

It says nothing about K.

George has made the claim that when and if a monochromatic light beam is
amplitude modulated, two side bands will result.

George has provided documents on terabit WDM spectra
that illustrate such sidebands and on components that
the use of sidebands measurements to define performance
so their existence is not in question. Nor is the fact
that channels and sidebands are routinely extracted
from the multi-channel optical signal by gratings and
one of the components mentioned was such a grating
designed specifically for that task in a WDM system.

Irrelevant to the subject.

George then claims that the
side bands will consist of monochromatic photons. ....as proved with single
photon diffraction by gratings.

Individual photon detection of low intensity light
reflected from a grating is a common udergraduate
experiment.

I challenge this claim.

Henry has produced nothing that casts any doubt on
the information (not 'claims') that I have supplied.

I challenged your claim that you have proof that sidebands produced in this way
consist of identical photons of the same 'wavelength'.
Whether or not it is true is beside the point. It makes no difference to my
BaTh photon model nor to BaTh predicted brightness and velocity curves.


One way of implementing e.g. a low pass filter would be to FFT a
signal to the frequency domain, zero out all function values abouve
some threshold frequency, and then inverse-FFT it back to the time
domain. Today's DSP's can do that -- in real time -- and obtain
filter characteristicts much better controlled than the old analog
way, with resistors, capacitors and coils.

No problem...

Of course there is no problem, it is a method used
in many modern products, but it refutes Henry's claim
that signals to be processed had to be composed of
harmonics of the sampling frequency.

For whatever connection this has with the fixed stars: frankly, I
haven't been following the thread!

It wouldn't have helped much, there is little connection
with anything else in the thread. Henry went off on a
tangent trying to change the subject.

George introduced Fourier transforms because it is something he works with and
knows something about. He was completely out of his depth discussing physics
and had to resort to diversionary tactics.

George



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

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

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:12:35 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:26:09 +0100, "George Dishman"



You should distinguish between changes in speed during travel and changes
in
source speed during emission.

I do, that's why there are two equations. What does
that have to do with the fact that your model is
purely classical?

rubbish


I can't help you any more.

If you ever provide a set of equations addressing a
probabalistic approach to photons then I am ready to
listen, but don't try the old trick of berating
someone for not grasping something you have _never_
presented, I'm far too old a hand at this lark to be
caught that way.

George, I have presented my perfectly sound model many times.

No, you used to present a sound model but when I
pointed out you had made an error in the maths you
invented a silly self-contradictory version rather
than fix the error.

rubbish

to
even acknowledge it.

Rubbish, I have told you why it is self-contradictory
many times.

No, they actually behave as QED says they do, but
if you want photons in a _ballistic_ theory to
behave in a way "that fits the data" then individual
photons _will_ have to change frequency by exactly
the same factor as the bunching.

This is nonsense George. You have absolutely no evidence for that.

Of course I do, the sidebands of any optical system
prove it, and just to keep you happy I even showed
you the terabit systems where a comb of frequaencies
covers a broad band - essentially "white" light.

There are no side bands when white light is modulated.

Sorry Henry, modualtion sidebands are a fact of life
with which all comms engineers are familiar.

George, tell me all about the side bands when sunlight is amplitude modulated
at 1mhz.



I have plenty of evidence that this doesn't happen.

No, you have shouted it lots of times but never
presented any evidence at all. Your claims about
Cepheid curves are blatantly wrong.

My simulated curves are invariably almost exact.

I'm not talking about your curves, I am talking
about what is measured. The measured luminosity
curve is a match for the differentiated radius
(which is the same as the radial velocity) but
is nothing like the second derivative.

It is a match of the photon density arrival rate.

You simply cannot tolerate the truth.

I simply can differentiate, you apparently cannot.

I don't have to. The computer does it all and prints out the answers.

Interstellar light is ballistic.

Expect ann your analyses have shown it to have
no ADoppler whatsoever, which would be the
indicator of what you claim.

You haven't been drinking have you George?

George, I know you aren't as stupid as you are making out.

Quite the opposite, the problem is that you can't
understand how to use sidebands to determine the
Doppler shift of photons while I can.

But you are using the wrong model...the classical one.

Your model _is_ classical.

My model is Wilsonian 'frontier-of-science' stuff..

you should understand how 'photon bunching' occurs. You should be able
to
see
that what individual photons do is not governed by the bunching itself.

Not entirely, but noting that modulation of a
monochromatic source produces sidebands which
can be extracted with a grating provides the
link.

I don't think it tells you anything.

It does with some thought but it isn't obvious.
Still, that's what science is about, conclusions
must sometimes be drawn from a chain of evidence,
not just single items.

You never seem to come to any conclusions.

...and I think the experiment involved beating, not modulating...

Nope, beating is addition, modulation is
multiplication. Beating does not create sidebands.

As I read it, the experiment involves beating a UHF microwave signal with
monochromatic light. The beat frequency was then used as an indirect measure of
the light's 'frequency'.


When light is emitted by an accelerating source, photons will continue to
move
relatively as they travel. This movement is virtually uninhibited apart
from a
small and separate unifying factor involving very long distances.

The 'ends' of individual photons start out with similar differences in
speeds
but this movement is quickly dissipated by internal 'damping'.

There is no point in repeating hand-waving that is
incompatible with ballistic theory Henry, I have
pointed out dozens of times that the speed of
pulses of a modulated signal would not be c+v if
that were true. Do the analysis and see for yourself.

The speed of a pulse is the mean speed of its component parts. If the velocity
differences between ends is dampened out, that makes absolutely no difference
to the mean speed.

If a certain orbiting star emitted monochromatic light, its brightness
would
appear to vary cyclically due to photon bunching, The doppler shift of its
light would also appear to vary cyclically in the same phase but by a much
smaller amount.

Nope, by exactly the same amount.

According to your completely inadequate classical wave theory YES.
According to MY theory, backed by evidence, NNNNNNOOOOOO!


What the distant observer sees is the colour of the individual photons. If
he
applies VDopler equations to calculate source velocities, he will usually
be a
long way out.

Comparing the derivative of the radius with the Doppler
derived velocity shows that the numbers are accurate.

For pulsars and contact binaries, yes. We both know why.
For single stars, NO, for reasons I know but YOU refuse to acknowledge.


You are raving again.

Sorry Henry, you are telling me an entire industry
cannot exist - tell it to the marines as they say.

George, please provide the equations that describe the 'side bands' when
white
light is modulated by a 1 mhz signal.




Here it is again (frequencies are angular of course to
reduce the line length by omitting the 2 pi factors):

sin(fc.t)*(1+M*sin(fm.t)) = sin(fc.t)+M/2*(cos((fc-fm).t)-cos(((fc
+fm).t))

where fm is the modulating frequency and fc is any
frequency component of the white light.

Hahahahohohohho!

Brilliant George. You managed to convert white light into white light...or
maybe 'white noise'.


Not quite, but daily traffic flow could be, and the
link you are missing is that the 'intrisic frequency'
of photons in sidebands is the same as the frequency
of the sideband. Translating that into your cars
means that the length of the cars changes in the
same proportion as the gap between them. It's a wierd
analogy but you chose it.

That is quite the opposite of my analogy.

Yes Henry, but it correctly reflect ballistic theory
while your version contradicts it.

You don't even understand the model so how can you comment.




George you have no evidence that individual 'monochromatic' photons are
responsible for the side bands of modulated monochromatic light.

Of course we have Henry, photomultiplier experiments
with low intensity monochromatic sources and gratings
where individual photons are detected are hardly new.
I've shown you images and videos of them on the web
already.

You haven't seen any that show individual photons from 'side bands'.

You are applying classical wave theory and have no 'particle model' for
light
at all.

Deterministic particles are _classical_ Henry. You
have no theory that incorporates the probabilistic
nature of Quantum Mechanics so your theory is entirely
classical.

Hahahahohohohhawhaw!

Probability doesn't work too well for a sample size of unity George.


Intergallactic and most interstellar light travels through 'empty' space
and is
ballistic.

Except that you have shown that its speed gets equalised
to c within an upper bound of light minute or so for
pulsars and something probably comparable for contact
binaries. In fact you have shown that neither of those
shows _any_ hint of ballistic motion, and when you get
round to thinking seriously about Cepheids, you will
find the same is true for them.

George, we simulated pulsar behavior perfectly. Have you forgotten?

Most star brightness variation is a direct consequence of the 'c+v
bunching' of photons.
The evidence is plainly there.

Then present some because to date all your claims have
turned out to prove exactly the opposite when considered
in detail.

I have shown you a sample of my curves. EF Dra was an unintentional error but
that truned out to be OK iun the end.
The plain fact is, nearly every curve of any descrition that describes any
process in the universe can be simulated using BaTh principles.

That includes Einstein's famous UNIQUE (haha) gravitational lensing curve.


And I point out that the known behaviour of
sidebands of monochromatic light requires the
ratio of gap to length to remain fixed.

You have no evidence for that.

a) Photomultipler tube + grating + low intensity source.

b) Sidebands in optical communications which behave
normally with gratings.

Taken together, they provide the proof.

They might if they ever happened....


Then just tell me why the name has been faked?

George, I have been quietly amused by this prolonged 'inquisition'.
Do you have little crawly, paper eating insects called 'silverfish' in
the UK?
They are everywhere here and are hard to eradicate.
Over time, they can do terrible damage to all kinds cellulose products
like art
works and important documents...which often need restoration...usually
imperfect.

I see, so you have particulary picky silverfish that
eat only gourmet signatures? If you are telling the
truth, show an undoctored closeup of the original.

The whole certificate is badly damaged if you care to look. They were both
stuck away in a box for years and the bloody silverfish got at them.

That isn't a "restored" document in the jpeg, it
is a photograph of an apparently undamaged document
which has been altered with a crude graphic program
like MS Paint.

have another look.

I don't give a stuff who believes it
or who doesn't. I'm not trying to get a job.

They wouldn't do you any good since you obviously
don't understand basic maths any more. I'm rusty
myself but nothing like the problems you are having.

I don't seem to be suffering in any way...

Other than being incapable of doing basic calculus?

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

It's obvious what you have tried to do.... and it is wrong.
Cepheid curves are not like that.

You have got to be joking! How can writing a program
that took seconds to get a crude estimate be better
than a single line that gives a perfect analytical
answer?

It wasn't a crude estimate.
The sum of a GP to infinity is exact.

Your computer doesn't calculate infinite steps.



'Rusty'? or completely corroded?

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...d66b5674ca019d

the Google link collapsed the lines, sorry for
the formatting mess from now on

I merely used te approximation c+v=
1/(c-v)....which is pretty close
for all practical situations as youwill
no
doubt agree. The
program runs more quickly with my equation than with an
exponential.Everything you say just emphasises that you have
noidea about basic maths. That must be why I can't write
programs like this: If Option1.Value = True Then
molecV1 = tempfac * (Int((830 / ((Rnd * 100) + 1))) - 8)
'molecular velocities - mean velocity= 30*tempfac x c If Rnd
0.5 Then sinechange = -molecV1 Else sinechange = molecV1 End
If Yone = vone * velocity(r) * Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw)
'include YAW angle in radial velocity component Tat(r)
= (DoverC / (1 + sinechange - Yone)) + (PP * r) 'travel time
plus starting lag, inner star 'seenvel(r) = Yone
'true source velocity towards observer If Tat(r)
Tmin Then Tmin = Tat(r) If Tat(r) Tmax Then Tmax =
Tat(r) If velratio 0 Then If overt = False
Then 'no overtone Ytwo = velocity(r) * Vtwo *
Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw) If lag = 0 Then'lag =
Clag Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + sinechange + Ytwo))
+ (PP *r) 'travel time plus starting lag, outer star. one
orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat If Tbt(r) Tmin Then
Tmin = Tbt(r) If Tbt(r) Tmax Then Tmax =
Tbt(r) 'Maximum light travel time over 1 orbit
Else 'Ylag = Cos(Vangle(r + xlag) - (pimod * yaw)) Tbt(r)
= (DoverC / (1 + sinechange + (velocity((r + Xlag) Mod
(points - 1)) * Ylag * Vtwo))) + (PP * r) If
Tbt(r) lagmin Then lagmin = Tbt(r) If Tbt(r)
lagmax Then lagmax = Tbt(r) End IfIt is
exactly why you have to write appalling code likethat instead of a
single line analytic solution.

Sorry about the line length
problem.

No problem just Usenet.

It was just an example. ..not related
to GPs or anything else we have been discussing.

Indeed, but my point was that while you wrote a program
to calculate the time taken by simulating the motion of
a light pulse one light day at a time, I could show that
the result was

t = d/c - vR/c^2

and that one line would give a more accurate answer
than your iterative approximation.

For one set of values.

My program performs billions of calculations for a wide range of parameter
values and prints out the results in milliseconds.

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

Real
curves don't have sharp discontinuities like the ones you have
drawn.

Exactly, but if you take the second derivative of the radius,
you _do_ get such sudden changes, almost discontinuites, so
that is what ADOppler would look like.

The reality is that
luminosity curves are sawtooth shapes which are fairly close
to the first derivative which would be VDoppler in ballistic
theory.

This is plainly wrong.
The observed curves are indistinguishable from those of Keplerian eliptical
orbits. The radius vector changes sinusoidally. You wont get sharp points no
matter how many times you differentiate its behavior.

My program shows how individual
photons move relatively and bunch together. I even include the
altermnative method that you described. You must have complete
faith in it George.Yep, that part is fine. Apply the same
equation forthe velocity and your program will be right.

George, think of photons as like coil springs.

No Henry, think of photomultiplier experiments. Better than
that, note that Cepheid curves match the first derivative of
the radius, not the second derivative(assuming you still
remember how to differentiate).

Cepheid curves match what happens if light from the star moves towards the
observer at c+v(t), where v(t) describes the instantaneous radial velocity of
the star (in the direction of the observer).

Wrong again, even for your hand-waving. I
won'ttell you the correct answer, if you really hada degree
you could show the complete derivationand you couldn't prove the
above keeping a speedof c+v no matter how you tackle it.
Forget your classical wave stuff George. This is BaTh.BaTh is
'classical wave stuff' Henry, you have neveroffered anything _but_
classical theories. You livein Newton's deterministic "clockwork
universe" so itis all totally classical.

Classical wave theory failed to explain the particle nature
of light 100years ago George. I have a model - backed by
evidence - that brings the two theories together.

You describe your "particles" as nothing more than bursts of
waves, and your theory is still completely deterministic, not
probabilistic, so it is still entirely classical and my classical
criticism is therefore still valid.

It is classical 'ballistic' not classical 'wave'.

George



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

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

On 21 Jun, 00:40, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:43:33 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 20 Jun, 00:39, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:12:43 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article .com,
Henri is probably confusing Fourier series with Fourier transforms.

I'm not confusing anything. I don't even want to discusss fourier transforms or
series here because it is quite irrelevant to the argument.

henry waishes to ignore the subject because it defines
the value of his "K" constant and eliminates his silly
hand-waving.

It says nothing about K.

It tells you the value of K.

George has made the claim that when and if a monochromatic light beam is
amplitude modulated, two side bands will result.

George has provided documents on terabit WDM spectra
that illustrate such sidebands and on components that
the use of sidebands measurements to define performance
so their existence is not in question. Nor is the fact
that channels and sidebands are routinely extracted
from the multi-channel optical signal by gratings and
one of the components mentioned was such a grating
designed specifically for that task in a WDM system.

Irrelevant to the subject.

However, we got there, I have provided the
evidence.

George then claims that the
side bands will consist of monochromatic photons. ....as proved with single
photon diffraction by gratings.

Individual photon detection of low intensity light
reflected from a grating is a common udergraduate
experiment.

I challenge this claim.

Henry has produced nothing that casts any doubt on
the information (not 'claims') that I have supplied.

I challenged your claim that you have proof that sidebands produced in this way
consist of identical photons of the same 'wavelength'.

It wasn't clear which part you were challenging
so I repeated the proof of both.

Whether or not it is true is beside the point.

You chose to challenge it, that was the point.

It makes no difference to my
BaTh photon model nor to BaTh predicted brightness and velocity curves.

It is a source of experimental data which any
viable theory must match. To do that you will
need to have K=1 which affects your ideas
(though not the existing theory because K does
not appear in the equations, only in the hand-
waving).

For whatever connection this has with the fixed stars: frankly, I
haven't been following the thread!

It wouldn't have helped much, there is little connection
with anything else in the thread. Henry went off on a
tangent trying to change the subject.

George introduced Fourier transforms because it is something he works with and
knows something about. He was completely out of his depth discussing physics
and had to resort to diversionary tactics.

George used Fourier analysis over a year ago
to prove Henry was wrong in what he was saying
at that time. Since then Henry corrected the
error but has since re-introduced it for no
known reason. It is Henry who is out of his
depth because he cannot follow the proof.

George

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:56:01 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 21 Jun, 00:40, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:43:33 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

George has made the claim that when and if a monochromatic light beam is
amplitude modulated, two side bands will result.

George has provided documents on terabit WDM spectra
that illustrate such sidebands and on components that
the use of sidebands measurements to define performance
so their existence is not in question. Nor is the fact
that channels and sidebands are routinely extracted
from the multi-channel optical signal by gratings and
one of the components mentioned was such a grating
designed specifically for that task in a WDM system.

Irrelevant to the subject.

However, we got there, I have provided the
evidence.

I haven't seen any...


I challenged your claim that you have proof that sidebands produced in this way
consist of identical photons of the same 'wavelength'.

It wasn't clear which part you were challenging
so I repeated the proof of both.

Whether or not it is true is beside the point.

You chose to challenge it, that was the point.

It makes no difference to my
BaTh photon model nor to BaTh predicted brightness and velocity curves.

It is a source of experimental data which any
viable theory must match. To do that you will
need to have K=1 which affects your ideas
(though not the existing theory because K does
not appear in the equations, only in the hand-
waving).

George, I can't really see the connection between what photons do in modulated
monochromatic light and in 'bunched' white light.

For whatever connection this has with the fixed stars: frankly, I
haven't been following the thread!

It wouldn't have helped much, there is little connection
with anything else in the thread. Henry went off on a
tangent trying to change the subject.

George introduced Fourier transforms because it is something he works with and
knows something about. He was completely out of his depth discussing physics
and had to resort to diversionary tactics.

George used Fourier analysis over a year ago
to prove Henry was wrong in what he was saying
at that time. Since then Henry corrected the
error but has since re-introduced it for no
known reason. It is Henry who is out of his
depth because he cannot follow the proof.

I can follow it...but it is not related to my model or theory.

George



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

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