Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 21 Apr 2007 05:25:27 -0700, George Dishman wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 19 Apr 2007 03:44:41 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
...
If you get your head round this you'll see that this much higher
value is what you expect to be the _published_ velocity curve. It
is nothing like the true velocity.

....but nobody except you and I has ever considered using the green
brightness
curve to calculate the source velocity.

The penny still hasn't dropped - what everyone has always been doing
is measuring the actual shift which in your model is TDoppler, the
combination of both V and A parts, and then publishing "velocity" curves
by using the equation that would be applicable if _only_ VDoppler existed.
To do a comparison with those published curves, you need to plot that
false velocity - what I thought was your red curve.

I now have a third model. The compression of individual photons is much
'diluted'.

It is nothing more than handwaving, you have given
no equations, and it nonsense both physically and
mathematically but laying those aside, it would still
affect both curves identically so we don't even need
to consider it.

Your whole argument is based on the clasical wave theory of light ...which is
known to be wrong.

My theory is perfectly sound.


Yes, and a little consideration of Fourier analysis tells you that
must
be the case. You have it correct Henry, now just add the red curve to
the plot so we don't have to use a calculator to get the figures.

Here is a summary of our current findings:

Let's start with some more fundamental findings.

The effects we see are the result of TDoppler.

Ballistic theory defines the speed that every part of
a wave travels hence tells us without any further
consideration what the effects will be.

What you are calling a 'wave' is the property of a very large group of photons.

You have successfully modelled the luminosity variation
as a function of the orbital parameters as your green
curve.

The same curve on a linear scale can be used for the
velocity curve with a simple scale conversion.

The velocity curve is a direct measure of TDoppler.

Luminosity variation can be a combination of TDoppler
and intrinsic variation.

VDoppler is negligible for stars.

ADoppler alone produces very accurate brightness curves.

Only if the orbital velocity you use is that determined
by conventional theory. You have claimed before that the
values used by astronomers are much too high and that is
a valid conclusion from ballistic theory.

This certainly appears to be true for pulsars.

VDoppler requires
assumptions about the intrinsic brightness of cepheids to match their
brightness curves.

The only assumption is that intrinsic variation can increase
the total variation which is not a problem. If it required
that intrinsic variation was synchronised and 180 out of
phase so that it reduced the total I would object.

OK

Both ADoppler alone and VDoppler alone can produce the correct shape and
phasing of associated OBSERVED velocity curves.

The curve is due to TDoppler, there aren't two different
mechanisms, just the different dependencies for a single
effect.

I would say there are.
....and ADoppler exists only in the BaTh.

But if the ADoppler velocity curve is the same as its brightness curve
then the
velocity variation is far too high. Pulsars seem to fo;;ow VDoppler
predictions but, if pulsar curves are matched with the BaTh curves, then
all
currently calculated pulsar velocites are far higher than the true ones.

VDoppler could be correct in all instances....but I have now suggested a
possible alternative explanation for this.

The correct statement is that TDoppler can be correct in
all instances. That leads to the conclusion that your
"extinction distance" is quite small and similar for
all types of stars which to my mind is a bonus, not a
problem. I have no idea why you are objecting to that
conclusion.

My objection is that I couldn't produce my brightness curves with VDoppler
alone.

And nor does VDoppler, there would be no Doppler whatsoever because
they would be launched with the same "absolute wavelength" as you
called it regardless of speed.

In BaTh, the VDoppler effect is independent of distance. If gratings are
purely
wavelength dependent, they shouldn't detect VDoppler.

Ah but they do, however that is not a problem. You are
forgetting your "cars on the motorway" analogy. Speed
equalisation means that the light is moving at c when
it reaches us and since the frequency must be unchanged
the wavelength becomes altered. Whether gratings measure
frequency or wavelength becomes moot because both will
give the same answer.

OK Let's assume that.

ADoppler takes place while the source is accelerating..

No, it is caused by the acceleration at the point of
emission but it takes place during propagation just
as the conversion of VDoppler from fixed wavelength -
variable speed to variable wavelength - common speed.
Both require that photons be fully compressible.

I'm not sure if I fully agree with this. You are again trying to apply
classical wave theory to ballistics.

The problem is we don't really know what 'light wavelength' is.
Is it solely related to the properties of individual photons or is it a group
thing?
In reality, we don't even know that individual photons exist.


No, their wavelengths stay the same.

Yes, that's what I meant. After leaving their accelerating source, they
experience no further changes.

Right, but since photons from the sources have the same
"absolute wavelength" at emission regardless of the speed
of the source (a point you have made many times), if they
are incompressible then there is no VDoppler either. The
effect of speed equalisation would be to slow down or speed
up the photons until they were travelling at c while leaving
their wavelength unaltered. By the time they reach us they
would all be moving at c and all have the same wavelength
so they would all have the same frequency too. Whatever
method is used to measure them, there would be no Doppler
effect whatsoever. Incompressible photons simply doesn't
work.

Ah! no, I qualified my statement by pointing out that they DO change 'length'
every time they experience a velocity change. They are 'compressible' but the
'ends' don't continue to move relatively AFTER the acceleration...not for long
anyway.

My red curve merely showed the phase position of photon arrival compared
with
their phase of emission. There was no change in wavelength from the
original
VDoppler.

That's why it was wrong.

It wasn't wrong... but it wasn't designed to do what you want it to do.

OK, but it was wrong in the context of modelling ballistic
theory. Showing a red curve, or even just putting two scales
on the same curve, one log in magnitudes and the other linear
in km/s, will give you the true ballistic theory prediction.

....easier said than done.....

Then you just match the velocity curve with whatever parameters
you like and you can claim your match and then see what it tells
you about the physics of space.

Incidentally, if you do a search for "Methods to Account for Interstellar
Extinction" you will find thousands of references that might be useful.

I have made my case that you can succeed with just two
very credible assumptions - that Cepheids have some
intrinsic variation that adds to the TDoppler effect and
that eclipses sometimes happen. You can then match all
the experimental data, including fitting to the empirical
Shapiro delay curve, and the result says speed equalisation
is a short distance effect for _all_ stars.

Your alternative is building a model that contradicts
ballistic theory and requires space properties that
depend on the period of the star that produced the light
passing through it.

Henry, it is very odd but I seem to be in the position
of telling you why ballistic theory works for this
limited test, and you are telling me why it doesn't!

....but I suspect you want to eliminate ADoppler altogether...and hence throw
the BaTh out with it.

What's going on here? Of course it still fails Sagnac
and it predicts the wrong sense for the Shapiro delay
(which is why you can only fit an empirical curve) but
I'm curious to know why you are arguing against me.

Phase George, Phase.

I'm not actually arguing...I'm keeping an eye out for bigger things that might
come out of this.

I like my latest theory. "Photons are much less compressible than their
groups".

George


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

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

On 21 Apr 2007 15:56:31 -0700, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Apr 21, 4:25 am, George Dishman wrote:

[...]

I'm curious to know why you are arguing against me.

You are the only one who even pretends to listen to him.

Geese, don't think I'm going to waste time with you again but I must point out
that, deep down, George realises that Einstein's second postulate cannot work
without an absolute aether.
He also understands that all starlight in the universe has not been magically
adjusted to travel towards little planet Earth at precisely c.

You on the other hand are still dedicated to the christian view that the Earth
really IS the centre of the universe....with your own self defining the focal
point.

George


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

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

On Apr 21, 4:02 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 21 Apr 2007 15:14:22 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 21, 4:23 am, George Dishman wrote:

[...]

I'm surprised Henri remained civil this long. He has been stupid all
the way, but civil.

Crawl back into your hole geese. This is a serious discussion.

No it isn't. George is explicitly disagreeing with you and has good
rationale for it, and you are in denial as usual.

Every "serious" discussion with you ends in you being a prick when
your lack of education and inability to learn is crashed upon by the
waves of knowledge.



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

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

On Apr 21, 8:25 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 21, 4:02 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

On 21 Apr 2007 15:14:22 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 21, 4:23 am, George Dishman wrote:

[...]

I'm surprised Henri remained civil this long. He has been stupid all
the way, but civil.

Crawl back into your hole geese. This is a serious discussion.

No it isn't. George is explicitly disagreeing with you and has good
rationale for it, and you are in denial as usual.

Every "serious" discussion with you ends in you being a prick when
your lack of education and inability to learn is crashed upon by the
waves of knowledge.



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

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

Children! This will go into your permanent record. You'll only be
able to get some useless job like raising food for people with this
black mark against you.

On 21 Apr 2007 18:28:48 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:

Henry Wilson replied to Jeff Root:

George replied to Henry:

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

You have a sharp rise in the centre, the published
curve has a small dip though it looks like noise
to me, there are actually three such small dips.

A little smoothing will give you the classic textbook
flat bottom you get when the smaller star is totally
eclipsed.

This probably isn't a factor, but...

Poisson, Fresnel, or Arago's Bright Spot

In 1818, Augustin Fresnel submitted a paper on the theory of
diffraction for a competition sponsored by the French Academy.
His theory represented light as a wave, as opposed to a
bombardment of hard little particles, which was the subject
of a debate that lasted since Newton's day.

....and is still current ...

Siméon Poisson,
a member of the judging committee for the competition, was
very critical of the wave theory of light. Using Fresnel's
theory, Poisson deduced the seemingly absurd prediction that
a bright spot should appear behind a circular obstruction,
a prediction he felt was the last nail in the coffin for
Fresnel's theory. However, Dominique Arago, another member
of the judging committee, almost immediately verified the
spot experimentally. Fresnel won the competition.

The bright spot had been seen by Joseph-Nicolas Delisle a
hundred years earlier, but the connection to diffraction had
not been made.

This is related more to gravitational lensing than star
brigtness variation

Gravitational lensing and diffraction are two completely
different things, Henry, or whatever your name is. Arago's
Bright Spot is a diffraction effect. It has nothing to do
with gravity. Gravity has nothing to do with it. You should
take an introductory course in physics and learn something
about the ideas you are trying to correct.

Funny boy...

although I consider it may explain some of the very large
periodic magnitude variations seen in a small group of stars.

You don't even understand what it is or why it occurs.

Why did you raise the subject here then?
Don't you know what we're discussing?
Too hard is it?
You will need SOME knowledge of physics if you want to understand it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

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

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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:36:58 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:37:07 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
...
I have another curve for EF Dra that shows a small rise in the middle
of
the dip. No eclipse can account for that.

What is the URL?

don't know ...but here is the curve with mine superimposed:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/EFdra.jpg

Just a minute Henry, isn't your curve one dip per orbit but
you have superimposed it on a different x scale so that it
appears to have two dips per orbit? I smell a fake!

No fake George.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AcA....41..291P

I was going to include that URL but didn't bother
as it is in some other posts yesterday. Note there
is a dip at 0.5 phase as well as at 0.0/1.0. Your
overlaid magenta curve is identical at the 0.0 and
0.5 dips. Isn't there just a single dip per orbit
in your simulation?

The orbital period for EF Dra is 0.424026 days. I
suspect your curve was produced using a period of
0.212013 days. How about showing a screenshot of
your program output as you have for others.

George

On Apr 22, 1:50 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 21 Apr 2007 18:28:48 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:



Henry Wilson replied to Jeff Root:

George replied to Henry:

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

You have a sharp rise in the centre, the published
curve has a small dip though it looks like noise
to me, there are actually three such small dips.

A little smoothing will give you the classic textbook
flat bottom you get when the smaller star is totally
eclipsed.

This probably isn't a factor, but...

Poisson, Fresnel, or Arago's Bright Spot

In 1818, Augustin Fresnel submitted a paper on the theory of
diffraction for a competition sponsored by the French Academy.
His theory represented light as a wave, as opposed to a
bombardment of hard little particles, which was the subject
of a debate that lasted since Newton's day.

....and is still current ...

Siméon Poisson,
a member of the judging committee for the competition, was
very critical of the wave theory of light. Using Fresnel's
theory, Poisson deduced the seemingly absurd prediction that
a bright spot should appear behind a circular obstruction,
a prediction he felt was the last nail in the coffin for
Fresnel's theory. However, Dominique Arago, another member
of the judging committee, almost immediately verified the
spot experimentally. Fresnel won the competition.

The bright spot had been seen by Joseph-Nicolas Delisle a
hundred years earlier, but the connection to diffraction had
not been made.

This is related more to gravitational lensing than star
brigtness variation

Gravitational lensing and diffraction are two completely
different things, Henry, or whatever your name is. Arago's
Bright Spot is a diffraction effect. It has nothing to do
with gravity. Gravity has nothing to do with it. You should
take an introductory course in physics and learn something
about the ideas you are trying to correct.

Funny boy...

although I consider it may explain some of the very large
periodic magnitude variations seen in a small group of stars.

You don't even understand what it is or why it occurs.

Why did you raise the subject here then?
Don't you know what we're discussing?
Too hard is it?
You will need SOME knowledge of physics if you want to understand it.

....says the guy who forged his diplomas...



-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

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

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

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:30:03 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:36:58 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:37:07 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
om...
...
I have another curve for EF Dra that shows a small rise in the middle
of
the dip. No eclipse can account for that.

What is the URL?

don't know ...but here is the curve with mine superimposed:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/EFdra.jpg

Just a minute Henry, isn't your curve one dip per orbit but
you have superimposed it on a different x scale so that it
appears to have two dips per orbit? I smell a fake!

No fake George.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AcA....41..291P

I was going to include that URL but didn't bother
as it is in some other posts yesterday. Note there
is a dip at 0.5 phase as well as at 0.0/1.0. Your
overlaid magenta curve is identical at the 0.0 and
0.5 dips. Isn't there just a single dip per orbit
in your simulation?

The orbital period for EF Dra is 0.424026 days. I
suspect your curve was produced using a period of
0.212013 days. How about showing a screenshot of
your program output as you have for others.

OK I didn't see that. My error.

If very second dip is consistently lower than the first then EF Dra is probably
an eclipsing binary with stars of roughly equal size, as they say.

Otherwise it could easily be one star orbitted by a small cool object with a
period of 0.21 days.

This highlights what I have been saying. ADoppler curves are virtually
identical to genuine eclipsing curves. Only accurate spectral data can separate
the two. I suspect that many presumed eclipsing binaries are not that at all.





George


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

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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:33:43 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:05:42 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Your figure for the linear change corresponds to a velocity
of over 43000 km/s instead of the 300 km/s measured.

Only if you apply the VDoppler equation.

That's right Henry. Try to get your head round this, please.
When astronomers take a series of spectra from a star in a
binary system they calculate the ratio of the frequency or
wavelength shift to the mean value for any spectral lines
and multiply by the speed of light to get the value that is
published as a velocity curve.

Yes I know that George.

Then you also appreciate that we need that curve on your
program in order to do any comparison. I can take the
300 km/s value from the graph of EF Dra below and convert
that into "Linear = 1.002" manually but it would be easier
if you just displayed it.

Have you any idea how much extra work that would involve?

A one-line change to convert the value you currently
display as the "linear" number from unitrs of magnitude
to units of km/s. It could read:

Mag. Change =0.32019 (Log) = 87772 km/s (peak to peak)

Obviously a linear (red) plot as well as the green
log plot would be nice but just putting the value
on the screen would be a start.

Presenting hte output so that hte curves can be magnified has given me
quite a
few headaches already, particularly for the log curves.

...but just for you I will have a go...

You could just add a text line giving the value but
displaying the curve with a horizontal axis and a scale
would avoid the doubt you had some time ago about a factor
of two difference if the figure is orbital velocity or
peak-to-peak variation.

True.
The magnitude change figure is actually the ratio maximum/minimum
brightness....so it's 'peak to peak'.

OK, so above I have doubled the 43886 km/s I posted before.
Your value should be around that ballpark. Anyway you then
simply adjust your orbital parameters to match that number
and the curve shape to the published velocity curve and you
have your match. Whether you reduce the speed, alter the
pitch or reduce the equalisation distance is up to you but
my feel is that you will find using the same equalisation
distance as for the pulsars gets you a solution and logically
we should expect that to be the case.

No, we have found it is dominant for pulsars and we don't
know for stars but we will in a moment.

The only evidence I have that it is dominant for pulsars is that it is
the
only
way I can match the curve of PSR1913+16 accurately.

The first evidence we found was J1909-3744 where the Shapiro
delay gives the orbital phase but both are consistent and I
suspect J0737-3039 will give much the same though you haven't
tried it yet.

However, the way such
curves are statistically produced, leaves a great deal of room for
error.
Maybe
a constant light speed is even assumed in their making.

More excuses Henry? I love your approach - "I can't match
the curve but there is room for error in the measurement
therefore I can claim I match it."

I CAN match the curve very accurately George.

I haven't seeen you match the amplitude of any velocity
curve yet, your example of EF Dra is too high by a factor
of nearly 150.

...but I can also produce a very similar curve with ADoppler completely
dominant.

TDoppler Henry, your ballistic theory equations produce
TDoppler and there is no room in it for alternatives.

If you are familiar with the way these curves are produced ...'epoch
matching'
or something like that. You gave me a reference to the technique

It was someone else I think but basically all it means is
that any one point is the average of all the readings at
the same phase over many cycles.

...then you
will be aware of the potential for inaccuracy.

Sure, things like sensor drift can cause problems. The
scatter of the readings gives the error bars but there
should always be some indication of systematics.

It is quite possible that this
curve was actually fiddled a bit to match the anticipated VDoppler one.

Accusing people of fraud again Henry? Sorry but if your
theory can't handle reality, don't go blaming the guys
who took the readings.

That's OK, I have consistently been saying you have no
choice but to include both VDoppler and ADoppler, they
aren't really different things, just different terms in
the single TDoppler equation.

It is possible that VDoppler is needed to match pulsar curves but it
doesn't
apear to be required in the case of star curves.

It doesn't matter what is needed, ballistic theory includes
both factors, period.

It appear that 'photon compressibility' is VDoppler determined but
the curve shape matches ADoppler.

No, what appears is that it seems the equalisation distance is
small for Cepheids too and most of the luminosity variation
is intrinsic.

Right, I think I have a possible picture now. We have two possibilities.
What
you just could be correct...and any variations from the pure Keplerian
curve
are also intrinsic.

Variations from a Keplerian orbit could only be due to other
bodies and you are severely limited as to what configurations
could be stable. Post-Newtonian factors will likewise be small
other than systematic drift of parameters over many years like
PSR1913+16. Over a few orbits these are negligible.

Wait, I stated that wrongly. I am assuming that these are huff puff stars.
..in
which case the radial velocities of expansion and contraction follow a
similar
curve to that of a star on Keplerian orbit.

No, you still don't seem to undertsand how they work. I didn't
get a chance to respond to an earlier post of yours about this.
the mechanism was described in the presentation I cited some
days back. Basically as the star contracts, the pressure and
density rise and importantly it reaches a point where it becomes
opaque. The radiation is trapped, pressure builds rapidly and the
outer layers start to expand. They become more transparent again
but momentum carries the material out until stopped by gravity
and it starts to fall back. The process is more like someone on
a trampoline.

What I meant was that the little peak at the top of the RT Aur curve could
be
intrinsic and VDoppler could produce the curve.
I can produce it very accurately with just ADoppler....BUT the velocity
range
is then seemingly too large.

Ballistic theory only allows you to use TDoppler, you
can't choose to use only some parts of an eqaution.

There cannot be a difference Henry, basic physics and even
pure maths rules it out (Fourier analysis). Ballistic
theory says that any electromagnetic disturbance moves at
"c+v" (that's shorthand as usual) and that applies to any
waveform shape whether a simple sine wave or a complex
signal. If you think of a burst of a sine wave of some
duration, it carries some finite energy and contains a
number of cycles. There is therefore an amount of energy
in each cycle. The brightening occurs because more cycles
arrive in a given time than were transmitted in the same
time due to bunching, but that increased number of cycles
in a given time is also obviously the frequency change
factor.

Whatever you do to modify the speed of propagation, the
green and red curves we have talked about are rigidly
linked. As you have said yourself in justifying not
drawing the extra curve, the two are identical with just
a different scale.

George I am just realising how amusing you are.

You keep telling me that if one piece of evidence refutes a theory then
the
theory is wrong. You often refer to sagnac as an example.

Yes, ballistic theory is undoubtedly wrong, this is purely
a hypothetical discussion to see what the consequences would
be if it were correct.

Yet you are trying to use the classical wave theory of light to prove my
ballistic theory wrong when it has been firmly established that the wave
theory
itself is wrong. .. IT BREAKS DOWN AT THE P.E. EFFECT.

Classical wave theory was around for a long time before it
was quantised. Ballistic is still in the wave theory region,
it has not yet been quantised. Before you can attempt that,
you need to know what the wave interpretation says and then
when you try to quantise it one of the constraints you must
meet is getting your quantum version equations to give the
same result as the wave version when averaged over large
numbers of photons.

Sure it can be used to
model interference patterns and such but it cannot explain anything about
the
particle nature of light.

Of course not, it doesn't attempt to yet.

Wave theory might work well in relation to the behaviour of groups of
photons...but it doesn't tell us anything about the partical nature of
individual photons or the way they travel through space. Nor does LET, SR
or
any other current theory ..

The current full theory is QED which amalgamates SR and QM in
flat space.

.. except the ballistic one.

Nonsense, you don't have any quantum equations equivalent to
ballistic theory at all. Perhaps we should revise ballistic
theory as you seem to be losing the plot a bit. Ritz said light
was emitted at c relative to the source. De Sitter suggested
that was untenable because binaries would show multiple images.
That is true for spectroscopic binaries so to try to get round
that a new theory was produced which included "speed equalisation"
The current theory has three parts:

1) The universe is Galilean invariant

2) Any electromagnetic disturbance initially propagates
at c relative to the source.

3) The speed relative to the medium through which the
disturbance propagates varies as it progresses as
described by the differential equation:

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

where n is the refractive index
R is a characteristic distance

Both n and R depend on the medium. n also depends
on the frequency of the wave however it seems R
does not since the orbital parameters of a binary
would then vary with the optical band in which it
was measured.

My current view is that wave theory should work for pulsars because the
pulses
are made of groups of photons. Both the pulse widths and the spacing
between
pulses should behave as wave theory says. Similarly, my brightness curves
are
based on the relative movements and aggregations of vast numbers of
photons and
should be an accurate simulation.

In the case of individual photons however, there is absolutely no reason
to
believe the same principle applies.
It cannot be assumed that the actual 'wavelengths' of photons making up
the
light in each 'macro pulse' experience the same compression or
rarification
that the pulses do.

It is not an assumption, it is a mathematical identity.
Think about the Fourier transform of a pulsed waveform.
Also remember the fact that the peak intensity from a
grating cannot be different if you analyse it by two
different approaches. The experiment is often done in
undergraduate work, get a line from a grating with a
bright source and then dim it until a photomultiplier
shows individual photons arriving. You can watch a
histogram build up to show exactly the same probability
as the wave theory intensity.

To match the brightness/velocity phase relationship of cepheids, I need
ADoppler to dominate.

Tough luck, the universe isn't going to change to suit
your needs. Ballistic theory says the result is due to
TDoppler, end of story.

Therefore I propose that photons are indeed ADoppler
sensitive but to a much smaller degree than are the pulses themselves.

You don't get to"propose" anything Henry, you write down
the equations for ballistic theory, which I have done
above, and then you calculate what they predict.

To quantise the theory, you write down a new set of
equations that apply to photons and then you calculate
what those predict.

For instance if the pulses compress by a factor of 1.5, the photons may do
so
by only 0.0015 or less.

That's not what the equations say.

If you think of photons as discrete entities then this is a quite
conceivable
theory ...not just a wild guess.
In summary, individual photon 'compression' DOES occur when the source is
accelerating ... but the effect is much smaller than it is in the case of
the
relative movements of all the photons in a group.

This way, the brightness/velocity phasing of star curves is correct and
the
doppler shifts are of the right order.

So, even though a brightness curve might match perfectly and vary by 1.5
or so
(linear), the actual spectral shift is diluted to only a very small
fraction of
that value.
I'm wondering if there isn't a time dependent term in the
'compressibility
equation'. Does a second order effect come into play? (da/dt)

da/dt is the derivative of the acceleration. For a
circular orbit, v = sin(wt) where w is the angular
frequency or 2 pi / P where P is the orbital period.

a = dv/dt = w cos(wt)

da/dt - -w^2 sin(wt)

It would come in as one more order than acceleration so
would be roughly a factor of 1/P less than the basics
we have discussed. For a one day orbit it would be four
orders of magnitude smaller or make a change of about
0.01% to your curves, not worth worrying about.

'a' goes from -1 through zero to +1.

The difference ratio can be infinite.

You need to revise your calculus Henry.

...The time interval between the emission of the 'ends of a photon' is
much
smaller than that between the pulses of a pulsar. Therefore, for a
source
in
orbit, the velocity difference is much larger across the pulse that
across
the
photon.

So the pulse gap should compress relatively much more that will the
photon.

No, the speed difference is delta_v = a * t

so the ratio of speed difference to time is linear.

Only if a is constant..

No, a can vary in any way you like in which case
delta_v is the integral of a.dt

Anyway let's not delve too deeply into this because I suspect there is a
far
more important factor involved. INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS simply do not compress
as
much as the groups do.

When (if ever) you quantise ballistic theory, you will start
by taking the wave theory result and showing that the quantum
version produces identical results for large aggregates.

What I mean is that you can rely on the measurement of the
shift. Photometry needs careful attention to comtaminating
light, getting accurate calibration, CCD pixel sensitivity
and so on but spectra have far fewer sources of systematic
errors, especially when only the relative shift is needed
and not an absolute wavelength measurement.

...well ther is still argument as to whether gratings are sensitive to
'wavelength' (absolute distance between wavecrests) or 'frequency' (rate
of
wavecrest arrival)

Gratings produce a peak of intensity at the point on the
screen where the reflected waves from each ruling arrive
in phase. You should be able to answer the question simply
by calculating that condition for an incoming plane wave.

Yes, the classical theory is well established....but, without an aether,
it is
still not clear why gratings detect doppler shifts from moving sources.

As I said, you need to analyse the behaviour of a grating in
ballistic theory, but since you include speed equalisation
it becomes quite simple, as the speed varies the waves are
compressed (for v initially c/n) or stretched (for v
initially c/n) and that changes the wavelength.

SR
certainly doesn't provide a 'physical' explanation.

Of course it does, it even explains the second order
effect which Ritz and aether theory get wrong. Don't
waste your time trying to change the subject again
Henry.

The only requirements are that it should be a Keplerian
orbit and the _TDoppler_ should match the published curve.

Yes, I understand what you are saying.

But in the simulation we DO know the correct blue curve...because that's
what
we start with.

The blue curve represents the actual motion of the body
which is an unknown under the Ritzian theory, in terms
of the model it is not "known", it is the "independent
variable" (technically a small number of variables,
semi major axis and eccentricity for example).

.....but in the simulation it is completely defined.

No, in the sim it is the "independent variable". That
like saying the operating frequency of a radio is not
known but the position of the tuning knob is "completely
defined". It is defined only in that there is a specific
angle you turn it to for each station.

We need a model that produces a brightness curve that is correct
in both shape and mag. change but which also accommodates the
compressible
photon concept to a small extent.

No, the theory requires that the waves change in a certain
way. If you then go on from there to try to quantise the
theory then it starts with the fact that a grating will
produce a peak of intensity at some location and the photons
are then partly defined by the fact that a photomultiplier
will produce individual flashes with a distribution curve
that is identical to the intensity curve.

That's a bit of an oversimplification George.

Not really Henry. If you try to quantise the theory you will
probably start by adopting Planck's solution to the black
body problem, then you will define the properties of a photon
such that energy is conserved and wavelengths and frequencies
match the wave theory you have at the moment and so on.

I maintain that groups of photons behave differently from individual ones.

The behaviour of groups is defined by the statistical formula
that will form the basis of you method of quantisation.

Have a think about what I said above.
Should individual photons compress as much as the gaps between groups of
photons or pulses?

The relationship between acceleration and velocity is
linear so the effect must be identical. We could talk
about this forever Henry, there is a huge amount of
evidence. For example we see the sodium doublet in the
lab and also in stellar spectra. That doublet is the
same as a modulated sine wave (what is called suppressed
carrier) and any discrepancy would show up as harmonics
or a change in the ratio of the separation to the centre
frequency.


that's ancient stuff.... side bands... I assume that's what you are
saying...

Exactly. We don't see any.

The doublet is just due to a fine quantum level separation. I has nothing
to do
with what I'm taking about.

The fact that we don't see extra sidebands tells you how
waves behave and quanta are simple the smallest amount of
energy for any given wave.

Conservation of energy means wave cycles must
arrive at a higher rate if the brightness is to increase,
and cycle arrival rate is the definition of frequency.

You're talking about 'E=h.nu' type brightness variation.

No! E=h.nu will not work in ballistic theory as a general
principle. It will berquired to solve the black body
problem but can only apply at the point of emission.

My guess is that ballistic theory will require a kinetic
approach such as if a photon is emitted with speed c+v and
arrives at speed c then the energy will be h*nu*(c/(c+v))^2
where nu is the frequency of emission in the source frame.
However I think you have a _lot_ of work to do to make that
work consistently.

My brightness variation is caused by numbers of photons arriving per unit
time.

Yes, that's what I meant too.

There is no room for any argument Henry, the red curve
must be directly related to the green and your claimed
match the luminosity curve of EF Dra gives a gross
mismatch to the velocity curve.

Not any more.

Yes Henry, you haven't changed the ballistic theory equations
so that's what they predict.

The solution is simple, it doesn't falsify your theory
and it works for pulsars and stars. Add the red curve
and match it to the velocity curve. You can do that
three ways. First you could reduce the size of the blue
curve. That ties up with what you have said many times,
that astronomers overestimate the velocity of orbits
because they don't take account of ADoppler. Second
you could simply increase the pitch. A nearly face-on
orbit can reduce the radial velocity by a factor of 140
without too much trouble, though I think you'll find
that all binary systems have to be face-on which raises
difficult questions. The third method which I have been
suggesting for some time is that the speed equalisation
is a property of space and is similar regardless of the
source of the light travelling through it. We had a six
hour figure for the pulsar and I think it needs to be
much less than that. there is no reason to think that
the effect for other types of star would be any
different and I anticipate that putting that number into
the model for EF Dra will solve the problem. You haven't
given me any reason at all why that modelling approach
is not valid and it fully complies with ballistic theory
while your suggestions are all at odds with it.

I am claiming that, ...

I am not interested in handwaving "claims", the equations
do not predict what you are saying, your application of
them is wrong.

For the BaTh, ADoppler has to dominate otherwise photon waveshift will be
all
VDoppler and the phasing between the brightness and velocity will be 90
out.

For the current ballistic theory, the equations say that
the Doppler effect and the luminosity variation are both
the TDoppler factor, end of story. If you quantise the
theory, and I doubt you are capable of doing that, then
there will probably be an additional variation of (c/(c+v))^2
to take into account, but that is not part of the current
set of equations. At present, your simulation for EF Dra has
the velocity grossly too high but you can correct it by
reducing your equalisation distance to a value comparable to
that for the pulsars. The conclusion is that most of the
Cepheid variation is intrinsic and for EF Dra it is mostly
due to eclipsing.

George

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:12:36 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:33:43 +0100, "George Dishman"


Then you also appreciate that we need that curve on your
program in order to do any comparison. I can take the
300 km/s value from the graph of EF Dra below and convert
that into "Linear = 1.002" manually but it would be easier
if you just displayed it.

Have you any idea how much extra work that would involve?

A one-line change to convert the value you currently
display as the "linear" number from unitrs of magnitude
to units of km/s. It could read:

Mag. Change =0.32019 (Log) = 87772 km/s (peak to peak)

Well I can do that easily.... but it wasn't originally intended to be a
velocity measurement.


Obviously a linear (red) plot as well as the green
log plot would be nice but just putting the value
on the screen would be a start.

Strangly, the linear and log plots with the same height have much the same
shapes. That is, a linear plot at say 10 LYs looks the same as a log plot at
maybe 30LYs.

Presenting hte output so that hte curves can be magnified has given me
quite a
few headaches already, particularly for the log curves.

...but just for you I will have a go...

You could just add a text line giving the value but
displaying the curve with a horizontal axis and a scale
would avoid the doubt you had some time ago about a factor
of two difference if the figure is orbital velocity or
peak-to-peak variation.

True.
The magnitude change figure is actually the ratio maximum/minimum
brightness....so it's 'peak to peak'.

OK, so above I have doubled the 43886 km/s I posted before.
Your value should be around that ballpark. Anyway you then
simply adjust your orbital parameters to match that number
and the curve shape to the published velocity curve and you
have your match.

But then the brighness magnitude change is too low.

Whether you reduce the speed, alter the
pitch or reduce the equalisation distance is up to you but
my feel is that you will find using the same equalisation
distance as for the pulsars gets you a solution and logically
we should expect that to be the case.

Your suggestion works for pulsars because we don't have to match a brightness
curve.
For J1909-3744, I get an orbital velocity of only 100 m/s...but that includes
the pitch angle. I would say that this pulsar is moving in quite a small orbit
around the barycentre.



More excuses Henry? I love your approach - "I can't match
the curve but there is room for error in the measurement
therefore I can claim I match it."

I CAN match the curve very accurately George.

I haven't seeen you match the amplitude of any velocity
curve yet, your example of EF Dra is too high by a factor
of nearly 150.

Forget EF Dra now.
It probably is an eclipsing binary.

...but I can also produce a very similar curve with ADoppler completely
dominant.

TDoppler Henry, your ballistic theory equations produce
TDoppler and there is no room in it for alternatives.

George, star brightness curves depend entirely on ADoppler, in BaTh.

If you are familiar with the way these curves are produced ...'epoch
matching'
or something like that. You gave me a reference to the technique

It was someone else I think but basically all it means is
that any one point is the average of all the readings at
the same phase over many cycles.

That's the aim...but the method is based on fiddling with period until what
looks like some kind of intelligent curve appears. The spread at each point is
enormous and a best fit plot could be way out.

...then you
will be aware of the potential for inaccuracy.

Sure, things like sensor drift can cause problems. The
scatter of the readings gives the error bars but there
should always be some indication of systematics.

It is quite possible that this
curve was actually fiddled a bit to match the anticipated VDoppler one.

Accusing people of fraud again Henry? Sorry but if your
theory can't handle reality, don't go blaming the guys
who took the readings.

Well like I said, the ADoppler curve is very similar to the VDoppler one...and
anyone who accepts constant c could be excused for assuming it was without
intending any deliberate 'fiddle'.

I'll show you the two curves for comparison.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/george2.jpg

I can probably make them even more similar than that if I try.

That's OK, I have consistently been saying you have no
choice but to include both VDoppler and ADoppler, they
aren't really different things, just different terms in
the single TDoppler equation.

It is possible that VDoppler is needed to match pulsar curves but it
doesn't
apear to be required in the case of star curves.

It doesn't matter what is needed, ballistic theory includes
both factors, period.

....but VDoppler is negligible for stars....and I think I now know why.


Variations from a Keplerian orbit could only be due to other
bodies and you are severely limited as to what configurations
could be stable. Post-Newtonian factors will likewise be small
other than systematic drift of parameters over many years like
PSR1913+16. Over a few orbits these are negligible.

Wait, I stated that wrongly. I am assuming that these are huff puff stars.
..in
which case the radial velocities of expansion and contraction follow a
similar
curve to that of a star on Keplerian orbit.

No, you still don't seem to undertsand how they work. I didn't
get a chance to respond to an earlier post of yours about this.
the mechanism was described in the presentation I cited some
days back. Basically as the star contracts, the pressure and
density rise and importantly it reaches a point where it becomes
opaque. The radiation is trapped, pressure builds rapidly and the
outer layers start to expand. They become more transparent again
but momentum carries the material out until stopped by gravity
and it starts to fall back. The process is more like someone on
a trampoline.

Yes I know the basics George, I was trying to point out that the acceleration
appears to be non symmetrical on either side of the mid point. It is not simple
harmonic. There is more acceleration on the 'compression' side. There also
might be a lack of acceleration symmetry on the inward and outward strokes at
the same radius. Do you see what I'm getting at?

The combination of these can give the impression of a Keplerian orbit if one
goes by the radial velocity only.

What I meant was that the little peak at the top of the RT Aur curve could
be
intrinsic and VDoppler could produce the curve.
I can produce it very accurately with just ADoppler....BUT the velocity
range
is then seemingly too large.

Ballistic theory only allows you to use TDoppler, you
can't choose to use only some parts of an eqaution.

Yes All right George. Just for you I'll refer to it as TDoppler in future.

There cannot be a difference Henry, basic physics and even
pure maths rules it out (Fourier analysis). Ballistic
theory says that any electromagnetic disturbance moves at
"c+v" (that's shorthand as usual) and that applies to any
waveform shape whether a simple sine wave or a complex
signal. If you think of a burst of a sine wave of some
duration, it carries some finite energy and contains a
number of cycles. There is therefore an amount of energy
in each cycle. The brightening occurs because more cycles
arrive in a given time than were transmitted in the same
time due to bunching, but that increased number of cycles
in a given time is also obviously the frequency change
factor.

Whatever you do to modify the speed of propagation, the
green and red curves we have talked about are rigidly
linked. As you have said yourself in justifying not
drawing the extra curve, the two are identical with just
a different scale.

George I am just realising how amusing you are.

You keep telling me that if one piece of evidence refutes a theory then
the
theory is wrong. You often refer to sagnac as an example.

Yes, ballistic theory is undoubtedly wrong, this is purely
a hypothetical discussion to see what the consequences would
be if it were correct.

It cannot be wrong. Emitted light has only one reference...ITS SOURCE.
It must be emitted at the same speed wrt the source no matter how the source
moves...unless of course an aether exists. Mind you, it only needs to be a
'local aether'.

Yet you are trying to use the classical wave theory of light to prove my
ballistic theory wrong when it has been firmly established that the wave
theory
itself is wrong. .. IT BREAKS DOWN AT THE P.E. EFFECT.

Classical wave theory was around for a long time before it
was quantised. Ballistic is still in the wave theory region,
it has not yet been quantised. Before you can attempt that,
you need to know what the wave interpretation says and then
when you try to quantise it one of the constraints you must
meet is getting your quantum version equations to give the
same result as the wave version when averaged over large
numbers of photons.

Wave theory might explain RF signals and the change in separation of pulsar
pulses but there is no reason to believe it relates in any way to individual
photons.

Sure it can be used to
model interference patterns and such but it cannot explain anything about
the
particle nature of light.

Of course not, it doesn't attempt to yet.

But you are trying to make out it does.

Wave theory might work well in relation to the behaviour of groups of
photons...but it doesn't tell us anything about the partical nature of
individual photons or the way they travel through space. Nor does LET, SR
or
any other current theory ..

The current full theory is QED which amalgamates SR and QM in
flat space.

well I don't and wont accept it.

.. except the ballistic one.

Nonsense, you don't have any quantum equations equivalent to
ballistic theory at all. Perhaps we should revise ballistic
theory as you seem to be losing the plot a bit. Ritz said light
was emitted at c relative to the source. De Sitter suggested
that was untenable because binaries would show multiple images.
That is true for spectroscopic binaries so to try to get round
that a new theory was produced which included "speed equalisation"
The current theory has three parts:

1) The universe is Galilean invariant

2) Any electromagnetic disturbance initially propagates
at c relative to the source.

3) The speed relative to the medium through which the
disturbance propagates varies as it progresses as
described by the differential equation:

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

where n is the refractive index
R is a characteristic distance

Both n and R depend on the medium. n also depends
on the frequency of the wave however it seems R
does not since the orbital parameters of a binary
would then vary with the optical band in which it
was measured.

Yes.
What's wrong with that theory?


In the case of individual photons however, there is absolutely no reason
to
believe the same principle applies.
It cannot be assumed that the actual 'wavelengths' of photons making up
the
light in each 'macro pulse' experience the same compression or
rarification
that the pulses do.

It is not an assumption, it is a mathematical identity.
Think about the Fourier transform of a pulsed waveform.

George, wave theory does not apply.
The cars don't shrink when they slow down and bunch together on the highway.

Also remember the fact that the peak intensity from a
grating cannot be different if you analyse it by two
different approaches. The experiment is often done in
undergraduate work, get a line from a grating with a
bright source and then dim it until a photomultiplier
shows individual photons arriving. You can watch a
histogram build up to show exactly the same probability
as the wave theory intensity.

That doesn't tell us anything about how a grating would behave if the source
was moving.

To match the brightness/velocity phase relationship of cepheids, I need
ADoppler to dominate.

Tough luck, the universe isn't going to change to suit
your needs. Ballistic theory says the result is due to
TDoppler, end of story.

That's OK. I know ADoppler usually dominates.

Therefore I propose that photons are indeed ADoppler
sensitive but to a much smaller degree than are the pulses themselves.

You don't get to"propose" anything Henry, you write down
the equations for ballistic theory, which I have done
above, and then you calculate what they predict.

To quantise the theory, you write down a new set of
equations that apply to photons and then you calculate
what those predict.

We might consider that photons change length only during an acceleration. ..but
I don't think that could provide enough doppler shift to match observed ones.

ADoppler needs to be accumulative but I am effectively proposing that the
extinction rate 'within a photon' is much greater than 'between photons',
So the ends of photons stop moving relatively long before whole photons do
relative to each other.

Get it?

Now I can explain why the green curve is also the observed velocity curve but
with a much higher magnitude change.

For instance if the pulses compress by a factor of 1.5, the photons may do
so
by only 0.0015 or less.

That's not what the equations say.

I'm not interested in what classical wave theory may try to say about
individual quanta. It doesn't apply.

If you think of photons as discrete entities then this is a quite
conceivable
theory ...not just a wild guess.
In summary, individual photon 'compression' DOES occur when the source is
accelerating ... but the effect is much smaller than it is in the case of
the
relative movements of all the photons in a group.

This way, the brightness/velocity phasing of star curves is correct and
the
doppler shifts are of the right order.

So, even though a brightness curve might match perfectly and vary by 1.5
or so
(linear), the actual spectral shift is diluted to only a very small
fraction of
that value.
I'm wondering if there isn't a time dependent term in the
'compressibility
equation'. Does a second order effect come into play? (da/dt)

da/dt is the derivative of the acceleration. For a
circular orbit, v = sin(wt) where w is the angular
frequency or 2 pi / P where P is the orbital period.

a = dv/dt = w cos(wt)

da/dt - -w^2 sin(wt)

It would come in as one more order than acceleration so
would be roughly a factor of 1/P less than the basics
we have discussed. For a one day orbit it would be four
orders of magnitude smaller or make a change of about
0.01% to your curves, not worth worrying about.

'a' goes from -1 through zero to +1.

The difference ratio can be infinite.

You need to revise your calculus Henry.

Well, that's the principle of ADoppler.

The radial acceleration between two points on a circle varies with position. A
short length will generally not ADoppler contract by the same relative amount
as a larger one because the integrated acceleration is different across its
ends.
However I don't think this can explain the effect I am thinking about. so
forget it.


No, the speed difference is delta_v = a * t

so the ratio of speed difference to time is linear.

Only if a is constant..

No, a can vary in any way you like in which case
delta_v is the integral of a.dt

But lengths only ADoppler shift by the same proportion if they experience a
CONSTANT acceleration.

x___x' ----b
y_____________________y'
a1-

Consider two identical guns that are accelerating towards the right at the same
rate. When adjacent, they fire bullets at x and y respectively and then at y
and y' after a certain time interval has elapsed.
What do we know about the relative spacing between the bullets from each gun?
1) when da/dt= 0
2) when da/dt 0, as in the case of circular motion.

Anyway let's not delve too deeply into this because I suspect there is a
far
more important factor involved. INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS simply do not compress
as
much as the groups do.

When (if ever) you quantise ballistic theory, you will start
by taking the wave theory result and showing that the quantum
version produces identical results for large aggregates.

Not so George. Nobody has the faintest idea about physical properties and
structure of photons and this theory mighht provide a few clues.


Gratings produce a peak of intensity at the point on the
screen where the reflected waves from each ruling arrive
in phase. You should be able to answer the question simply
by calculating that condition for an incoming plane wave.

Yes, the classical theory is well established....but, without an aether,
it is
still not clear why gratings detect doppler shifts from moving sources.

As I said, you need to analyse the behaviour of a grating in
ballistic theory, but since you include speed equalisation
it becomes quite simple, as the speed varies the waves are
compressed (for v initially c/n) or stretched (for v
initially c/n) and that changes the wavelength.

Yes that's part of my H-aether theory...but it doesn't tell us why a grating
should detect a wavelength shift if it is moved at c/2 towards a source.


The blue curve represents the actual motion of the body
which is an unknown under the Ritzian theory, in terms
of the model it is not "known", it is the "independent
variable" (technically a small number of variables,
semi major axis and eccentricity for example).

.....but in the simulation it is completely defined.

No, in the sim it is the "independent variable". That
like saying the operating frequency of a radio is not
known but the position of the tuning knob is "completely
defined". It is defined only in that there is a specific
angle you turn it to for each station.

It's more than that. It has a definite value.... kms/sec

We need a model that produces a brightness curve that is correct
in both shape and mag. change but which also accommodates the
compressible
photon concept to a small extent.

No, the theory requires that the waves change in a certain
way. If you then go on from there to try to quantise the
theory then it starts with the fact that a grating will
produce a peak of intensity at some location and the photons
are then partly defined by the fact that a photomultiplier
will produce individual flashes with a distribution curve
that is identical to the intensity curve.

That's a bit of an oversimplification George.

Not really Henry. If you try to quantise the theory you will
probably start by adopting Planck's solution to the black
body problem, then you will define the properties of a photon
such that energy is conserved and wavelengths and frequencies
match the wave theory you have at the moment and so on.

I maintain that a photon must have an intrinsic energy, probably in the form of
a physical rotation or a standing oscillation along its length.

One thing I would like to now is why a gamma particle can have such an
obviously small 'cross section' compared with an RF signal.

No current theory even goes close to explaining this George.

I maintain that groups of photons behave differently from individual ones.

The behaviour of groups is defined by the statistical formula
that will form the basis of you method of quantisation.

theories, theories........


The relationship between acceleration and velocity is
linear so the effect must be identical. We could talk
about this forever Henry, there is a huge amount of
evidence. For example we see the sodium doublet in the
lab and also in stellar spectra. That doublet is the
same as a modulated sine wave (what is called suppressed
carrier) and any discrepancy would show up as harmonics
or a change in the ratio of the separation to the centre
frequency.


that's ancient stuff.... side bands... I assume that's what you are
saying...

Exactly. We don't see any.

The doublet is just due to a fine quantum level separation. I has nothing
to do
with what I'm taking about.

The fact that we don't see extra sidebands tells you how
waves behave and quanta are simple the smallest amount of
energy for any given wave.

Well that's throws out your classical wave theory.

Conservation of energy means wave cycles must
arrive at a higher rate if the brightness is to increase,
and cycle arrival rate is the definition of frequency.

You're talking about 'E=h.nu' type brightness variation.

No! E=h.nu will not work in ballistic theory as a general
principle. It will berquired to solve the black body
problem but can only apply at the point of emission.

E (as in 'h.nu') varies with VDoppler in BaTh.

My guess is that ballistic theory will require a kinetic
approach such as if a photon is emitted with speed c+v and
arrives at speed c then the energy will be h*nu*(c/(c+v))^2
where nu is the frequency of emission in the source frame.
However I think you have a _lot_ of work to do to make that
work consistently.

I hadn't thought much about the energy aspect. It should sort itself out.

My brightness variation is caused by numbers of photons arriving per unit
time.

Yes, that's what I meant too.

There is no room for any argument Henry, the red curve
must be directly related to the green and your claimed
match the luminosity curve of EF Dra gives a gross
mismatch to the velocity curve.

Not any more.

Yes Henry, you haven't changed the ballistic theory equations
so that's what they predict.

Photons don't compress nearly as much as the groups they are in.


I am claiming that, ...

I am not interested in handwaving "claims", the equations
do not predict what you are saying, your application of
them is wrong.

For the BaTh, ADoppler has to dominate otherwise photon waveshift will be
all
VDoppler and the phasing between the brightness and velocity will be 90
out.

For the current ballistic theory, the equations say that
the Doppler effect and the luminosity variation are both
the TDoppler factor, end of story. If you quantise the
theory, and I doubt you are capable of doing that, then
there will probably be an additional variation of (c/(c+v))^2
to take into account, but that is not part of the current
set of equations. At present, your simulation for EF Dra has
the velocity grossly too high but you can correct it by
reducing your equalisation distance to a value comparable to
that for the pulsars. The conclusion is that most of the
Cepheid variation is intrinsic and for EF Dra it is mostly
due to eclipsing.

No... and yes.

George


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

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