Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 3 Jul, 13:19, bz wrote:
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:rmcj83puhpk8l09pclb7ubl18ieb5khjcm@
4ax.com:

Ah, I see your problem.

You aren't taking account of the sequential emission delays between the
'pulses'. That is fundamental to the bunching calculations.

You are assuming they are all emitted at the same instant.

you do realize that, for the velocities involved in your typical variable
star, the delta v (change in velocity of the emission source) between the
'front end' and the 'back end' of the photon, during the time it takes to
emit a photon, is essentially zero, don't you?

[this is true whether one considers the photon length to be the same as the
wave length or millions of wavelengths.]

You have to remember Henry is using a classical
concept for a photon, so it is the latter
"millions of wavelengths" definition you have
to use. The change of launch speed between the
ends is therefore just the time taken multiplied
by the average acceleration over those cycles.
That blows Henry's model out of the water since
the spectral shift has to match the 'photon
bunching' because the mechanism that bunches
phtotons also bunches the cycles within a photon
by the same factor. The correspondence is that
an orbital speed of 300km/s (fastest contact
binary) should give a luminosity variation of
just +/- 0.001 magnitudes.

That's why Henry added another ad hoc bodge to
the theory of photons being incompresible, but
that doesn't work when you consider a simple
pulse-modulated monochromatic source. Sadly
Henry doesn't know enough about RF or audio
to follow that argument and ended up going
off on tangents about white light, but the
evidence is still there.

George

George Dishman wrote in
oups.com:

On 3 Jul, 13:19, bz wrote:
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:rmcj83puhpk8l09pclb7ubl18ieb5khjcm@
4ax.com:

Ah, I see your problem.

You aren't taking account of the sequential emission delays between
the 'pulses'. That is fundamental to the bunching calculations.

You are assuming they are all emitted at the same instant.

you do realize that, for the velocities involved in your typical
variable star, the delta v (change in velocity of the emission source)
between the 'front end' and the 'back end' of the photon, during the
time it takes to emit a photon, is essentially zero, don't you?

[this is true whether one considers the photon length to be the same as
the wave length or millions of wavelengths.]

You have to remember Henry is using a classical
concept for a photon, so it is the latter
"millions of wavelengths" definition you have
to use. The change of launch speed between the
ends is therefore just the time taken multiplied
by the average acceleration over those cycles.
That blows Henry's model out of the water since
the spectral shift has to match the 'photon
bunching' because the mechanism that bunches
phtotons also bunches the cycles within a photon
by the same factor. The correspondence is that
an orbital speed of 300km/s (fastest contact
binary) should give a luminosity variation of
just +/- 0.001 magnitudes.

Kind of 'lost in the noise', right?

Blows holes in his concrete boat.

That's why Henry added another ad hoc bodge to
the theory of photons being incompresible, but
that doesn't work when you consider a simple
pulse-modulated monochromatic source.

Last time I looked inside a laser, there was absolutely no sign of 'HW
bunching'. Otherwise there would be terrible keying 'chirp' [frequency
shift] {which would KILL gigabit data transfer over fiber}.

Sadly
Henry doesn't know enough about RF or audio
to follow that argument and ended up going
off on tangents about white light, but the
evidence is still there.

HWdaemons only seem to live in the space between galaxies, so there is no
way the phenomina can be tested on earth or by sighting within our solar
system.

Perhaps they only live in the space around stars that do NOT have {semi}
intellegent life on any of the planets. That must be it.

Henri, I found another 'ad hoc fix' for you: it is the presence of
intellegent LIFE that forces light to travel at c, where intellegent life
is absent, then the ballistic theory of light can freely reign.



--
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 Jul 4, 6:18 am, bz wrote:
George Dishman wrote groups.com:

You have to remember Henry is using a classical
concept for a photon, so it is the latter
"millions of wavelengths" definition you have
to use. The change of launch speed between the
ends is therefore just the time taken multiplied
by the average acceleration over those cycles.
That blows Henry's model out of the water since
the spectral shift has to match the 'photon
bunching' because the mechanism that bunches
phtotons also bunches the cycles within a photon
by the same factor. The correspondence is that
an orbital speed of 300km/s (fastest contact
binary) should give a luminosity variation of
just +/- 0.001 magnitudes.

Kind of 'lost in the noise', right?

Blows holes in his concrete boat.

That's why Henry added another ad hoc bodge to
the theory of photons being incompresible, but
that doesn't work when you consider a simple
pulse-modulated monochromatic source.

Last time I looked inside a laser, there was absolutely
no sign of 'HW bunching'. Otherwise there would be
terrible keying 'chirp' [frequency shift] {which would
KILL gigabit data transfer over fiber}.

Unfortunately, Henri would explain that away by claiming
that the laser generates an "EM Control Frame" that
forces light to travel at c with respect to the laser.
Henri has an ad hoc kludge for everything, it seems.
Provided he doesn't have to provide math or actually
demonstrate his theory's predictive ability (beyond
fitting a few luminosity curves), everything about his
theory seems perfect to him.

Sadly
Henry doesn't know enough about RF or audio
to follow that argument and ended up going
off on tangents about white light, but the
evidence is still there.

HWdaemons only seem to live in the space between
galaxies, so there is no way the phenomina can be
tested on earth or by sighting within our solar
system.

Henri once estimated that his "density threshold"
might be around 10^-22 Torr. That implies that BaTh
would be inoperative in interstellar space. Only the
space between galaxies has so hard a vacuum.

Contradicting himself, Henri continues to apply BaTh
theory to the "explanation" of variable star curves.
It seems that being the author of the WDT bodge gives
him the right to apply the bodge on an "as needed"
basis.

Perhaps they only live in the space around stars that
do NOT have {semi} intellegent life on any of the
planets. That must be it.

Henri, I found another 'ad hoc fix' for you: it is
the presence of intellegent LIFE that forces light
to travel at c, where intellegent life is absent,
then the ballistic theory of light can freely reign.

Shades of John Wheeler!

The Wilsonian version of IT FROM BIT???

Jerry

On Jul 3, 6:41 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:12:54 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

It's probably more of a difficulty for him to admit
that he's wrong....

A lot of crackpots react in a similar way: they
follow, and agree with, your logical arguments as
long as they don't threaten their pet ideas. But
as soon as your valid logical arguments start to
threaten heir ideas, the crackpot ceases to argue
logically - he denies your arguments with vigour,
he acts illogicaly, if needed, to stubbornly
defends his ideas. For emotional reasons, of course.

Your have described the average relativist perfectly.

You consider yourself a relativist?

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

Jerry,

I tried to send e-mails to you twice in the last ten days.
The first bounced immediately, the second, sent via the
Google Groups "reply to topic" page -- just like this post
but addressed to you instead of the newsgroups -- went
into a black hole. Would you send an e-mail to me and
let me know here that you have, please? Thanks!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

On Jul 4, 1:52 pm, Jeff Root wrote:
Jerry,

I tried to send e-mails to you twice in the last ten days.
The first bounced immediately, the second, sent via the
Google Groups "reply to topic" page -- just like this post
but addressed to you instead of the newsgroups -- went
into a black hole. Would you send an e-mail to me and
let me know here that you have, please? Thanks!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

On Jul 4, 1:52 pm, Jeff Root wrote:
Jerry,

I tried to send e-mails to you twice in the last ten days.
The first bounced immediately, the second, sent via the
Google Groups "reply to topic" page -- just like this post
but addressed to you instead of the newsgroups -- went
into a black hole. Would you send an e-mail to me and
let me know here that you have, please? Thanks!

Sent you an email from my secondary email address.
Normally I check it no more than twice a month to clear
out spam, but I'll keep close tabs on it for next few
days.

Jerry

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:29:37 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 4, 6:18 am, bz wrote:
George Dishman wrote groups.com:

You have to remember Henry is using a classical
concept for a photon, so it is the latter
"millions of wavelengths" definition you have
to use. The change of launch speed between the
ends is therefore just the time taken multiplied
by the average acceleration over those cycles.
That blows Henry's model out of the water since
the spectral shift has to match the 'photon
bunching' because the mechanism that bunches
phtotons also bunches the cycles within a photon
by the same factor. The correspondence is that
an orbital speed of 300km/s (fastest contact
binary) should give a luminosity variation of
just +/- 0.001 magnitudes.

Kind of 'lost in the noise', right?

Blows holes in his concrete boat.

That's why Henry added another ad hoc bodge to
the theory of photons being incompresible, but
that doesn't work when you consider a simple
pulse-modulated monochromatic source.

Last time I looked inside a laser, there was absolutely
no sign of 'HW bunching'. Otherwise there would be
terrible keying 'chirp' [frequency shift] {which would
KILL gigabit data transfer over fiber}.

Unfortunately, Henri would explain that away by claiming
that the laser generates an "EM Control Frame" that
forces light to travel at c with respect to the laser.

Oh?
Are you suggesting taht light does NOT travel at c wrt the laser?

Henri has an ad hoc kludge for everything, it seems.
Provided he doesn't have to provide math or actually
demonstrate his theory's predictive ability (beyond
fitting a few luminosity curves), everything about his
theory seems perfect to him.

My computer does the maths....and generates more curves in a minute than
DeSitter and Einstein could produce in a million years..

Sadly
Henry doesn't know enough about RF or audio
to follow that argument and ended up going
off on tangents about white light, but the
evidence is still there.

HWdaemons only seem to live in the space between
galaxies, so there is no way the phenomina can be
tested on earth or by sighting within our solar
system.

Henri once estimated that his "density threshold"
might be around 10^-22 Torr. That implies that BaTh
would be inoperative in interstellar space. Only the
space between galaxies has so hard a vacuum.

Yoiu must be good at making up hospital beds by now. Why don't you stick to the
things you know something about and leave the brainwork to us experts?

Contradicting himself, Henri continues to apply BaTh
theory to the "explanation" of variable star curves.
It seems that being the author of the WDT bodge gives
him the right to apply the bodge on an "as needed"
basis.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
The latest one is interesting. It models an tidally distored, egg shaped star
to produce the presumed cepheid 'overtone' effect. Makes one rethink whether or
not cepheids really DO go huff puff, eh?

I now think they just orbit some dark matter, probably in tidal lock.

Perhaps they only live in the space around stars that
do NOT have {semi} intellegent life on any of the
planets. That must be it.

Henri, I found another 'ad hoc fix' for you: it is
the presence of intellegent LIFE that forces light
to travel at c, where intellegent life is absent,
then the ballistic theory of light can freely reign.

Shades of John Wheeler!

The Wilsonian version of IT FROM BIT???

My theory is now almost complete ...and is quite consistent.


Jerry



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:18:08 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

George Dishman wrote in
roups.com:

On 3 Jul, 13:19, bz wrote:
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:rmcj83puhpk8l09pclb7ubl18ieb5khjcm@
4ax.com:

Ah, I see your problem.

You aren't taking account of the sequential emission delays between
the 'pulses'. That is fundamental to the bunching calculations.

You are assuming they are all emitted at the same instant.

you do realize that, for the velocities involved in your typical
variable star, the delta v (change in velocity of the emission source)
between the 'front end' and the 'back end' of the photon, during the
time it takes to emit a photon, is essentially zero, don't you?

[this is true whether one considers the photon length to be the same as
the wave length or millions of wavelengths.]

You have to remember Henry is using a classical
concept for a photon, so it is the latter
"millions of wavelengths" definition you have
to use. The change of launch speed between the
ends is therefore just the time taken multiplied
by the average acceleration over those cycles.
That blows Henry's model out of the water since
the spectral shift has to match the 'photon
bunching' because the mechanism that bunches
phtotons also bunches the cycles within a photon
by the same factor. The correspondence is that
an orbital speed of 300km/s (fastest contact
binary) should give a luminosity variation of
just +/- 0.001 magnitudes.

Kind of 'lost in the noise', right?

Blows holes in his concrete boat.

George actually devised an alternative way to generate brightness curves with
BaTh but has recently changed his tune entirely. The only conclusion I can
reach is that he has suddenly realised that I am right and his lifelong belief
system is crumbling before his very eyes. Some kind of psychological defense
mechanism has kicked in and is now stopping his brain from functioning.

That's why Henry added another ad hoc bodge to
the theory of photons being incompresible, but
that doesn't work when you consider a simple
pulse-modulated monochromatic source.

Last time I looked inside a laser, there was absolutely no sign of 'HW
bunching'. Otherwise there would be terrible keying 'chirp' [frequency
shift] {which would KILL gigabit data transfer over fiber}.

Actually, you have given me a terrific idea.
Using BaTh type bunching of laser light it should be possible to make a
super-weapon. By accelerating the laser at the right rate, its output over a
considerable time can be 'time focussed' at a particular distance.

As an exercise you might try blasting a hole through the moon with this method.

Sadly
Henry doesn't know enough about RF or audio
to follow that argument and ended up going
off on tangents about white light, but the
evidence is still there.

HWdaemons only seem to live in the space between galaxies, so there is no
way the phenomina can be tested on earth or by sighting within our solar
system.

.....there is probably an element of truth in this.

Perhaps they only live in the space around stars that do NOT have {semi}
intellegent life on any of the planets. That must be it.

Henri, I found another 'ad hoc fix' for you: it is the presence of
intellegent LIFE that forces light to travel at c, where intellegent life
is absent, then the ballistic theory of light can freely reign.

Then it will certainly reign in Einsteinian communities....completely devoid of
intelligent life.



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:36:52 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 3 Jul, 13:19, bz wrote:
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:rmcj83puhpk8l09pclb7ubl18ieb5khjcm@
4ax.com:

Ah, I see your problem.

You aren't taking account of the sequential emission delays between the
'pulses'. That is fundamental to the bunching calculations.

You are assuming they are all emitted at the same instant.

you do realize that, for the velocities involved in your typical variable
star, the delta v (change in velocity of the emission source) between the
'front end' and the 'back end' of the photon, during the time it takes to
emit a photon, is essentially zero, don't you?

[this is true whether one considers the photon length to be the same as the
wave length or millions of wavelengths.]

You have to remember Henry is using a classical
concept for a photon, so it is the latter
"millions of wavelengths" definition you have
to use. The change of launch speed between the
ends is therefore just the time taken multiplied
by the average acceleration over those cycles.
That blows Henry's model out of the water since
the spectral shift has to match the 'photon
bunching' because the mechanism that bunches
phtotons also bunches the cycles within a photon
by the same factor. The correspondence is that
an orbital speed of 300km/s (fastest contact
binary) should give a luminosity variation of
just +/- 0.001 magnitudes.

You have now completely lost the plot George.

That's why Henry added another ad hoc bodge to
the theory of photons being incompresible, but
that doesn't work when you consider a simple
pulse-modulated monochromatic source. Sadly
Henry doesn't know enough about RF or audio
to follow that argument and ended up going
off on tangents about white light, but the
evidence is still there.

Your classical wave theory does not apply to light 'particles' any more than it
does to cars on a highway.


George



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.