Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:54:13 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:31:32 +0100, "George Dishman"

But that has no effect on the interferometer,
all of it is on Earth ;-)

George, presumably the interference is caused by the angle subtended by
the star.

Nope. You have covered some of this with paul but
you have only partly grasped the situation. Look
again at the setup:

http://tinyurl.com/3dybf3

and compare it with this

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...ic_grating.gif

As with any interferometer the pattern depends on
the distance between the paths at the receiving
end. A maximum occurs where the path length
difference is a multiple of a wavelength. The same
is true here but instead of simple rulings on a
grating you have two separate telescopes, ANTU and
MELIPAL, providing the paths.

Remember when we talked of the grating, I made the
point that a single photon would be deflected by an
angle that depended on its frequency or wavelength
adn a distribution plot of where photons land gives
the usual pattern. The same is true again, light from
one side of the star passes through both telescopes
and produces a set of fringes. Completely independently
light from the other side also produces a set of
fringes but because the source is slightly displaced,
so are the fringes. As a result, the minima don't
occur at exactly the same place so they don't go to
zero. The contrast ratio then gives an indication of
the displacement as a fraction of a fringe and hence
of the angular width of the star.

impossible.

However, it is what happens.

My interpretation is that the interference is caused by factors
unknown, ...

ROFL, that says it all Henry, your interpretation
is that you don't have an interpretation. :-)

The light arrives at c/n where n is the refractive
index of the air around the telescopes. The phase
difference across the system (i.e. between the two
telescopes) depends on their separation and that
speed.

...the light travels a long way before it reaches the Earth's atmosphere.

Only the speed over the last few metres matters to
the phase difference, the rest is common to both
paths.

Interferomery will give a distorted answer.

Nope, there is no distortion introduced
by ballistic theory.

I think it is fair to assume all stars are rotatiing.

Sure, but photons from one side of the star arrive
at some speed and get deflected through some angle
by the interferometer. What speed it left the star
makes no difference to the pattern. The same is true
for photons from the other side, every photon acts
independently.

You have no model of a photon ..

QED, sum over the paths.

.. so how would you know?

Your diagram of a grating applies.

It has no effect, you only want to wave it
away because you cannot stomach the truth.

the star's rotation stuffs up the whole process.

Not in the slightest.

George's Giant Photons explain everything.

"Henry's Giant Photons" you mean, that is _your_
philosophical interpretation. I merely pointed out
that the probability of every _individual_ photon
hitting the detector depends on the details of both
paths which is an empirical observation, and one you
would have repeated in the form of Young's Slits in
the lab if you had ever done a physics degree.

Even the simplest review of a basic reflecting
telescope shows that as Paul has explained to you.

Don't be so hasty George.
The Planck curve deals with PHOTON DENSITY in a particular band.

Intensity Henry.


Cepheid surface speeds are typically less than 30km/s
so 0.01% is an upper limit. Whether that is caused by
VDoppler or ADoppler doesn't matter, the shift is no
more than that value. That means no more than 0.24nm
worth of the band moves out at one end while about the
same amount moves in at the other.

George, you will never learn anything about cepheids from willusory
data..

If it is shifted by 0.01%, that's how much
falls off one end of the filter and into the
other.

This is going to become pretty complicated so I will think about it.

Do that, you are obviously missing the point at the
moment.

you are mssing the willusions...

Nope, 0.01% is the shift regardless of cause,
think about it.

it can be caused by ADopppler, some VDoppler or shift in Planck curve.

Whatever, the shift is 0.01% and we know the filter
widths so we know how much it affects the reading.

All the bserved data is willusory and cannot be assumed correct.

Wrong again, temperatures and subtended angle are
valid as I have explained to you several times.

George, these exist in your dreams....

Temperatures and radii exist in reality, and
your theory says we measure them without
distortion.

...and have been pointing out that the velocity curve should be
similar
in
shape an phase to the luminosity curve...but you never listen...

No, check the top of this post, you were arguing
that the luminosity peaked with the acceleration,
not the velocity.

That's correct

Well make your mind up.

I have.

Then stick to it and stop contradicting yourself.

I cnt see our sun fluctuating in brigtness or radius....yet it would be
classed as a variable by a distant observer.

It would appear to vary in luminosity but not in
radius or temperature which is what we are talking
about, try to keep a grasp of the conversation Henry.

George, a relativist 100LYs away would come up with all kinds of
ridiculous
theories ....

Trying to duck the subject again Henry?

You might want to consider the overall setup:

http://tinyurl.com/3dybf3

No, it wont work..

But it does work Henry, they get fringes exactly
as all the theories say they will.

sure

Yep

That would require turbulent diffusion because thermal conductivty of
gasses is
quite small. Such diffusion would be far too slow.

The transfer is principally radiative but it is not
fast due to the opacity.

far too slow...

Do the sums (remember you personal estimates are
usually six to ten orders of magnitude out), it
works perfectly.

I don't see how a single photon could be emitted by both sides of a


It ignores the different c+v from both sides.

A single photon doesn't come from "both sides" and for
each photon it is only the speed at the interferometer
together with the frequency that determines the
wavelength, lambda_r:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...ic_grating.gif

The whole method is useless and incapable of producing anything concrete.

Sorry Henry, ballistic theory says it works just
fine, so your whining is pointless.

George

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:57:27 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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


He did, though perhaps he assumed too much of you, it
is coherent because each detection is of a _single_
photon and any photon is of course coherent with itself.

So every single photon frm a distant star is stretched to over 600 metres
wide
by the time it reaches Earth?

That is for you to decide, you have to explain how
an individual photon's behaviour can depend on the
paths through both telescopes, Paul and I are only
telling you what the observed result is. It is just
a larger example of Young's Slits so you shouldn't
be too surprised.

.....a much larger version.
A can't imagine a gamma particle 600 metres wide.....can you?
It would be quite dangerous...and we're being bombarded by them continuously...

Have you now fathomed that, or will you still state stupidities like:
"Just tell me how photons emitted from opposite sides of a star can end
up
in phase over a 600m wavefront".

Interferometry requires coherent light.

Interferometry works with individual photons even
in this configuration:

http://tinyurl.com/3dybf3

...and my statistical theory explains why...

More lies Henry? You don't have a statistical theory,
only Ritz's macroscopic velocity equation and my
extension for speed equalisation. In fact, come to
think of it, you have never originated anything for
yourself.


You're becoming as amusing as Paul....

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.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:35:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:36:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Since you appear to be deaf, I will have to shout:

OF BLOODY COURSE THE LIGHT FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF
A RESOLVED STAR ISN'T COHERENT OVER 600m!

It is the light from a _point_ (area resolution) on
the star that is coherent (plane wavefront).
The wavefronts from two different parts of the star
have an angle to each other, and is NOT coherent.

So you are claiming that a single light quanta can have a 'cross section' of
over 600 metres by the time it reaches Earth????

I am claiming that the diameter of the aperture strongly
affects the probability for where the photon will hit
at the CCD. The photon from a point source will with high
confidence hit within a diameter proportional to
the wavelength divided by the aperture diameter.

If you think that implies that the photon must have
a cross section equal to the aperture, then it illustrates
how hopeless idiotic your idea of a photon is.

Don't twist and turn Paul.
Interference requires coherent light.

....and if you want to introduce probability, then it will show that the BaTh is
correct to about 99.9 confidence level since every known experment supports
it....

This response is typical for you.
Effectually you claim that big telescopes do not have
better resolution than small ones, because you cannot
understand how the size of the apperture can affect a photon.

On the contrary, I suggested making high res telescopes this way many decades
ago.

Since you drop off at the very beginning,
there is no point in going on.
This is obviously way beyond your abilities.

Paul, you are sounding like a beaten man...

[snip]

Paul



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 Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:13:04 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:54:13 +0100, "George Dishman"

Remember when we talked of the grating, I made the
point that a single photon would be deflected by an
angle that depended on its frequency or wavelength
adn a distribution plot of where photons land gives
the usual pattern. The same is true again, light from
one side of the star passes through both telescopes
and produces a set of fringes. Completely independently
light from the other side also produces a set of
fringes but because the source is slightly displaced,
so are the fringes. As a result, the minima don't
occur at exactly the same place so they don't go to
zero. The contrast ratio then gives an indication of
the displacement as a fraction of a fringe and hence
of the angular width of the star.

impossible.

However, it is what happens.

My interpretation is that the interference is caused by factors
unknown, ...

ROFL, that says it all Henry, your interpretation
is that you don't have an interpretation. :-)

George, I accept that delusional relativists truly believe that their theory
provides all the answers physics will ever need......

The light arrives at c/n where n is the refractive
index of the air around the telescopes. The phase
difference across the system (i.e. between the two
telescopes) depends on their separation and that
speed.

...the light travels a long way before it reaches the Earth's atmosphere.

Only the speed over the last few metres matters to
the phase difference, the rest is common to both
paths.

That's definitely not correct...I'm surprised you would make such a statement..


the star's rotation stuffs up the whole process.

Not in the slightest.

George's Giant Photons explain everything.

"Henry's Giant Photons" you mean, that is _your_
philosophical interpretation. I merely pointed out
that the probability of every _individual_ photon
hitting the detector depends on the details of both
paths which is an empirical observation, and one you
would have repeated in the form of Young's Slits in
the lab if you had ever done a physics degree.

My theory explains it all. .
The diffracted angle of a single photon is determined by the phasing of the
photon's INTRINSIC oscillation when it arrives.

Even the simplest review of a basic reflecting
telescope shows that as Paul has explained to you.

Paul hasn't explained how gamma particles from the crab nebula are over 600
metres wide..and extremely dangerous....



you are mssing the willusions...

Nope, 0.01% is the shift regardless of cause,
think about it.

it can be caused by ADopppler, some VDoppler or shift in Planck curve.

Whatever, the shift is 0.01% and we know the filter
widths so we know how much it affects the reading.

No we don't....

Wrong again, temperatures and subtended angle are
valid as I have explained to you several times.

George, these exist in your dreams....

Temperatures and radii exist in reality, and
your theory says we measure them without
distortion.

My theory says the only way to decode a willusion is to create a simulation
that produces the willusion.


It would appear to vary in luminosity but not in
radius or temperature which is what we are talking
about, try to keep a grasp of the conversation Henry.

George, a relativist 100LYs away would come up with all kinds of
ridiculous
theories ....

Trying to duck the subject again Henry?

YOU are a typical such relativist...it hurts, I know...

You might want to consider the overall setup:

http://tinyurl.com/3dybf3

No, it wont work..

But it does work Henry, they get fringes exactly
as all the theories say they will.

sure

Yep

Yep. Sure

That would require turbulent diffusion because thermal conductivty of
gasses is
quite small. Such diffusion would be far too slow.

The transfer is principally radiative but it is not
fast due to the opacity.

far too slow...

Do the sums (remember you personal estimates are
usually six to ten orders of magnitude out), it
works perfectly.

You have previously insisted that a star's atmosphere is 100% opaque...so that
refutes you last statement.
The temperature rise in any pressure wave is almost entirely adiabatic.

I don't see how a single photon could be emitted by both sides of a


It ignores the different c+v from both sides.

A single photon doesn't come from "both sides" and for
each photon it is only the speed at the interferometer
together with the frequency that determines the
wavelength, lambda_r:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...ic_grating.gif

The whole method is useless and incapable of producing anything concrete.

Sorry Henry, ballistic theory says it works just
fine, so your whining is pointless.

BaTh says that the rotation of a star can produce c+v effects, under certain
circumstances.

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.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:57:27 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


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


He did, though perhaps he assumed too much of you, it
is coherent because each detection is of a _single_
photon and any photon is of course coherent with itself.

So every single photon frm a distant star is stretched to over 600
metres
wide
by the time it reaches Earth?

That is for you to decide, you have to explain how
an individual photon's behaviour can depend on the
paths through both telescopes, Paul and I are only
telling you what the observed result is. It is just
a larger example of Young's Slits so you shouldn't
be too surprised.

....a much larger version.

VLBI is larger still but it still works.

A can't imagine a gamma particle 600 metres wide.....can you?

The limitations of our imaginations do not limit
reality. See this article and note the sensitivity:

http://tinyurl.com/2o2xp9

"'We can find all the stars that send us more than
one photon per second.' said Mackay."

Each photon lands at a point on the image that depends
on the whole surface of the telescope and at that rate
it can't possibly be some sort of aggregation effect.
Interference applies to every individual photon.

It would be quite dangerous...and we're being bombarded by them
continuously...

It would be if we were, but the ozone layer stops them.

Have you now fathomed that, or will you still state stupidities like:
"Just tell me how photons emitted from opposite sides of a star can
end
up
in phase over a 600m wavefront".

Interferometry requires coherent light.

Interferometry works with individual photons even
in this configuration:

http://tinyurl.com/3dybf3

...and my statistical theory explains why...

More lies Henry? You don't have a statistical theory,
only Ritz's macroscopic velocity equation and my
extension for speed equalisation. In fact, come to
think of it, you have never originated anything for
yourself.


You're becoming as amusing as Paul....

Just stating a fact, you have no equations. You can
prove me wrong easily by posting them but until then
you are a liar.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:13:04 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:54:13 +0100, "George Dishman"

Remember when we talked of the grating, I made the
point that a single photon would be deflected by an
angle that depended on its frequency or wavelength
adn a distribution plot of where photons land gives
the usual pattern. The same is true again, light from
one side of the star passes through both telescopes
and produces a set of fringes. Completely independently
light from the other side also produces a set of
fringes but because the source is slightly displaced,
so are the fringes. As a result, the minima don't
occur at exactly the same place so they don't go to
zero. The contrast ratio then gives an indication of
the displacement as a fraction of a fringe and hence
of the angular width of the star.

impossible.

However, it is what happens.

My interpretation is that the interference is caused by factors
unknown, ...

ROFL, that says it all Henry, your interpretation
is that you don't have an interpretation. :-)

George, I accept that delusional relativists truly believe that their
theory
provides all the answers physics will ever need......

And I accept that you have no alternative. The
fact remains that telescopes metres wide can detect
light at rates of a few photons per second and that
it is a common undergraduate lab experiment to show
the equivalence of the classical wave interference
pattern with the statistical spread of photons by
using a grating and PM tube and dimming the source
until individual photons are seen. Interference
effect apply to individual photons and conventional
physicists can explain that while you cannot.

The light arrives at c/n where n is the refractive
index of the air around the telescopes. The phase
difference across the system (i.e. between the two
telescopes) depends on their separation and that
speed.

...the light travels a long way before it reaches the Earth's
atmosphere.

Only the speed over the last few metres matters to
the phase difference, the rest is common to both
paths.

That's definitely not correct...I'm surprised you would make such a
statement..

Oh dear. OK, let's do the silly diagrams. Consider a
wavefront from a distant source S arriving at the
two telescopes. I'll show them as obliques reflecting
the light towards a detector D (the actual paths are
as shown before in http://tinyurl.com/3dybf3 ):

S



_________
\-D-/

The signal arrives in phase. Now add a path difference
as if the star were off-axis. I'll move the mirror
rather than the star to ease drawing, think of the
picture rotated a few degrees:


S



_________
\-D --x
-/ --y


The path length difference is from x to y. The
phase difference depends on the speed over that
part (and pedantically from the mirrors to the
detector as well). The time it took the wavefront
to reach the position where it hits the first
(left side) telescope is many years and variable
speed on that part has no effect on the phase
difference since it applies to the whole
wavefront.

What you need to understand is that this works
even when receiving a few photons per second
and using a photon counting detector.


the star's rotation stuffs up the whole process.

Not in the slightest.

George's Giant Photons explain everything.

"Henry's Giant Photons" you mean, that is _your_
philosophical interpretation. I merely pointed out
that the probability of every _individual_ photon
hitting the detector depends on the details of both
paths which is an empirical observation, and one you
would have repeated in the form of Young's Slits in
the lab if you had ever done a physics degree.

My theory explains it all. .

Your theory consists of only two equations, one
of them written by me. Neither equation explains
the existence of interference in any form
whatsoever.

The diffracted angle of a single photon is determined by the phasing of
the
photon's INTRINSIC oscillation when it arrives.

"Phase" requires a repetitive function such as
a sine wave. Your theory contains no sine waves,
just the equation "c'=c+v".

Even the simplest review of a basic reflecting
telescope shows that as Paul has explained to you.

Paul hasn't explained how gamma particles from the crab nebula are over
600
metres wide..and extremely dangerous....

QED says the propability of a photon landing at
some point is determined by the integral over all
possible paths. That means essentially the photon
might have left the source in any direction, hence
if you want to use your imagination, you need to
think of it as an expanding spherical wavefront.

There is no upper limit to the angle between the
rays from a source to the slits in Young's
experiment, they could be 180 degrees apart if you
use a mirror to reflect the beams onto a screen
and you will still get interference with single
photons.

you are mssing the willusions...

Nope, 0.01% is the shift regardless of cause,
think about it.

it can be caused by ADopppler, some VDoppler or shift in Planck curve.

Whatever, the shift is 0.01% and we know the filter
widths so we know how much it affects the reading.

No we don't....

Yes we do, 0.01% times the wavelength of the edge
is the shift and the response of the filter is known
from calibration measurements.

Wrong again, temperatures and subtended angle are
valid as I have explained to you several times.

George, these exist in your dreams....

Temperatures and radii exist in reality, and
your theory says we measure them without
distortion.

My theory says the only way to decode a willusion is to create a
simulation
that produces the willusion.

Ballistic theory says there is no "willusion"
effect on temperature or interferometric radius
measurements.

It would appear to vary in luminosity but not in
radius or temperature which is what we are talking
about, try to keep a grasp of the conversation Henry.

George, a relativist 100LYs away would come up with all kinds of
ridiculous
theories ....

Trying to duck the subject again Henry?

YOU are a typical such relativist...

Yep, you are ducking.

That would require turbulent diffusion because thermal conductivty of
gasses is
quite small. Such diffusion would be far too slow.

The transfer is principally radiative but it is not
fast due to the opacity.

far too slow...

Do the sums (remember you personal estimates are
usually six to ten orders of magnitude out), it
works perfectly.

You have previously insisted that a star's atmosphere is 100% opaque...so
that
refutes you last statement.

No, it just shows you don't understand physics.
Calculate the mean free path length versus depth
and integrate the time over a random walk.

The temperature rise in any pressure wave is almost entirely adiabatic.

Utterly naive, it has many contributions including
very significantly that due to the phase change in
the material due to He++ ionisation and, at a
shallower depth, H+ ionisation. The latter causes a
significant delay in the curve.

It ignores the different c+v from both sides.

A single photon doesn't come from "both sides" and for
each photon it is only the speed at the interferometer
together with the frequency that determines the
wavelength, lambda_r:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...ic_grating.gif

The whole method is useless and incapable of producing anything
concrete.

Sorry Henry, ballistic theory says it works just
fine, so your whining is pointless.

BaTh says that the rotation of a star can produce c+v effects, under
certain
circumstances.

Your 'spheres' nonsense says the light leaves the
sphere around the star at the same speed for both
sides, but even that is irrelevant anyway. Ballistic
theory applied to the receiver says interferometry
isn't affected in any way so the method is perfectly
sound and the results entirely valid.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:48:01 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
....
I've never seen a star with four wheels Bob. If I do I'll name it after
you.

The sad thing is that ballistic theory predicts we
should see exactly that, stars in binary systems
should show multiple images and they don't. By
some remarkable piece of magic, the space between
us and binaries always adjusts so that, just before
those images should appear, the speeds get unified.

George, you certanly need that holiday.....

I did.

you are becoming hopelessly
confused.

Nope.

The conditions for multiple imagery are never even approached.

That's the point, why do the conditions reach 90%
or 99% or even higher as you claim yet never exceed
100%, it is dependent on distance after all so it
needs an incredible coincidence to get so close
without showing multiple images.

What a remarkable coincidence, or is it the fairies
again?

No.. all the fairies are on Einstein's side...

Nope, all Einstein needs is Pythagoras. You should
learn it some time.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:34:20 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:17:24 +0100, "George Dishman"

Indeed and care must be taken for that reason
especially with local factors like absorption
by water and oxygen in the K band. These
effects are well known though, nobody ignores
them.

....but everybody seems to ignore the most critical factor..that of
variable
light speed....

People take the frequency dependence of the
refractive index into account where it has
an effect, e.g. in pulsar dispersion.

The cause doesn't matter, the shift is less than
0.01% or 0.22nm for K band when the filter is
400nm wide - completely negligible.

You cannot assume a consant emissivity for the changing surface layer
either.

The emissivity is 100% at the bottom of the
layer Henry, Kirchoff's law requires that.

Not if its temperature is continually changing.

Yes Henry, Kirchoff's law requires it.

I don't think you know what Kirschoff's Law is about.

I have used it for years, I don't think you
had heard of it until I brought it to your
attention.

Nor can you have photons with negative lengths...

That's your 'wave equation' of course....

No that's YOUR 'wave model', you have no wave equation.

Photons are particles.

Right, but you don't have an equation for that either.

According to my model...which works..photons are long particles carrying
their
own intrinsic oscillations..

Your model consists of two equations:

v = u+c

and

dv/ds =(c/n - v)/R

Neither has any oscillatory term.

....oscillations that are not directly related to the
man made electric waves they often make up.

Then you need some equation that links the two,
your model is again lacking.

No you aren't. You didn't even consider the main factor, the
temperature
gradient in the water and its affect on viscosity....
We know the ball's volume will decrease nonlinearly and we can assume
it
remains in temperature equilibrium with the water.

The sea's temperature changes only slightly with
depth after the first few tens of metres, and the
effect on the ball will be minimal. Viscosity
has no effect at all on the volume of the ball.

I know that George.

Thank goodness.

I'm talking about the rate of fall, ...

No, you were talking about the ball being compressed
by pressure as an analogy for a photon being squeezed
by the differential velocity due to acceleration at
the time of emission, or some such rubbish, you never
mentioned rate of fall.

George, look back. The question was, "how does the rate of fall of a
rubber
ball vary as it sinks in the ocean?".

No, it started as "photons get compressed like
a ball sinking in the ocean".

The two important relationships are the temperature gradient in the water
(which markedly affects viscosity at near 0 C) and the variation in the
bulk
modulus of rubber with pressure.

Now I don't expect anyone to actually work it out mathematically . ..but a
computer model could do it reasonably accurately.

Since the gas is a black body radiator, it must
also be a perfect absorber. As the density rises,
it becomes completely opaque which is why you
cannot see through to a second layer.

they are big assumptions...

Nope, they are results confirmed by lab tests.

George, you are very confused.

Not in the slightest, I just know more physics
than you.

Black body radiators don't necessarily have an emissivity of 1. It can
have any
value. However, according to Kischoff, the absorptivity must always equal
the
emissivity at equilibrium.

The definition of a "black body" is that it
absorbs all incident radiation. That means
absorptivity = 1 and by Kirschoff's Law that
means emissivity = 1.

program.

......so you believe that cepheid curves are Keplarian out of pure
coincidence?

No, I believe you have added so many adjustable
parameters in your program that you can fit any
curve, Keplerian or not.

George, the well known cepheid curve is Keplerian...whether you like it
or
not...

Nope, but your program can produce almost any curve,
Keplerian or not so that's not a problem for you.

George, all my source velocity curves are rigidly Keplerian.

Perhaps, I have yet to see any verification test
results for that, but you allow for harmonics and
contributions from a second source which mean the
total is not Keplerian.

George

Henri Wilson skrev:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:35:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:36:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Since you appear to be deaf, I will have to shout:

OF BLOODY COURSE THE LIGHT FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF
A RESOLVED STAR ISN'T COHERENT OVER 600m!

It is the light from a _point_ (area resolution) on
the star that is coherent (plane wavefront).
The wavefronts from two different parts of the star
have an angle to each other, and is NOT coherent.
So you are claiming that a single light quanta can have a 'cross section' of
over 600 metres by the time it reaches Earth????
I am claiming that the diameter of the aperture strongly
affects the probability for where the photon will hit
at the CCD. The photon from a point source will with high
confidence hit within a diameter proportional to
the wavelength divided by the aperture diameter.

If you think that implies that the photon must have
a cross section equal to the aperture, then it illustrates
how hopeless idiotic your idea of a photon is.

Don't twist and turn Paul.
Interference requires coherent light.

...and if you want to introduce probability, then it will show that the BaTh is
correct to about 99.9 confidence level since every known experment supports
it....

This response is typical for you.
Effectually you claim that big telescopes do not have
better resolution than small ones, because you cannot
understand how the size of the apperture can affect a photon.

On the contrary, I suggested making high res telescopes this way many decades
ago.

Since you drop off at the very beginning,
there is no point in going on.
This is obviously way beyond your abilities.

Paul, you are sounding like a beaten man...

Sure I am beaten.
My attempt to teach you something is a complete failure.
Your ignorant stupidity prevails.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Henri Wilson skrev:
: On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:35:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote:
:
: Henri Wilson wrote:
: On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:36:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote:
:
:
: Since you appear to be deaf, I will have to shout:
:
: OF BLOODY COURSE THE LIGHT FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF
: A RESOLVED STAR ISN'T COHERENT OVER 600m!
:
: It is the light from a _point_ (area resolution) on
: the star that is coherent (plane wavefront).
: The wavefronts from two different parts of the star
: have an angle to each other, and is NOT coherent.
: So you are claiming that a single light quanta can have a 'cross
section' of
: over 600 metres by the time it reaches Earth????
: I am claiming that the diameter of the aperture strongly
: affects the probability for where the photon will hit
: at the CCD. The photon from a point source will with high
: confidence hit within a diameter proportional to
: the wavelength divided by the aperture diameter.
:
: If you think that implies that the photon must have
: a cross section equal to the aperture, then it illustrates
: how hopeless idiotic your idea of a photon is.
:
: Don't twist and turn Paul.
: Interference requires coherent light.
:
: ...and if you want to introduce probability, then it will show that the
BaTh is
: correct to about 99.9 confidence level since every known experment
supports
: it....
:
: This response is typical for you.
: Effectually you claim that big telescopes do not have
: better resolution than small ones, because you cannot
: understand how the size of the apperture can affect a photon.
:
: On the contrary, I suggested making high res telescopes this way many
decades
: ago.
:
: Since you drop off at the very beginning,
: there is no point in going on.
: This is obviously way beyond your abilities.
:
: Paul, you are sounding like a beaten man...
:
: Sure I am beaten.
: My attempt to teach you something is a complete failure.
: Your ignorant stupidity prevails.
:
Almost right, ASSistant professor. It should read (in English):

"Sure I am beaten to do.
My attempt to learn from you is something of a complete failure to do.
My ignorant stupidity doesn't prevail to do."
--


'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: ups.com



'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: ups.com


"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying *******s will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.