Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Jul 4, 6:25 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:29:37 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 4, 6:18 am, bz wrote:

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?

No, I am suggesting that incompressible sawblade
photons are incompatible with the existence of
femtosecond laser pulses. There is no way to shape
them to fit within the pulse envelope. Your photon
model is nonsense.

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..

GIGO

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?

I recognize many forms of mental illness by now.
Remember, I did a rotation in a psychiatric ward.

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?

You STILL haven't provided evidence that you can
simultaneously fit luminosity and radial velocity
curves.

From what I can see, your BaTh program STILL fails
even the simplest fits, despite your addition of
kludge after kludge.

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

So now you suggest that your dark companions are
totally invisible except for gravitational effects?

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.

In your dreams...

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 Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:28:57 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 4, 6:25 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:29:37 -0700, Jerry
wrote:


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?

No, I am suggesting that incompressible sawblade
photons are incompatible with the existence of
femtosecond laser pulses. There is no way to shape
them to fit within the pulse envelope. Your photon
model is nonsense.

So what is YOUR model of a femtosecond photon?

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..

GIGO

I know you don't like it.

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?

I recognize many forms of mental illness by now.
Remember, I did a rotation in a psychiatric ward.

Remeber I have a psychology degree...so I can easily recognize your delusion of
being a great physicist.

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?

You STILL haven't provided evidence that you can
simultaneously fit luminosity and radial velocity
curves.

I have. You didn't join my conversations with George.

From what I can see, your BaTh program STILL fails
even the simplest fits, despite your addition of
kludge after kludge.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

I might add that some of these take about two hours to match because I have to
juggle about six parameter values in the process. The end result usually
produces values accurate to within about 1%.

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

So now you suggest that your dark companions are
totally invisible except for gravitational effects?

Relativists claim there is about four times as much dark matter as visible.
I agree. ...and I have found what it is.
Most variable stars are orbiting some kind of dark object.

The plain fact is, there are far more cold objects throughout the universe than
hot ones.
Why shouldn't there be?

Shades of John Wheeler!

The Wilsonian version of IT FROM BIT???

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

In your dreams...

It will be published soon.

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 Jul 5, 5:30 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:28:57 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 4, 6:25 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

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

No, I am suggesting that incompressible sawblade
photons are incompatible with the existence of
femtosecond laser pulses. There is no way to shape
them to fit within the pulse envelope. Your photon
model is nonsense.

So what is YOUR model of a femtosecond photon?

Understanding femtosecond pulses (or for that matter,
any pulses at all) requires knowledge of a branch of
mathematics of which you are not merely ignorant...
it is a branch of mathematics for which you have
expressed open contempt.

George, bz, Jeff etc. etc. all understand this branch
of mathematics. You do not.

That's all the hint that I will give you.

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

GIGO

I know you don't like it.

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?

I recognize many forms of mental illness by now.
Remember, I did a rotation in a psychiatric ward.

Remeber I have a psychology degree...so I can easily
recognize your delusion of being a great physicist.

Who has delusions? I know perfectly well that I am
merely an advanced amateur astronomer.

You, on the other hand, rank yourself as undoubtedly
the foremost physicist in the entire world, whose
theories about light will overturn and revolutionize
the last three centuries of physics.

This despite the fact that you barely have any grasp
of mathematics beyond basic algebra.

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?

You STILL haven't provided evidence that you can
simultaneously fit luminosity and radial velocity
curves.

I have. You didn't join my conversations with George.

***** SHOW YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY FITS *****

You have not presented any satisfactory SIMULTANEOUS
fits of luminosity and radial velocity for any star.

BaTh has failed, failed, and failed again.

From what I can see, your BaTh program STILL fails
even the simplest fits, despite your addition of
kludge after kludge.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

I might add that some of these take about two hours
to match because I have to juggle about six parameter
values in the process. The end result usually
produces values accurate to within about 1%.

***** WHERE ARE YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY CURVES? *****

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

So now you suggest that your dark companions are
totally invisible except for gravitational effects?

Relativists claim there is about four times as much
dark matter as visible.
I agree. ...and I have found what it is.
Most variable stars are orbiting some kind of dark object.

The plain fact is, there are far more cold objects
throughout the universe than hot ones.
Why shouldn't there be?

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

In your dreams...

It will be published soon.

In the Journal of Irreproducible Results, perhaps?

Naw, your theory doesn't even have the merit of
being humorous...

Jerry

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:57:55 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 5, 5:30 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:28:57 -0700, Jerry
wrote:


So what is YOUR model of a femtosecond photon?

Understanding femtosecond pulses (or for that matter,
any pulses at all) requires knowledge of a branch of
mathematics of which you are not merely ignorant...
it is a branch of mathematics for which you have
expressed open contempt.

In other words, you haven't a clue.

George, bz, Jeff etc. etc. all understand this branch
of mathematics. You do not.

That's all the hint that I will give you.

In other words, you haven't a clue.



I recognize many forms of mental illness by now.
Remember, I did a rotation in a psychiatric ward.

Remeber I have a psychology degree...so I can easily
recognize your delusion of being a great physicist.

Who has delusions? I know perfectly well that I am
merely an advanced amateur astronomer.

Being starry-eyed doesn't make you an astronomer.

You, on the other hand, rank yourself as undoubtedly
the foremost physicist in the entire world, whose
theories about light will overturn and revolutionize
the last three centuries of physics.

.....they certainly appear to do just that....But of course, I'm not the only
one who thinks so.

This despite the fact that you barely have any grasp
of mathematics beyond basic algebra.

What you believe doesn't worry me at all.

You STILL haven't provided evidence that you can
simultaneously fit luminosity and radial velocity
curves.

I have. You didn't join my conversations with George.

***** SHOW YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY FITS *****

You have not presented any satisfactory SIMULTANEOUS
fits of luminosity and radial velocity for any star.

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

For single stars or well separated buinaries, the brightness and velocity
curves will be virtually identical. The velocity curve might have considerably
less variation than the brightness one.

BaTh has failed, failed, and failed again.

Desperate, desperate and desperate again!

From what I can see, your BaTh program STILL fails
even the simplest fits, despite your addition of
kludge after kludge.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

I might add that some of these take about two hours
to match because I have to juggle about six parameter
values in the process. The end result usually
produces values accurate to within about 1%.

***** WHERE ARE YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY CURVES? *****

Do you mean the true ones or those based on observed grating diffraction
angles?
There's a big difference you know.....or maybe you wouldn't know...


Relativists claim there is about four times as much
dark matter as visible.
I agree. ...and I have found what it is.
Most variable stars are orbiting some kind of dark object.

The plain fact is, there are far more cold objects
throughout the universe than hot ones.
Why shouldn't there be?

Too hard for you, Jerry?

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

In your dreams...

It will be published soon.

In the Journal of Irreproducible Results, perhaps?

Naw, your theory doesn't even have the merit of
being humorous...

Silly little girl....

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 Jul 6, 12:01 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:57:55 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 5, 5:30 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

So what is YOUR model of a femtosecond photon?

Understanding femtosecond pulses (or for that matter,
any pulses at all) requires knowledge of a branch of
mathematics of which you are not merely ignorant...
it is a branch of mathematics for which you have
expressed open contempt.

In other words, you haven't a clue.

George, bz, Jeff etc. etc. all understand this branch
of mathematics. You do not.

That's all the hint that I will give you.

In other words, you haven't a clue.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want. Your
total ignorance is evident to those who understand
what I am referring to.

In the mean time, you still have the MAJOR problem
of how to cram your INCOMPRESSIBLE sawblades into
a space less than one wavelength long.

Remeber I have a psychology degree...so I can easily
recognize your delusion of being a great physicist.

Who has delusions? I know perfectly well that I am
merely an advanced amateur astronomer.

Being starry-eyed doesn't make you an astronomer.

You, on the other hand, rank yourself as undoubtedly
the foremost physicist in the entire world, whose
theories about light will overturn and revolutionize
the last three centuries of physics.

....they certainly appear to do just that....
But of course, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Who besides yourself ascribes any validity to your
imaginings? Even your former buddy Androcles believes
that you have gone off the deep end.

This despite the fact that you barely have any grasp
of mathematics beyond basic algebra.

What you believe doesn't worry me at all.

You have given plenty of evidence for my assertion.

I have. You didn't join my conversations with George.

***** SHOW YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY FITS *****

You have not presented any satisfactory SIMULTANEOUS
fits of luminosity and radial velocity for any star.

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

Pathetic.

That is not -your- curve fit, and the illustration is
merely an APPROXIMATION to the observed relationship
between luminosity and radial velocity.

In reality, Cepheid luminosity and radial velocity
curves show wavelength dependent phase lags. Check any
REAL data on this.

Let's start with RT Aurigae
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm

For single stars or well separated buinaries,
the brightness and velocity curves will be virtually
identical. The velocity curve might have considerably
less variation than the brightness one.

Huh? Stating that a velocity curve measured in km/s has
"less" variation than a luminosity curve measured in
magnitude units is comparing apples versus oranges.

BaTh has failed, failed, and failed again.

Desperate, desperate and desperate again!

No, merely stating the truth.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

These are all luminosity curves. Not one attempts
a simultaneous fit of luminosity -and- radial velocity
curves to observed data.

I might add that some of these take about two hours
to match because I have to juggle about six parameter
values in the process.

This shows your lack of knowledge of multivariable
regression analysis.

Juggling six parameter values, hmmm... Is that why you
can fit .wav file outputs so well?

You've put together a general curve fitting program,
capable of matching flute sounds as well as Cepheids.

The end result usually
produces values accurate to within about 1%.

***** WHERE ARE YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY CURVES? *****

Do you mean the true ones or those based on observed
grating diffraction angles?
There's a big difference you know.....
or maybe you wouldn't know...

You need to be able to match observed data.
You haven't matched observed data.
BaTh has failed.

Relativists claim there is about four times as much
dark matter as visible.
I agree. ...and I have found what it is.
Most variable stars are orbiting some kind of dark object.

The plain fact is, there are far more cold objects
throughout the universe than hot ones.
Why shouldn't there be?

Too hard for you, Jerry?

No, it is just that the observed evidence is not
consistent with dark matter being in the form of
compact objects. Do a bit of research on the topic,
will you?

Nah, you won't...

It will be published soon.

In the Journal of Irreproducible Results, perhaps?

Naw, your theory doesn't even have the merit of
being humorous...

Silly little girl....

I've found a WONDERFUL illustration of your theory:
http://www.jir.com/graph_contest/index.html#MoreGraphs

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 Fri, 06 Jul 2007 04:43:47 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:01 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:57:55 -0700, Jerry
wrote:


In other words, you haven't a clue.

George, bz, Jeff etc. etc. all understand this branch
of mathematics. You do not.

That's all the hint that I will give you.

In other words, you haven't a clue.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want. Your
total ignorance is evident to those who understand
what I am referring to.

In the mean time, you still have the MAJOR problem
of how to cram your INCOMPRESSIBLE sawblades into
a space less than one wavelength long.

YOU and fellow relativists still have the major problem of showing how all the
starlight in the universe miraculously travels towards our little planet at
precisely 'c', simply because of an ancient religious belief which proclaims
Earth as the centre of the universe.


You, on the other hand, rank yourself as undoubtedly
the foremost physicist in the entire world, whose
theories about light will overturn and revolutionize
the last three centuries of physics.

....they certainly appear to do just that....
But of course, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Who besides yourself ascribes any validity to your
imaginings? Even your former buddy Androcles believes
that you have gone off the deep end.

If somebody like Androcles ever regarded me as normal I would be extremely
concerned.

This despite the fact that you barely have any grasp
of mathematics beyond basic algebra.

What you believe doesn't worry me at all.

You have given plenty of evidence for my assertion.

.......says the bedpan expert

I have. You didn't join my conversations with George.

***** SHOW YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY FITS *****

You have not presented any satisfactory SIMULTANEOUS
fits of luminosity and radial velocity for any star.

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

Pathetic.

Then write to hte authors and tell them so.

That is not -your- curve fit, and the illustration is
merely an APPROXIMATION to the observed relationship
between luminosity and radial velocity.

In reality, Cepheid luminosity and radial velocity
curves show wavelength dependent phase lags. Check any
REAL data on this.

Let's start with RT Aurigae
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm

That's right.
Such phase differences are fully explained by my 'control sphere' model. It
depends on the ratio of VDoppler to ADoppler that emerges from the region of
the star. The presense of a companion star will invariably allow some VDoppler
to get through and cause a phase difference.

For single stars or well separated buinaries,
the brightness and velocity curves will be virtually
identical. The velocity curve might have considerably
less variation than the brightness one.

Huh? Stating that a velocity curve measured in km/s has
"less" variation than a luminosity curve measured in
magnitude units is comparing apples versus oranges.

I said 'less variation'. You'll never make it in medicine if you can't read
properly.

BaTh has failed, failed, and failed again.

Desperate, desperate and desperate again!

No, merely stating the truth.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

These are all luminosity curves. Not one attempts
a simultaneous fit of luminosity -and- radial velocity
curves to observed data.

That has been done.

I might add that some of these take about two hours
to match because I have to juggle about six parameter
values in the process.

This shows your lack of knowledge of multivariable
regression analysis.

Juggling six parameter values, hmmm... Is that why you
can fit .wav file outputs so well?

You've put together a general curve fitting program,
capable of matching flute sounds as well as Cepheids.

.......silly girl....
The program can only produce a very narrow range of curve shapes.
Don't you consider it a little more than coincidence that most star curves also
fit this range?

The end result usually
produces values accurate to within about 1%.

***** WHERE ARE YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY CURVES? *****

Do you mean the true ones or those based on observed
grating diffraction angles?
There's a big difference you know.....
or maybe you wouldn't know...

You need to be able to match observed data.
You haven't matched observed data.
BaTh has failed.

The BaTh have succeeded well and truly...but it is far too complicated for you
to understand.

Relativists claim there is about four times as much
dark matter as visible.
I agree. ...and I have found what it is.
Most variable stars are orbiting some kind of dark object.

The plain fact is, there are far more cold objects
throughout the universe than hot ones.
Why shouldn't there be?

Too hard for you, Jerry?

No, it is just that the observed evidence is not
consistent with dark matter being in the form of
compact objects. Do a bit of research on the topic,
will you?

Nah, you won't...

I wont.... because what you just claimed is plain nonsense.

It will be published soon.

In the Journal of Irreproducible Results, perhaps?

Naw, your theory doesn't even have the merit of
being humorous...

Silly little girl....

I've found a WONDERFUL illustration of your theory:
http://www.jir.com/graph_contest/index.html#MoreGraphs

Is this what med students do all day?

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.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:31:52 -0700, George Dishman

wrote:

On 3 Jul, 03:22, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:48:25 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

Of course they are, the same equations apply.
Multiplication is associative so modulating white
light by a sine wave is exactly the same as
modulating a sine wave carrier with a white noise
signal - e.g. voice on AM.

voice is not white noise George.

Aspirates henry, but stop changing the subject, it
should be obvious that they are as easily definable
mathematically as conventional sidebands on an AM
radio.

Not very convincing George.

It's called the "Commutative Law" in maths, a*b = b*a.

Yes, as I said above, both apply and ADoppler is
the extra factor beyond VDoppler that only appears
in ballisitic theory.

ADoppler is usually by far the dominant factor.

Forget the mantra Henry and think. We have proved
there is no ADoppler on pulsars and for contact
binaries where the speeds are the highest and
ADoppler should show up.

Both have a fixed 'sphere' around them. All light leaves at about the same
speed, c wrt the barycentre of the pair.

Look at your Basic program again, you insisted the
spheres were separate and moving in the bottom picture.

If you look at the radius
curves, there is no ADoppler on Cepheids either,
so no, it is not "usually .. dominant", it is
non-existent in every case we have examined.

Where did you get that idea?

Mental block Henry, I've told you dozens of times.

That's OK, you need to match the radius curve for
this example. That will resolve whether there is
any ADoppler effect or if it is only VDoppler.

VDoppler can't produce large magnitude changes like these.

I know, ballistic theory cannot explain Cepheid
curves.

Quite wrong George.

Fact Henry, though apparently your inability to
accept you have been in error prevents you
realising it.

I have explained all that I have tried to match.


Nope, I have ignored that as we agreed some weeks
ago. I am simply differentiating the radius to get
the velocity and then the acceleration.

You aren't using it as an indicator of bunching (or photon density).

Yes I am, I am comparing it against the luminosity
curve which is a direct count of photons in a given
band.

You clearly don't understand the principle involved.

Mental problems again? Remember I had to write the
BaTh equation for speed equalisation for you, I
understand the principles far better than you.

which IS velocity
dependent....h.(c+v)/lambda.
You are completely ignoring the principle factor involved, which is
'number of
photons arriving per second'.

On the contrary, that is the only factor I am
considering at the moment.

You aren't considering the bunching effect due to velocity differences.

Yes I am, that is the ADoppler part which should
be proportional to the top of my three plots, but
the curve shape is completely wrong - that shows
there is no ADoppler.

George, think about this:


A


B


C



1__2___3____4_____5______6____-v,a D


An accelerating source emits pulses of light at equal time intervals at
the
points shown. The speed of each pulse is c wrt its source.
You can easily imagine how the pulses bunch together as they approach the
three
points A, B, C and D.


I think ".. the three points A, B, C and D." have been
messed up by Usenet. Just consider point D, we are only
interested in the radial components and any transverse
component of the speed affects the radial only via
Pythagoras as a second order speed term so changes the
result by less than one part per million.

You can see that the pulse density distribution at A, B, C and D can be
manipulated by curving the path of the source.

Nothing you are saying is relevant to this process.

Think again. Consider points 1 through 6 as the surface
of the star as it expands away from the centre. The
photon rates you will calculate will depend on the speed
and acceleration of the surface, both of which can be
found by differentiating the radius.

That's a good one George....

It's your own Henry, do the sums.

f'=f(c+v)/c

OK, now apply that to the carrier and sideband
frequencies independently. Then inverse transform
the three to get the received waveform. What speed
does the modulation travel at? Show your working ;-)

I don't see the point.
What are you getting at.

Yet again Henry, consideration of sidebands allows
you to calculate the Doppler shift directly from
the speed of modulating pulses hence a speed of
c+v determines the shift.

You don't have a model for individual photons.

I don't need a model, I just need to know that
they deflect by the same angle as the classical
wave on hitting a grating which is proved by
the photomultiplier experiment. Again this is
something I have pointed out dozens of times.
When are you going to stop trying to change the
subject and address the proof?

Again, that is true only if the speed equalisation
distance is large so that it travels a long way
through the ISM at variable speed. The same is true
without the sphere if the light so again it still
appears redundant.

NO NO NO!!!!!. You are quite wrong there George.
The sphere effectively becomes the source. If it moves with the star,
then the
original c+v relationship with Earth holds.

Exactly, so what is the difference from saying it
leaves the star at c+v?

But George, if TWO stars are in close orbit, the common sphere remains
vurtually at rest wrt both.

You spent a long time telling me there were two spheres and
each moved with its parent star. You lost the plot somewhere.

No I haven't. The spheres aren't rigid steel balls.... they behave more
like a
gas and their effect probably drops off with an inverse square law.

Go back and read your posts again.

Their
contributions are additive so two equally sized orbiting stars will end up
with
an almost steady sphere with a couple of small circulating bumps.. ALL
light
leaves that sphere at about c wrt the sphere and NOT at c wrt each star.

There is very little if any 'c+v'. The light from
both leaves at c/n...but is wavelength shifted dring the unification
process.

Surely you can see this.

Yep, but the same is true if the light changes to speed
c at surface of the heliopause as it moves into the ISM
so what does the sphere do?

I just explained.

What you said still doesn't have any effect. Perhaps
you should calculate the result before guessing any more.

You are right, I can't see why you think it makes any
difference.

see above. It makes a difference in cases like contact binaries.

You said the sphere moved with the star.

For a single star or a well separated pair, that is true. The sphere makes
little or no difference to the speed of light leaving the system.

Have a look at your Basic animation, the bottom
diagram.

... what I said was that
we know there are no errors in the derivation
of the predicted angle from the respective
theories and they give different answers.

Ther is an optical lens effect anyway.

That's what we are talking about, effectively
Newton predicts twice the focal length for a
given mass.

I meant an atmospheric lens as well as the gravitational one.

That doesn't come into the maths of GR or Newton,
they give different predictions.

I say much of the bending is optical rather than gravitational.

Nope, it's less than a millionth of the gravitational
bend (from memory, Craig Markwardt posted the details
about a year or more ago in reply to Sean). You can
easily separate the effects since the optical is
frequency dependent while gravitational is not.

I say that my
'spheres' also bend light.


I repeat, I suggest you go and look ;-)

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

is typical

It doesn't show a radius curve.

Why should it?

You have lost the plot Henry, the conversation is about
comparing the first and second derivatives of the radius
to the luminosity to find out whether ballistic theory
says it is VDoppler or ADoppler.



It shows typically observed cepheid brightness curves.


You are missing the whole point.
You are becoming quite clueless George.

Since you can't even work out what was being
calculated, it is you who needs the clue - see
above.

George, I'll let the computer calculatebthe bunching.

Let me give you the clue again - we were talking about
differentiating the radius to get the radial velocity.
You have wandered off on all sorts of tangents.

No, YOU have....

Exactly, so stop trying to change the subject.

because you are starting to realise that I'm right.

ROFL, Henry ballistic theory gets _every_ prediction
wrong unless it the source is at rest. You claimed
that Cepheid luminosity variation was produced by
ADoppler so I have pointed out that is not true
because the curve matches the shape of the velocity,
not the acceleration of the surface. As you of course
realise, it is also three orders of magnitude too small
but that's another matter, you said you were just
matching the shapes and on that basis alone, only
VDoppler gives a match.

Again, You are becoming quite clueless George.

Simple statement of fact Henry.

Even Max Keon thinks you are losing it.

Have a look at Max's first attempts at writing
equations, he though he needed two, one for negative
numbers and another for positive. Both took the
square root of a square. He didn't know the
associative, distributive and commutative laws until
I pointed him at K12 pages. His maths is way behind
yours!

It could still be pretty good then.

If you consider not knowing the level expected of a 12
year old "good" for an adult. The derivatives of the
radius I am discussing are a couple of years ahead of
that and you don't seem to be able to understand them
even after I drew the plots for you.

So find one that gets eclipsed at the fundamental.
Statistically there must be many.

I would like to find one.

Exactly, without them you have a problem to explain.

I don't have any problems.

You do, there are thousands of Cepheids known so if they
were binaries, many should be eclipsing but none are.

I can simulate eccentricity and yaw angle to within
a few percent.

Not without a companion.

Yes you do, you have nothing to compare against the
radius.

The radial velocity of the surface of a star that goes 'huff puff' is
very
similar to that of one in elliptical orbit.

You think? So add the curve to your software
and let's see it.

That's how it works already.

So add the curve and let's see what it predicts,
what's your problem?

Except for one thing George.
VDoppler variations are minute. ADoppler can easily produce
variations up to
mag 4.

However, differentiating the radius twice is nothing
like the luminosity curve, it only matches the velocity.

George, your own suggested method of calculating photon bunching matches
just
about any brightness curve.

Don't try to change the subject Henry.

I thought you would be impressed. You actually achieved something. You
method
is faster than mine even if it is considerably harder to program. It
produces
exactly the same results.

Flattery won't work either. I repeat:

However, differentiating the radius twice is nothing
like the luminosity curve, it only matches the velocity.
However, differentiating the radius twice is nothing
like the luminosity curve, it only matches the velocity.

Got it yet, or won't your mental state allow you to
respond to that point?

You are referring to the TRUE radius variation. It is the OBSERVED
variation
that matters.

I am referring to the radius measured by means of the
angle subtended by the star so I don't see what
distinction you are drawing.

OK, some people have claimed to have seen cepheids actually pulsating.

For goodness sake Henry, what do you think we have been
talking about for the last several weeks ????? The
ESO page is exactly that measurement.

There might be stars that actually do that and it might indeed be
possible to
see them....but I would be very suspicious..

Welcome to the conversation.

I don't think anyone has actuallyseen the radius pulsating.

Yes they have:

http://tinyurl.com/239mw6

The red dots with vertical error bars are the measured
angular diameter in milli arc seconds. Multiply by the
distance to get radius and differentiate to get surface
velocity. Alternatively integrate the measured velocity
curve obtained spectroscopically and you get the
background smooth curve.

That is what we have been talking about for a couple of
weeks now so if you have finally grasped the plot, maybe
you can say something sensible about it this time.

Go ahead then, add the radial distance curve, match
it to the radius curve for L Car and "let your program
provide the answers".

Again, all you are considering is the h.c/lambda energy
effect.....not the
'photon density' one.

Nope, you are lost entirely. I am discussing the
measured luminosity and CCD detectors are photon
counters, not sensitive to the energy. None of
this discussion has been related to photon energy
at any point.

Just let the computer do the sums and produce the curves George.
My program is corrrect.

ROFL, I have pointed out the error in it many, many
times.

There is no error. Even your own suggested method produces the right
answers.

Sure, but you only use that method on one curve when it
applies to both, your "measured velocity" curve is wrong.

Incidentally, I have now included the effects of tidal bulges and have
found
that their effects are very similar to those of a first overtone. I have
matched some brightness curves very closely.

Worthless until you match the radius at the same time,
or find an eclipser so you can match the phase, As you
admitted, you can just as easily match a curve with
VDoppler as with ADoppler

George, for most 'cepheids' the radius is constant.

Nope, the ESO chart for L Car is how a typical
Cepheid behaves.

Note also, if you differentiate the radius, you get
the speed of the surface relative to the barycentre
of the star. Subtract that from the observed velocity
curve and you get the velocity of the barycentre and
guess what, since they are the same, there is no
observed motion of the barycentre at the luminosity
period.

Most cepheids are merely stars in orbit around something dark. Many are
egg
shaped, due to tidal effects.

If you want anyone to believe a simple binary system
has been mistaken for a variable-radius Cepheid then
you will need to show a discrepancy between the
derivative of the angular radius and the spectroscopic
velocity. There is none for L Car and no reason to
think it isn't entirely typical.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:59:47 -0700, George Dishman

wrote:

On 3 Jul, 03:28, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:22:11 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
On 2 Jul, 01:27, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:13:50 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

There is a single value in the Excel sheet I used
to produce it that defines the width of the raised
cosine as a fraction of the period. It would be
simple to increase that a bit but it won't change
the basic shapes which are produced so I don't see
any point in spending the time to do that, use your
imagination. Barring the rounded edges, the
acceleration is rectangular, the velocity is a
sawtooth and the radius is two quadratics.

Your acceleration curve has an exaggerated length of time during
which
acceleration is constant....it isn't dead constant either.

Indeed, but I always said it was merely illustrative
and the key point here is that real _luminosity_
curves show a steady decline over a signidficant
part of the cycle, they don't show the near constant
values of the acceleration curve.

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.

Where did you get that daft idea? In fact there
is a small "error" in that I am assuming the
time of arrival is similarly spcaed to the time
of departure but that is correct if the effect
is VDoppler only.

What the hell are you talking about?

I am simply pointing that I have _obviously_ taken
account of the aspect that you said I had missed.
If there weren't "sequential emission delays between
the 'pulses'" then the _transmitted_ frequency would
be infinite.

It is only correct if one assumes Einstein's second postulate.

Garbage, zero time between pulses gives infinite
frequency regardless of speed. I guess you have
some point you are trying to make but you need
try to sort out what you are saying if it is to
be understandable.

For the ADoppler case, it would
have the effect of distorting the X scale of the
plot but not the Y scale, so it would only change
the mark:space ratio of the rectangular curve
which is arbitrary in the illustrative curve
anyway.

George, you seem to have completely lost it.
Racing cars could never overtake each other if you had your way.

Consider two pulses of light emitted from an orbiting source. The second
is
emitted a short time after the first but is moving faster. What happens
George?
The second eventually catches the first, of course.

Of course, but also if they are both emitted while
the source is moving towards the observer, the pair
arrive earlier at their destination than pulses
emitted at the same time but from a source at rest
wrt the barycentre. That is the only effect I have
omitted since the pulse widthis arbitrary anyway
and it is only an illustration, not a simulation.

It so happens that the shape of some elliptical orbits in particular is
such
that pulses emitted at regular interval from 'concave' sections bunch
together
whilst those emitted from the convex, move apart. There are sections from
which
light emitted sequentially over a certain time interval will arrive at an
observer over a much shorter time interval. An observer will see this as
large
brightness increase.

Yes, and that is what I have been discussing all along.

But then the radius would be the second integral
of the luminosity curve, not the first integral,
and that doesn't match observation.

Observation is about photon density, not individual photon energy.

Yes, and the photon density measured as the luminosity
is what I am comparing. It matches the sawtooth velocity
curve far better than the rectangular acceleration.

Let's be clear Henry, according to BaTh, the photon
arrival rate should be the product of the emission
rate, the VDoppler and the ADoppler factors. VDoppler
depends on the velocity curve only but ADoppler
depends on the acceleration and also the speed
equalisation distance. Comparing the luminosity with
the derivatives of the actual radius curve shows that
the speed equalisation must be very short leaving
VDoppler as the dominant effect.

Now include the emission time delay.

It is already included.

No you haven't.

The frequency is not infinite, it is included.

Get it now, George?

Nothing you have said is at odds with my point, but
you seem to be grasping it a bit better now. You
still have some way to go though.

You might understand now.

The only thing I don't understand is why you
are having so much difficulty following what
is essentially a very simple argument.

I agree it is fairly simple.
Why can't you understand it.

Obviously I do, or the transmitted frequency would
be infinite. Where do you get the bizarre idea that
I have not taken it into account?

To summarise - the time between pulses (or wavecrest
emissions) is non-zero. During that time the source
moves some distance towards or away from the observer.
That leads to the VDoppler term, (1+v/c). In addition
the speed for one pulse may differ from the previous
which leads to the ADoppler term, 1/(1-Ra/c^2). The
distance moved and the difference in speed also affect
the time of arrival of each wavecrest which slightly
distorts the resulting curves. So what do you think
I have missed?

George

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
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?

Exactly. It's surprising that people like Sekerin
who pushed this years ago didn't see that problem.

Blows holes in his concrete boat.

Not concrete, it has enough holes to be chicken wire.

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}.

The way he looks at it, you would need to accelerate
the whole laser to get bunching. An example might
be a natural maser in a stellar atmosphere of it was
part of a binary system.

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.

Since any refractive index sets the speed to c/n
relative to the material, it would be limited to
regions where the density is too low to get a
dispersion measure. That rules out anything in
our galaxy.

... where intellegent life
is absent, then the ballistic theory of light can freely reign.

I would agree with that, though not for technical
reasons.

George

"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 5, 5:30 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:28:57 -0700, Jerry
wrote:
On Jul 4, 6:25 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
....
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?

You STILL haven't provided evidence that you can
simultaneously fit luminosity and radial velocity
curves.

I have. You didn't join my conversations with George.

***** SHOW YOUR RADIAL VELOCITY FITS *****

Not just that Jerry since there is no way to distinguish
the VDoppler and ADoppler terms from just velocity and
luminosity, what he needs to do is show that he can fit
this curve for radius:

http://tinyurl.com/239mw6

And from that deduce whether the luminosity matches
the velocity or the acceleration.

You have not presented any satisfactory SIMULTANEOUS
fits of luminosity and radial velocity for any star.

He won't ever do it as it proves his claim regarding
Cepheids to be false: he _can_ get a rough fit of the
luminosity to the velocity but not to the acceleration
which is what he is currently saying is the cause.

George