Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 21 Jun, 12:56, George Dishman wrote:
On 21 Jun, 00:40, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:


Google seems to be broken, Henry's reply is listed
in the thread index around 804 but the text is not
visible so I am copying my reply to my previous post.


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

You have. You have seen both the papers mentioning
the sidebands on WDM which are used for measurement
throughout the industry and the video and stills of
single photon detection.

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.

Each photon has some intrinsic (though frame
dependent) properties such as energy (or
equivalently frequency or wavelength). Whether
it is flying through space with some other
photons nearby each of which has a similar
value of frequency (monochromatic) or whether
its neighbours have a wide spread of values
makes no difference to the individual photon,
it just does its own thing. The behaviour of
monochromatic light can tell you what each does,
and then you just aggregate to understand white
light.

George

On Jun 24, 7:01 am, George Dishman wrote:
On 21 Jun, 12:56, George Dishman wrote:

On 21 Jun, 00:40, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Google seems to be broken, Henry's reply is listed
in the thread index around 804 but the text is not
visible so I am copying my reply to my previous post.

Yes. I see the same thing.

Henri, you'll need to repost.

Jerry

This was posted through Google last week and seems
to have gone missing.

On 21 Jun, 08:26, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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

See the very end of you reply where you finally grasped
what I have been saying and agreed.

I can't help you any more.

If you ever provide a set of equations addressing a
probabilistic 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

Your current model is self-contradictory whereas your
previous one was OK. Your motivation is of course
merely my opinion.

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 frequencies
covers a broad band - essentially "white" light.

There are no side bands when white light is modulated.

Sorry Henry, modulation 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.



The equation was given later in my post. Of course they
are in-band if that's what you are getting at, but they
still exist.

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.

I'll skip some of your comments as they are better
answered later where you discussed specifics.

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?

I think my fingers slipped out for a quick one
when I wasn't looking That should have read
"Except that ..."

[discussing production testing of terabit systems with
gratings - not "an experiment"]

...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.

No, the method involves amplitude modulating a
monochromatic light source. "Beating" in engineering
(and audio) terms means the addition of two waves
of different frequencies while modulating means
multiplying one by a function that includes the
other. They are closely related through trig
identities.

The beat frequency was then used as an indirect measure of
the light's 'frequency'.

No, the modulation is a 60GHz bandwidth microwave
signal containing many channels of data, for
example telephone calls or internet backbone data.
The light is split at the receiving end using a
grating and so that each carrier and its sidebands
go to a separate detector to recover the data. The
data limit is when the upper sideband from one
channel gets too close to the lower sideband from
the next channel, exactly as with adjacent channel
radio stations.

....
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.

And below you finally understand that your theory
is entirely classical.

According to MY theory, backed by evidence, NNNNNNOOOOOO!

Backed by evidence --- NNNNNNOOOOOO!

All the evidence has shown that there is no ADoppler
component in anything we have looked at, it is all
compatible with SR.

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 ..

What are you talking about Henry? we have never
considered the radius of pulsars.

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

For Cepheids, which are the only time we have
considered the stellar radius, yes, they actually
match.

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'.

I wonder if you even know what a sideband is.

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'.

Sidebands are deflected by a different angle from the
carrier by the gratings used to separate channels in
terabit WDM. The images show that the deflection angle
for individual photons is the same as for the beam as
a whole (which one could figure out from common sense
anyway given that the "beam" is just the aggregate of
the individuals).

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.

Yes it does Henry, each photon has a probability
distribution of landing at any location. That's
what makes modern theory different from "classical".

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?

Not at all, we simulated it perfectly and showed the
speed equalisation distance had a very small upper
limit consistent with there being no ADoppler.

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.

Sure, we finally agreed that the luminosity variations
were due to eclipsing because the period was half that
of the velocity curve.

The plain fact is, nearly every curve of any descrition that describes any
process in the universe can be simulated using BaTh principles.

So far contact binaries and pulsars both required a
sufficiently short speed equalisation distance that
any ballistic effects didn't appear and the result
was reduced to an exact match to SR.

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

Nope, Newtonian deflection is half that of GR.

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) Photomultiplier 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....

The first is daily engineering, the latter a common
undergraduate experiment. Both happen regularly.

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 particularly 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.

If you care to provide a better resolution photo or scan
I might believe you.

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 have had several looks and the evidence is strongly in
favour of alteration, the background around the signature
is uniform to the extent of large areas being affected by
'flood fill' while the rest of the document clearly has a
mottled appearance.

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....

At least you are thinking about it now.

and it is wrong.

Differentiate them yourself, you will find they are
correct.

Cepheid curves are not like that.

Compare the bottom plot with this:

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...04-preview.jpg

It looks like a match to me, at least as good as
any you have produced.

The compare the luminosity curve for L Car. with
the other two. I say it matches the middle plot
reasonably well, but more to the point, it doesn't
match the top plot at all. You are claiming Cepheid
curves are ADoppler, but the top plot is the
acceleration and it is NOT a match for L Car's
luminosity.

snip collapsed lines

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.

For each data point instead of your iterative loop
calculating every light day for 4000 light years.

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

You have a teraflop computer? Cool.

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.

It is plainly correct, compare the published curves
as I explained above.

The observed curves are indistinguishable from those of Keplerian eliptical
orbits. The radius vector changes sinusoidally.

The radius vector of an elliptical orbit isn't a sine
wave. The fact that you can mimic the velocity of the
surface of a "huff-puff" star by the acceleration of
a star in a binary system just shows how flexible the
parameterisation is and why a match proves nothing.

You wont get sharp points no
matter how many times you differentiate its behavior.

You claim to have a qualification in applied maths
so do the differentiation yourself, the real curves
are nowhere near sine waves and you do get sharp
transitions. That is why the document I cited
talked of the "light valve" switching on and off.
The transitions are the switching points.

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).

They are a reasonable match for the first derivative of
the radius, which is VDoppler. They are nothing like the
second derivative which would be ADoppler.

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'.

Exactly Henry, it is classical, and your photons are no
more than Planck's early view of quantised wave packets
presented in 1914, hardly anything new.

George

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:07:48 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:


Sorry Henry, modulation 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.



The equation was given later in my post. Of course they
are in-band if that's what you are getting at, but they
still exist.

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.

No, the method involves amplitude modulating a
monochromatic light source. "Beating" in engineering
(and audio) terms means the addition of two waves
of different frequencies while modulating means
multiplying one by a function that includes the
other. They are closely related through trig
identities.

Yes we've already been through this.

The beat frequency was then used as an indirect measure of
the light's 'frequency'.

No, the modulation is a 60GHz bandwidth microwave
signal containing many channels of data, for
example telephone calls or internet backbone data.
The light is split at the receiving end using a
grating and so that each carrier and its sidebands
go to a separate detector to recover the data. The
data limit is when the upper sideband from one
channel gets too close to the lower sideband from
the next channel, exactly as with adjacent channel
radio stations.

I suppose you are referring to two white light side bands, which surely
overlap.

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.

And below you finally understand that your theory
is entirely classical.

rubbish.

According to MY theory, backed by evidence, NNNNNNOOOOOO!

Backed by evidence --- NNNNNNOOOOOO!

All the evidence has shown that there is no ADoppler
component in anything we have looked at, it is all
compatible with SR.

Why do you make these silly remarks George.
My whole approach is to plot changes in photon density due to their different
source speeds. I don't think your definition of ADoppler is the same as mine.

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 ..

What are you talking about Henry? we have never
considered the radius of pulsars.

.....their orbit radius around a barycentre with a companion star.

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

For Cepheids, which are the only time we have
considered the stellar radius, yes, they actually
match.

The radial component is virtually the same as that of an orbiting star in
eliptical orbit with particular ranges of eccentricity and yaw angle.


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'.

I wonder if you even know what a sideband is.

I suppose it is possible to talk about white light sidebands, even if they
almost entirely overlap.

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'.

Sidebands are deflected by a different angle from the
carrier by the gratings used to separate channels in
terabit WDM. The images show that the deflection angle
for individual photons is the same as for the beam as
a whole (which one could figure out from common sense
anyway given that the "beam" is just the aggregate of
the individuals).

I don't believe you can draw that conclusion.



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.

Yes it does Henry, each photon has a probability
distribution of landing at any location. That's
what makes modern theory different from "classical".

It's what makes modern theory quite ridiculous...



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

Not at all, we simulated it perfectly and showed the
speed equalisation distance had a very small upper
limit consistent with there being no ADoppler.

Yes. Pulsars have a strong EM control sphere around them. They are in a very
small orbit so there is no noticeable ADoppler.

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.

Sure, we finally agreed that the luminosity variations
were due to eclipsing because the period was half that
of the velocity curve.

That appears to be true in all cases where alternate troughs are at different
heights. For EF Dra, they are about the same, hence my oversight.

The plain fact is, nearly every curve of any descrition that describes any
process in the universe can be simulated using BaTh principles.

So far contact binaries and pulsars both required a
sufficiently short speed equalisation distance that
any ballistic effects didn't appear and the result
was reduced to an exact match to SR.

This has nothing to do with SR.
My 'EM control spheres' explain everything.

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

Nope, Newtonian deflection is half that of GR.

I don't think so.
I you look up any microlensing article such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_microlensing,
you will see the Einstein 'unique' curve.

It turns out to be exactly matchable with the BaTh. ...it's the brightness
curve of a star in eccentric orbit with yaw 180 (perihelion furthest away).



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....

At least you are thinking about it now.

and it is wrong.

Differentiate them yourself, you will find they are
correct.

Cepheid curves are not like that.

Compare the bottom plot with this:

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...04-preview.jpg

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

....perfect ADoppler curves....yaw angles -50 to -70, eccentricities around
0.25.

It looks like a match to me, at least as good as
any you have produced.

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

If that's not a good match, what is?

The compare the luminosity curve for L Car. with
the other two. I say it matches the middle plot
reasonably well, but more to the point, it doesn't
match the top plot at all. You are claiming Cepheid
curves are ADoppler, but the top plot is the
acceleration and it is NOT a match for L Car's
luminosity.

I think you've lost the plot George.


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

For one set of values.

For each data point instead of your iterative loop
calculating every light day for 4000 light years.

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

You have a teraflop computer? Cool.

Just an Athlon...but it's certainly fast.


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.

It is plainly correct, compare the published curves
as I explained above.

Mine are better. Yours is wrong.

The observed curves are indistinguishable from those of Keplerian eliptical
orbits. The radius vector changes sinusoidally.

The radius vector of an elliptical orbit isn't a sine
wave.

OK...but it changes in an approximately sinusoidal manner for small e.

The fact that you can mimic the velocity of the
surface of a "huff-puff" star by the acceleration of
a star in a binary system just shows how flexible the
parameterisation is and why a match proves nothing.

You wont get sharp points no
matter how many times you differentiate its behavior.

You claim to have a qualification in applied maths
so do the differentiation yourself, the real curves
are nowhere near sine waves and you do get sharp
transitions. That is why the document I cited
talked of the "light valve" switching on and off.
The transitions are the switching points.

I'll let my program provide the answers, George.


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).

They are a reasonable match for the first derivative of
the radius, which is VDoppler. They are nothing like the
second derivative which would be ADoppler.

You seem to have become very confused about the bunching process. Why is that?

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'.

Exactly Henry, it is classical, and your photons are no
more than Planck's early view of quantised wave packets
presented in 1914, hardly anything new.

But he didn't consider their intrinsic 'wavelike' properties.

....play an oboe in a moving car George. That's what a photon looks like.

George



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

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

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:nde0839d7ulrp03grab7nc4tcapbu0eebm@
4ax.com:

I suppose you are referring to two white light side bands, which surely
overlap.


right, but stars do not emit white light.

Their light contains sharp absorption bands and emission bands. Those WOULD
display side bands when the light was modulated.

But you are attacking strawmen. The whole point of bringing side bands to
your attention is that IF the 'unification' of the speeds is selective in
its action [rather than acting equally upon photons and the spaces between
groups of them] then it would produce effects much like a prism does,
sending some colors along at one speed while other colors would travel at a
different speed. The light would be separated in time while a prism
separates in space, but the effects would be quite noticable and much
different from what is observed.





--
bz

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

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On 25 Jun, 23:43, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:07:48 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
Sorry Henry, modulation 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.



The equation was given later in my post. Of course they
are in-band if that's what you are getting at, but they
still exist.
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.

No, the method involves amplitude modulating a
monochromatic light source. "Beating" in engineering
(and audio) terms means the addition of two waves
of different frequencies while modulating means
multiplying one by a function that includes the
other. They are closely related through trig
identities.

Yes we've already been through this.

I know, and I thought you had grasped the difference,
but you made the old mistake again.

The beat frequency was then used as an indirect measure of
the light's 'frequency'.

No, the modulation is a 60GHz bandwidth microwave
signal containing many channels of data, for
example telephone calls or internet backbone data.
The light is split at the receiving end using a
grating and so that each carrier and its sidebands
go to a separate detector to recover the data. The
data limit is when the upper sideband from one
channel gets too close to the lower sideband from
the next channel, exactly as with adjacent channel
radio stations.

I suppose you are referring to two white light side bands, which surely
overlap.

I am referring to practical systems which have many
lines in a comb and each is modulated. The amount of
data any one channel can carry is limited by the
requirement that the upper sideband of one must not
overlap the lower sideband of the next. With white
light, the sidebands are still there but they overlap
each other and the other frequencies in the original
white light.

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.

And below you finally understand that your theory
is entirely classical.

rubbish.

See your own words.

According to MY theory, backed by evidence, NNNNNNOOOOOO!

Backed by evidence --- NNNNNNOOOOOO!

All the evidence has shown that there is no ADoppler
component in anything we have looked at, it is all
compatible with SR.

Why do you make these silly remarks George.

That is a summary of what you have already agreed,
other than Cepheids where you still haven't grasped
the situation.

My whole approach is to plot changes in photon density due to their different
source speeds. I don't think your definition of ADoppler is the same as mine.

We agreed this some time ago, Doppler is fractional
change in frequency and can be split into the product
of two terms, one due to the velocity at the time of
emission which we have been calling VDoppler and one
which builds over some distance and is due to the
acceleration of the source which we call ADoppler.
Are you trying to change those definitions?

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 ..

What are you talking about Henry? we have never
considered the radius of pulsars.

....their orbit radius around a barycentre with a companion star.

Try to keep up with the conversation Henry, we were
talking about the radius of a Cepheid which is not
part of a binary system.

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...04-preview.jpg

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

For Cepheids, which are the only time we have
considered the stellar radius, yes, they actually
match.

The radial component is virtually the same as that of an orbiting star ...

We are talking about the measured radius of the star Henry,
not orbits.

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'.

I wonder if you even know what a sideband is.

I suppose it is possible to talk about white light sidebands, even if they
almost entirely overlap.

The sidebands are _totally_ overlapped by the white light
source continuum of frequencies, but they still exist.

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'.

Sidebands are deflected by a different angle from the
carrier by the gratings used to separate channels in
terabit WDM. The images show that the deflection angle
for individual photons is the same as for the beam as
a whole (which one could figure out from common sense
anyway given that the "beam" is just the aggregate of
the individuals).

I don't believe you can draw that conclusion.

Of course you can, you plot the spatial distribution
of photon detections on the PM tube at low intensity
and get exactly the same as the intensity curve when
the source is made so bright you can't detect them as
individuals.

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.

Yes it does Henry, each photon has a probability
distribution of landing at any location. That's
what makes modern theory different from "classical".

It's what makes modern theory quite ridiculous...

The inherent randomness of uncertainty in QM has
been proven many times, but that aside, the fact
remains, that it is the probabilistic approach
that distinguishes "classical" from modern.

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

Not at all, we simulated it perfectly and showed the
speed equalisation distance had a very small upper
limit consistent with there being no ADoppler.

Yes. Pulsars have a strong EM control sphere around them. They are in a very
small orbit so there is no noticeable ADoppler.

Note also the sphere cannot move with the pulsar in the
J109-3744 system or if the light were emitted ballistically
from the surface of your sphere, usual arguments would hold
and we would expect ADoppler to be evident. The sphere has
to be static wrt the barycentre of the pulsar/dwarf system.
To be honest I don't see how your sphere makes any difference.

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.

Sure, we finally agreed that the luminosity variations
were due to eclipsing because the period was half that
of the velocity curve.

That appears to be true in all cases where alternate troughs are at different
heights. For EF Dra, they are about the same, hence my oversight.

Your oversight was missing that the periods differed by a
factor of two but that's history. What matters is that the
velocity curve has a phase relative to the times of the
eclipses that indicates it is purely VDoppler.

The plain fact is, nearly every curve of any descrition that describes any
process in the universe can be simulated using BaTh principles.

So far contact binaries and pulsars both required a
sufficiently short speed equalisation distance that
any ballistic effects didn't appear and the result
was reduced to an exact match to SR.

This has nothing to do with SR.

You are suggesting an alternative to the currently
accepted model which is SR.

My 'EM control spheres' explain everything.

I can't see they change anything compared to the
combinatin of the photosphere which moves with the
star and the ISM which doesn't.

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

Nope, Newtonian deflection is half that of GR.

I don't think so.
I you look up any microlensing article such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_microlensing,
you will see the Einstein 'unique' curve.

It turns out to be exactly matchable with the BaTh. ...it's the brightness
curve of a star in eccentric orbit with yaw 180 (perihelion furthest away).

Microlensing is a unique event, it never repeats, but
that's changing the subject. From that page, look at
this diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G..._micro_rev.jpg

The predicted angle that the light is bent from GR is
double that from Newtonian theory which would apply
to ballistic theory.

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....

At least you are thinking about it now.

and it is wrong.

Differentiate them yourself, you will find they are
correct.

Cepheid curves are not like that.

Compare the bottom plot with this:

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...ages/phot-30c-...

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

Yes, it matches my middle plot which is the derivative
of the measured radius, hence velocity, not the top
plot which is acceleration.

...perfect ADoppler curves....yaw angles -50 to -70, eccentricities around
0.25.

ROFL, Henry what do you think it proves to tell me
your program can match the velocity of a static star
by the acceleration of a binary component? You just
proved Jeff Root's point, your program could match
anything.

It looks like a match to me, at least as good as
any you have produced.

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

If that's not a good match, what is?

The compare the luminosity curve for L Car. with
the other two. I say it matches the middle plot
reasonably well, but more to the point, it doesn't
match the top plot at all. You are claiming Cepheid
curves are ADoppler, but the top plot is the
acceleration and it is NOT a match for L Car's
luminosity.

I think you've lost the plot George.

No Henry you have, you are matching your acceleration
against the stellar surface's velocity :-)

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.

It is plainly correct, compare the published curves
as I explained above.

Mine are better. Yours is wrong.

Mine is right, differentiate the radius yourself if
you doubt it:

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...04-preview.jpg

The observed curves are indistinguishable from those of Keplerian eliptical
orbits. The radius vector changes sinusoidally.

The radius vector of an elliptical orbit isn't a sine
wave.

OK...but it changes in an approximately sinusoidal manner for small e.

What does this have to do with the stellar radius?

The fact that you can mimic the velocity of the
surface of a "huff-puff" star by the acceleration of
a star in a binary system just shows how flexible the
parameterisation is and why a match proves nothing.

You wont get sharp points no
matter how many times you differentiate its behavior.

You claim to have a qualification in applied maths
so do the differentiation yourself, the real curves
are nowhere near sine waves and you do get sharp
transitions. That is why the document I cited
talked of the "light valve" switching on and off.
The transitions are the switching points.

I'll let my program provide the answers, George.

It doesn't simulate variable radius lone stars Henry.

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).

They are a reasonable match for the first derivative of
the radius, which is VDoppler. They are nothing like the
second derivative which would be ADoppler.

You seem to have become very confused about the bunching process. Why is that?

I am not the one who is confused, you are matching
the luminosity to the velocity of a Cepheid surface
and telling me it proves it is caused by the
acceleration!

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'.

Exactly Henry, it is classical, and your photons are no
more than Planck's early view of quantised wave packets
presented in 1914, hardly anything new.

But he didn't consider their intrinsic 'wavelike' properties.

So what is nu in his equation

E=h.nu

...play an oboe in a moving car George. That's what a photon looks like.

You are hilarious at times Henry.

George

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:09:31 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 25 Jun, 23:43, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:07:48 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
Sorry Henry, modulation sidebands are a fact of life


I suppose you are referring to two white light side bands, which surely
overlap.

I am referring to practical systems which have many
lines in a comb and each is modulated. The amount of
data any one channel can carry is limited by the
requirement that the upper sideband of one must not
overlap the lower sideband of the next. With white
light, the sidebands are still there but they overlap
each other and the other frequencies in the original
white light.

White light has an inifinite number of 'sidebands'.


All the evidence has shown that there is no ADoppler
component in anything we have looked at, it is all
compatible with SR.

Why do you make these silly remarks George.

That is a summary of what you have already agreed,
other than Cepheids where you still haven't grasped
the situation.

My whole approach is to plot changes in photon density due to their different
source speeds. I don't think your definition of ADoppler is the same as mine.

We agreed this some time ago, Doppler is fractional
change in frequency and can be split into the product
of two terms, one due to the velocity at the time of
emission which we have been calling VDoppler and one
which builds over some distance and is due to the
acceleration of the source which we call ADoppler.
Are you trying to change those definitions?

That is correct I think we should say it is due to 'source velocity
differences' rather than to 'acceleration' because the latter varies from point
to point. The photons in a 'bunch' might have quite diffrent source
accelerations, if you see what I mean.


What are you talking about Henry? we have never
considered the radius of pulsars.

....their orbit radius around a barycentre with a companion star.

Try to keep up with the conversation Henry, we were
talking about the radius of a Cepheid which is not
part of a binary system.

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...04-preview.jpg

L Car is not a good example of a Cepheid curve.

Here's a good site: http://wwwmacho.mcmaster.ca/Demos/Cepheids/WebPL.html

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

For Cepheids, which are the only time we have
considered the stellar radius, yes, they actually
match.

The radial component is virtually the same as that of an orbiting star ...

We are talking about the measured radius of the star Henry,
not orbits.

It appears that they have similar motions.

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'.

I wonder if you even know what a sideband is.

I suppose it is possible to talk about white light sidebands, even if they
almost entirely overlap.

The sidebands are _totally_ overlapped by the white light
source continuum of frequencies, but they still exist.

There's an infintie number of them.



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

Sidebands are deflected by a different angle from the
carrier by the gratings used to separate channels in
terabit WDM. The images show that the deflection angle
for individual photons is the same as for the beam as
a whole (which one could figure out from common sense
anyway given that the "beam" is just the aggregate of
the individuals).

I don't believe you can draw that conclusion.

Of course you can, you plot the spatial distribution
of photon detections on the PM tube at low intensity
and get exactly the same as the intensity curve when
the source is made so bright you can't detect them as
individuals.

I know what you are saying George but I don't know what you're trying to prove
here .
The relative movement of photons from an accelerating source cannot be likened
to modulating a beam.



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

Yes it does Henry, each photon has a probability
distribution of landing at any location. That's
what makes modern theory different from "classical".

It's what makes modern theory quite ridiculous...

The inherent randomness of uncertainty in QM has
been proven many times, but that aside, the fact
remains, that it is the probabilistic approach
that distinguishes "classical" from modern.

It hasn't been proved at all. A lot of people have dreamed they discovered
something like it....and got themselves a lot of publicity in the process.

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

Not at all, we simulated it perfectly and showed the
speed equalisation distance had a very small upper
limit consistent with there being no ADoppler.

Yes. Pulsars have a strong EM control sphere around them. They are in a very
small orbit so there is no noticeable ADoppler.

Note also the sphere cannot move with the pulsar in the
J109-3744 system or if the light were emitted ballistically
from the surface of your sphere, usual arguments would hold
and we would expect ADoppler to be evident. The sphere has
to be static wrt the barycentre of the pulsar/dwarf system.

That's correct.

To be honest I don't see how your sphere makes any difference.

It reduces ADoppler to a minimum. However you might be right...in which case
the conclusion is that the pulsar is moving very slowly in a small orbit.

So far contact binaries and pulsars both required a
sufficiently short speed equalisation distance that
any ballistic effects didn't appear and the result
was reduced to an exact match to SR.

This has nothing to do with SR.

You are suggesting an alternative to the currently
accepted model which is SR.

SR is just an aether theory.

My 'EM control spheres' explain everything.

I can't see they change anything compared to the
combinatin of the photosphere which moves with the
star and the ISM which doesn't.

How much it moves with the star will be dependent on the orbit period.


It turns out to be exactly matchable with the BaTh. ...it's the brightness
curve of a star in eccentric orbit with yaw 180 (perihelion furthest away).

Microlensing is a unique event, it never repeats, but
that's changing the subject. From that page, look at
this diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G..._micro_rev.jpg

The predicted angle that the light is bent from GR is
double that from Newtonian theory which would apply
to ballistic theory.

Maybe somebody made a mistake in the maths or the observations.
I'm writing a program to simulate this effect right now.


Cepheid curves are not like that.

Compare the bottom plot with this:

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...ages/phot-30c-...

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

Yes, it matches my middle plot which is the derivative
of the measured radius, hence velocity, not the top
plot which is acceleration.

Your curves are plain silly...nothing like real ones.

...perfect ADoppler curves....yaw angles -50 to -70, eccentricities around
0.25.

ROFL, Henry what do you think it proves to tell me
your program can match the velocity of a static star
by the acceleration of a binary component? You just
proved Jeff Root's point, your program could match
anything.

My program is capable of producing a very narrow and specific range of curves.
It shows that a great many observed star curves fit into this narrow band.

The BaTh clearly wins..

It looks like a match to me, at least as good as
any you have produced.

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

If that's not a good match, what is?

The compare the luminosity curve for L Car. with
the other two. I say it matches the middle plot
reasonably well, but more to the point, it doesn't
match the top plot at all. You are claiming Cepheid
curves are ADoppler, but the top plot is the
acceleration and it is NOT a match for L Car's
luminosity.

I think you've lost the plot George.

No Henry you have, you are matching your acceleration
against the stellar surface's velocity :-)

The movement of a pulsating ball is not symmetrical. Like I said before, the
radial movement is similar to that of a star in elliptical orbit.
It should be pretty obvious why that is likely to be true.

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.

It is plainly correct, compare the published curves
as I explained above.

Mine are better. Yours is wrong.

Mine is right, differentiate the radius yourself if
you doubt it:

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...04-preview.jpg

You start with the wrong type of motion.

The observed curves are indistinguishable from those of Keplerian eliptical
orbits. The radius vector changes sinusoidally.

The radius vector of an elliptical orbit isn't a sine
wave.

OK...but it changes in an approximately sinusoidal manner for small e.

What does this have to do with the stellar radius?

George, the motion is determined by gravity forces and gas compression. The
former don't behave like a spring. They obey an inverse square law. The larger
the diameter, the smaller the restoring forces.

Why don't you write a program to simulate this?

The fact that you can mimic the velocity of the
surface of a "huff-puff" star by the acceleration of
a star in a binary system just shows how flexible the
parameterisation is and why a match proves nothing.

You wont get sharp points no
matter how many times you differentiate its behavior.

You claim to have a qualification in applied maths
so do the differentiation yourself, the real curves
are nowhere near sine waves and you do get sharp
transitions. That is why the document I cited
talked of the "light valve" switching on and off.
The transitions are the switching points.

I'll let my program provide the answers, George.

It doesn't simulate variable radius lone stars Henry.

It shows that the radii of such stars appears to vary like the radial velocity
(in the earth's direction) of a star in elliptical orbit.


They are a reasonable match for the first derivative of
the radius, which is VDoppler. They are nothing like the
second derivative which would be ADoppler.

You seem to have become very confused about the bunching process. Why is that?

I am not the one who is confused, you are matching
the luminosity to the velocity of a Cepheid surface
and telling me it proves it is caused by the
acceleration!

Having found I can match cepheid curves with c+v from elliptical orbits, I can
now make a few investigative assumptions.

Exactly Henry, it is classical, and your photons are no
more than Planck's early view of quantised wave packets
presented in 1914, hardly anything new.

But he didn't consider their intrinsic 'wavelike' properties.

So what is nu in his equation

E=h.nu

The equation is actually: E = hc/lambda

Photon frequency is inferred as the 'wavecrest arrival rate' assuming the
photon arrives at c.

Neither you, Einstein nor Planck has or had the faintest idea of what a 'photon
wavecrest' is.

...play an oboe in a moving car George. That's what a photon looks like.

You are hilarious at times Henry.

A moving standing wave...

George



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

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

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:04:47 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:nde0839d7ulrp03grab7nc4tcapbu0eebm@
4ax.com:

I suppose you are referring to two white light side bands, which surely
overlap.


right, but stars do not emit white light.

Their light contains sharp absorption bands and emission bands. Those WOULD
display side bands when the light was modulated.

I doubt if anyone has tried to modulate starlight.

But you are attacking strawmen. The whole point of bringing side bands to
your attention is that IF the 'unification' of the speeds is selective in
its action [rather than acting equally upon photons and the spaces between
groups of them] then it would produce effects much like a prism does,
sending some colors along at one speed while other colors would travel at a
different speed. The light would be separated in time while a prism
separates in space, but the effects would be quite noticable and much
different from what is observed.

Well I'm sure nobody has even considered this type of experiemnt so we don't
know the answers.
Maybe you have described a possible line of experiments that could tell us
something about the nature of photons.



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 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:09:31 -0700, George Dishman

wrote:

On 25 Jun, 23:43, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:07:48 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
Sorry Henry, modulation sidebands are a fact of life


I suppose you are referring to two white light side bands, which surely
overlap.

I am referring to practical systems which have many
lines in a comb and each is modulated. The amount of
data any one channel can carry is limited by the
requirement that the upper sideband of one must not
overlap the lower sideband of the next. With white
light, the sidebands are still there but they overlap
each other and the other frequencies in the original
white light.

White light has an inifinite number of 'sidebands'.

Rather than talking of an infinite number of
discrete frequencies, it is usual to describe
it as a continuum, but you have the idea now.

All the evidence has shown that there is no ADoppler
component in anything we have looked at, it is all
compatible with SR.

Why do you make these silly remarks George.

That is a summary of what you have already agreed,
other than Cepheids where you still haven't grasped
the situation.

My whole approach is to plot changes in photon density due to their
different
source speeds. I don't think your definition of ADoppler is the same as
mine.

We agreed this some time ago, Doppler is fractional
change in frequency and can be split into the product
of two terms, one due to the velocity at the time of
emission which we have been calling VDoppler and one
which builds over some distance and is due to the
acceleration of the source which we call ADoppler.
Are you trying to change those definitions?

That is correct I think we should say it is due to 'source velocity
differences' rather than to 'acceleration' ...

That changes the meaning though, implying something
more like a difference in velocity betwen two points
on the orbit rather than the acceleration at a single
point.

.. because the latter varies from point
to point.

Both velocity and acceleration vary with the
location in the orbit.

The photons in a 'bunch' might have quite diffrent source
accelerations, if you see what I mean.

Of course, that's where your "molecular speeds" is
involved, thermal velocities should cause significant
line broadening.

However, none of that relate to what we were
discussing. Sticing with our current definitions,
to date all the analyses we have done have shown
only VDoppler and no ADoppler.

What are you talking about Henry? we have never
considered the radius of pulsars.

....their orbit radius around a barycentre with a companion star.

Try to keep up with the conversation Henry, we were
talking about the radius of a Cepheid which is not
part of a binary system.

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...04-preview.jpg

L Car is not a good example of a Cepheid curve.

It is a perfectly good example and is one of the few
for which radius measurements are available that let
us distinguish VDoppler from ADoppler.

Here's a good site: http://wwwmacho.mcmaster.ca/Demos/Cepheids/WebPL.html

Where on that site do you see data on the radii?

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

For Cepheids, which are the only time we have
considered the stellar radius, yes, they actually
match.

The radial component is virtually the same as that of an orbiting star
...

We are talking about the measured radius of the star Henry,
not orbits.

It appears that they have similar motions.

So what, the point is that the luminosity curve
matches the velocity, not the acceleration

I wonder if you even know what a sideband is.

I suppose it is possible to talk about white light sidebands, even if
they
almost entirely overlap.

The sidebands are _totally_ overlapped by the white light
source continuum of frequencies, but they still exist.

There's an infintie number of them.

It is usual to talk of two, upper and lower, each
of which in this case would contain a continuum of
frequencies overlapping both each other and the
original white light "carrier".

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

Sidebands are deflected by a different angle from the
carrier by the gratings used to separate channels in
terabit WDM. The images show that the deflection angle
for individual photons is the same as for the beam as
a whole (which one could figure out from common sense
anyway given that the "beam" is just the aggregate of
the individuals).

I don't believe you can draw that conclusion.

Of course you can, you plot the spatial distribution
of photon detections on the PM tube at low intensity
and get exactly the same as the intensity curve when
the source is made so bright you can't detect them as
individuals.

I know what you are saying George but I don't know what you're trying to
prove
here .
The relative movement of photons from an accelerating source cannot be
likened
to modulating a beam.

Ballistic theory says light energy travels at a certain
speed. The Doppler shift of sidebands determines the
speed at which the modulation travels, hence my point
is that the two are inextricably linked. You cannot
define one without that also defining the other.

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

Not at all, we simulated it perfectly and showed the
speed equalisation distance had a very small upper
limit consistent with there being no ADoppler.

Yes. Pulsars have a strong EM control sphere around them. They are in a
very
small orbit so there is no noticeable ADoppler.

Note also the sphere cannot move with the pulsar in the
J109-3744 system or if the light were emitted ballistically
from the surface of your sphere, usual arguments would hold
and we would expect ADoppler to be evident. The sphere has
to be static wrt the barycentre of the pulsar/dwarf system.

That's correct.

To be honest I don't see how your sphere makes any difference.

It reduces ADoppler to a minimum.

But the ISM would do the same, hence I don't see
why you think it is helpful. Occam's razor suggests
you omit it, nothing changes.

However you might be right...in which case
the conclusion is that the pulsar is moving very slowly in a small orbit.

No, it has no effect on the conclusions.

It turns out to be exactly matchable with the BaTh. ...it's the
brightness
curve of a star in eccentric orbit with yaw 180 (perihelion furthest
away).

Microlensing is a unique event, it never repeats, but
that's changing the subject. From that page, look at
this diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G..._micro_rev.jpg

The predicted angle that the light is bent from GR is
double that from Newtonian theory which would apply
to ballistic theory.

Maybe somebody made a mistake in the maths or the observations.

Einstein did first time round, but found the error
beforte Eddington succeeded in making the measurement.
The maths has been checked by many people since then
for both theories.

I'm writing a program to simulate this effect right now.

Cepheid curves are not like that.

Compare the bottom plot with this:

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...ages/phot-30c-...

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

Yes, it matches my middle plot which is the derivative
of the measured radius, hence velocity, not the top
plot which is acceleration.

Your curves are plain silly...nothing like real ones.

The bottom curve is an illsutration of the ESO
measurements which are real. The others are simply
the derivatives.

...perfect ADoppler curves....yaw angles -50 to -70, eccentricities
around
0.25.

ROFL, Henry what do you think it proves to tell me
your program can match the velocity of a static star
by the acceleration of a binary component? You just
proved Jeff Root's point, your program could match
anything.

My program is capable of producing a very narrow and specific range of
curves.
It shows that a great many observed star curves fit into this narrow band.

The BaTh clearly wins..

You still don't get it, do you? The curve that you
can match is the velocity, not the acceleration, so
BaTh loses.

It looks like a match to me, at least as good as
any you have produced.

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

If that's not a good match, what is?

The compare the luminosity curve for L Car. with
the other two. I say it matches the middle plot
reasonably well, but more to the point, it doesn't
match the top plot at all. You are claiming Cepheid
curves are ADoppler, but the top plot is the
acceleration and it is NOT a match for L Car's
luminosity.

I think you've lost the plot George.

No Henry you have, you are matching your acceleration
against the stellar surface's velocity :-)

The movement of a pulsating ball is not symmetrical.

I never suggested it was, what I said is that the
luminosity matches the first derivative, not the
second. Try listening to the argument first.

....
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.

It is plainly correct, compare the published curves
as I explained above.

Mine are better. Yours is wrong.

Mine is right, differentiate the radius yourself if
you doubt it:

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...04-preview.jpg

You start with the wrong type of motion.

I start with the measured radius and differentiate.
That gives me the radial velocity and the shape
matches the measured luminosity. If I differentiate
twice I get the radial acceleration and that doesn't
match the luminosity curve, hence we know that the
luminosity is _not_ the result of ADoppler.

The observed curves are indistinguishable from those of Keplerian
eliptical
orbits. The radius vector changes sinusoidally.

The radius vector of an elliptical orbit isn't a sine
wave.

OK...but it changes in an approximately sinusoidal manner for small e.

What does this have to do with the stellar radius?

George, the motion is determined by gravity forces and gas compression.
The
former don't behave like a spring.

Correct, it is the latter that is like a spring.

They obey an inverse square law. The larger
the diameter, the smaller the restoring forces.

Why don't you write a program to simulate this?

It would serve no purpose, I don't need to model
why the radius varies as it does, I only need to
differentiate to get the velocity. The radius is
taken as empirical.

The fact that you can mimic the velocity of the
surface of a "huff-puff" star by the acceleration of
a star in a binary system just shows how flexible the
parameterisation is and why a match proves nothing.

You wont get sharp points no
matter how many times you differentiate its behavior.

You claim to have a qualification in applied maths
so do the differentiation yourself, the real curves
are nowhere near sine waves and you do get sharp
transitions. That is why the document I cited
talked of the "light valve" switching on and off.
The transitions are the switching points.

I'll let my program provide the answers, George.

It doesn't simulate variable radius lone stars Henry.

It shows that the radii of such stars appears to vary like the radial
velocity
(in the earth's direction) of a star in elliptical orbit.

You are still missing the point Henry.

Exactly Henry, it is classical, and your photons are no
more than Planck's early view of quantised wave packets
presented in 1914, hardly anything new.

But he didn't consider their intrinsic 'wavelike' properties.

So what is nu in his equation

E=h.nu

The equation is actually: E = hc/lambda

Whichever you prefer, the point it is an property
of the photon so your claim that he "didn't consider
their intrinsic 'wavelike' properties" is patently
untrue since that it appears in his equation.

You are hilarious at times Henry.

A moving standing wave...

Great example :-) I love it Henry, you are a source
of some wonderful and hopefully unique quotations.

George

Practically as soon as I resolve that I'm going to quit
replying to posters like Henry, I want to say something
to him.

Henry,

You have complained several times that the three curves
George drew are "nothing like real ones". But the bottom
two are.
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...lustrative.png

The bottom curve is a fairly typical curve for a Cepheid's
radius versus time. The middle curve shows the velocity
which produces the bottom curve. It pretty closely matches
the curves that you make with your program, and luminosity
curves of Cepheids. The top curve shows the acceleration
which produces the middle curve.

If light from a Cepheid was launched from the surface of
the star ballistically, and bunched during travel because
of the different accelerations at different points in the
star's huff-huff cycle, then it would be seen at a distance
like the top curve: most intense when the star's surface
is accelerating toward us most strongly, which is when the
star's radius is at minimum.

When you say George's curves are "nothing like real ones",
you are saying that ADoppler does not cause light from
Cepheid variables to bunch up the way ballistic theory
predicts. That is true. The top curve is never seen,
because ADoppler never causes light from Cepheid variables
to bunch up as it travels.

So why do actual Cepheid light curves pretty closely match
the middle, velocity curve? It is the result of increasing
surface area, decreasing surface brightness, and decreasing
surface temperature as the star increases in size.

Why do the curves produced by your program match Cepheid
variable light curves? Because you adjust the parameters
of your program to make them match. You can adjust your
program's parameters to match almost any function-like
curve. You have already done it. When I gave you a bit
of data from this file:
http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/CE3K-0.wav
you used your program to match that part of the curve.
The data you analyzed is from a relatively quiet moment at
around 4.73 seconds.

You made a curve-matching program. That's what it does.
Adjust the parameters and it will match just about any
function-like curve, nomatter what physical process
generated the real curve.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis