Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:01:21 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:33:08 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"OG" wrote in message
...

still waiting Henry

Why are all relativists so bloody helpless?

how about using your own brain.

I don't have a problem with my own brain - I'm trying to fathom yours, which
is why I ask you to explain what you mean when you claim something. Mostly
you seem to be confused about simple physical phenomena.

"Methods to Account for Interstellar Extinction"
Google, 170,000 hits.

I was asking about light speed unification. The '169,000 hits' refer to
extinction - the absorption of particular wavelengths of light, which would
not explain why light at 'different speeds' but at nominally the same
wavelength would be selectively absorbed leaving just a single light speed.

Also I asked how many variables in your software, nor whether we see light
curves representative of all possible 'line of sight' parameters.

Run the bloody thing and see for yourself.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/newvariables.exe

Use 'george' rather than the yellow button.



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

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

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:51:55 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 21 Apr 2007 05:23:50 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
...
The mathematical community calls it "geometry".

Call it what you like George. It doesn't alter the fact that my demo shows
the
second postulate in action ....

No, the fact is that it does not show the second postulate,
is is only half a demonstration because if you finished it
you would prove me right.

You can't get out of it that way George.

We know light takes TIME to go from A to B.

When light is emitted from a star, no ultimate observer is involved.
Give me one physical reason why a light pulse emitted from one part of the
orbit should travel at the same speed as that emitted 3 months later from
another part.

If your answer is "a local EM reference frame exists around any large mass
centre", then you COULD have a point. ..but I wouldn't even be so sure of that.

George

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

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

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:33:53 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

The equations for gratings use wavelength, not speed or frequency.
THe wavelength doesn't change just because the grating moves away at
c...so why should the diffracted angle be any different?

It is difficult to move the grating at c.

Bob, the previous message said 'v' not 'c'. You would have recognised that as
an obvious typo if you had been following this thread.


At any speed below c, the grating will 'see' longer wavelengths as it goes
away from the source. The distance between wave crests will increase as the
grating moves away from the source.

...

Read about the rubber cars again George.
Photon size is proportional to 'photon pressure'.

The wavelength of a high power laser would be shorter than the wavelength
of the same laser operated at low power levels.
This is not observed.

Bob, you will jave to read back messages if you want to come into this thread.

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

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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:01:21 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:33:08 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"OG" wrote in message
...

still waiting Henry

Why are all relativists so bloody helpless?

how about using your own brain.

I don't have a problem with my own brain - I'm trying to fathom yours,
which
is why I ask you to explain what you mean when you claim something. Mostly
you seem to be confused about simple physical phenomena.

"Methods to Account for Interstellar Extinction"
Google, 170,000 hits.

I was asking about light speed unification. The '169,000 hits' refer to
extinction - the absorption of particular wavelengths of light, which
would
not explain why light at 'different speeds' but at nominally the same
wavelength would be selectively absorbed leaving just a single light
speed.

Also I asked how many variables in your software, nor whether we see light
curves representative of all possible 'line of sight' parameters.

Run the bloody thing and see for yourself.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/newvariables.exe


I don't play with unknown programs TYVM

Just answer the questions
- how many variables?
- do we see light curves for other 'line of sight' parameters?
- why does extinction only affect light travelling at particular speeds?

It's your theory - support it if you can!

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:16:22 -0600, Art Deco wrote:

Androcles wrote:

"bz" wrote in message
.198.139...

At any speed below c, the grating will 'see' longer wavelengths as it goes
away from the source.

Photons do not have wavelength anymore than cars so.
Roads have wavelengths, cars have frequency.

hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

Good one, thanks.

Leave Andro alone. He's not as stupid as some others here.

There was an obvious typo in my last message. 'c' should have been 'v'.

This is what I was asking:

The equations for gratings include 'wavelength' and not light speed or
'frequency'. If a grating is used to inspect light coming from a star moving at
v towards us, then the diffracted angles are indicative of the relative speed
between the star and the grating.

If the grating is now moved away at 'v', why should those angles change?
Certainly the movement of the grating has not altered the light's wavelength in
any way.

I smell a flaw in a theory somewhere.


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

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

Henri Wilson HW@....(Henri wrote:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:16:22 -0600, Art Deco wrote:

Androcles wrote:

"bz" wrote in message
9.198.139...

At any speed below c, the grating will 'see' longer wavelengths as it goes
away from the source.

Photons do not have wavelength anymore than cars so.
Roads have wavelengths, cars have frequency.

hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

Good one, thanks.

Leave Andro alone. He's not as stupid as some others here.

"Photons do not have wavelength"

I dare you to support this silly claim.

There was an obvious typo in my last message. 'c' should have been 'v'.

This is what I was asking:

The equations for gratings include 'wavelength' and not light speed or
'frequency'.

wavelength = c / frequency

If a grating is used to inspect light coming from a star moving at
v towards us, then the diffracted angles are indicative of the relative speed
between the star and the grating.

If the grating is now moved away at 'v', why should those angles change?
Certainly the movement of the grating has not altered the light's wavelength in
any way.

I smell a flaw in a theory somewhere.

What flaw?

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:56:17 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 24 Apr 2007 05:56:36 -0700, George Dishman


yep.

OK, so now we agree, will you make that little change please

One day.

Why not now, you said it would be easy.

Because I have about a milion other things to do at present George.



Sorry, It does George.

No, the highest measured velocities are around 300 km/s so
ballistic theory never explains a luminosity variation of more
than 0.002 magnitudes, far less than observed changes
and generally less than the noise.

What the hell are you talking about George?

Look back at the top of this post where a few lines ago you
agreed that 0.002 mag corresponds to 0.1% c (300 km/s). We
never have observed frequency shifts of more than about
that speed which means ballistic theory never predicts more
than about 0.002 mag luminosit variation, the rest must be
intrinsic variability or eclipsing, etc.

I didn't say that was true in the case of stars. I said it might be true for
pulsars.

BaTh can produce magnitude changes up to about 3.5 before the curves start
to
peak.... much higher before multiple images should appear.

Sure, and at that levels "BaTh" also says we should observe
a TDoppler shift corresponding to a speed of over 90% of the
speed of light! That doesn't happen Henry.

that's right. ..and I have now provided a theory to show why.

You are assuming that the calculated velocities are correct

No! I am not making any assumption at all, your theory says
that at 3.5 mag the observed TDoppler shift will give a false
impression of the speed, in fact it will be 25.1 times higher
than the actual speed. I am only applying the "BaTh" equations.

You now have to consider the 'rubber photon theory' in all your arguments.

when in fact they
are based on ADoppler. A linear magnitude change of 10 doesn't mean that
the
radial velocities around the orbit vary by a factor of ten, for reasons
that I
have been pointing out.

No, but it means the OBSERVED shift is 10 times larger than
it would be if it was only VDoppler.

VDoppler is not at all important, except maybe for pulsar pulses.

INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS DON'T SHRINK LIKE THE SPACING BETWEEN THEM DOES.

There are no photons in your theory Henry.

That's another one of your 'funny' stanements.

A remote atom in space emits a single light quanta. What name would you give to
it George?

However, they are still affected by ADoppler...

And it is the ADoppler part that is 25.1 times larger than
the VDoppler for 3.5 mag.

However, I think you are still getting confused with the
terms. This is very simple - the increased luminosity is
due to _T_Doppler, not just ADoppler. The over-estimation
of speed is due to _T_Doppler, not just ADoppler. Since
_both_ effects are due to the same factor, anything you
invent such as photon effects that alters that factor
only changes the blue curve. For any given luminosity
variation, the corresponding velocity is unaffected.
For 3.5 mag variation, the speed is 90% of c whatever
formula you use to get the TDoppler factor.

George, the rammifications of my new theory obviously haven't sunk in yet.

Drop a rubber ball into the ocean. Its CHANGE IN DIAMETER varies proportionally
to pressure as it sinks, not its DIAMETER.

Similarly, the photons making up a bunched group don't change their individual
lengths by the bunching factor. However, their CHANGE in length - used to
calculate doppler - DOES CHANGE proportionally to bunching.
Both changes are caused by ADoppler and are in phase.


George, I have worked out what happens.
You haven't cottoned on yet.

Of course I have Henry, but what you are saying is not what
you get if you calculate the effect of the BaTh equations I
wrote out for you. You are handwaving pure fantasy instead of
doing the algebra that would give you the answer.

George, when you understand my theory I will continue this conversation.

But that's doesn't hold water because of the relative
masses, we know the companion is a white dwarf. The
evidence is simply that the speed equalisation distance
is a bit smaller than you expected.

For neutron stars yes.

For J1909-3744 specifically, I am not talking generally here.

..and for PSR1913+16

I haven't calculated that, only J1909-3744. I don't
claim what I haven't done.


For eclipsing binaries, VDoppler is dominant to the point that no
contribution from ADoppler can be detected.

Not so. ADoppler could still dominate, depending on the period.

Could but doesn't, the velocity curve peaks are between the
eclipses whereas they would coincide for ADoppler. You showed
some time ago that eccentricity can't be used to compensate
because it introduces a second harmonic that would indicate a
non-Keplerian orbit (a surprisingly astute observation BTW) so
the ADoppler must be at most 0.1 of the VDoppler and probably
less than 1%.

There DOES seem to be a connection between orbit period and unification
distance. Why I don't know.

Incidentally, the harmonic could be result from egg shaped stars in tidal lock.

No you are quite wrong there George. You seem to have lost it.
For a given blue velocity curve, ..

It is you who has lost it Henry, you are again confusing the
speeds. We don't observe the blue curve, only the red curve.
I am NOT saying the blue values are around 10km/s, it is the
apparent speed due to TDoppler that has that value.

Concentrate on the rubber photon theory George.

.. just increase the distance and you will
increase the ADoppler magnitude change.

You often make claims Henry, now it is my turn:

There is no observational evidence for the existence of ADoppler from
the astronomical field despite the fact that it should be dominant in
several circumstances.

Can you prove me wrong?

Yes George, quite easily.
BaTh curves, based on ADoppler alone, produce the shapes and magnitude
changes
of just about any light curve I can find.

Nope, that doesn't do it. What you need to do is choose a
particular star or Cepeheid or binary or pulsar or whatever
you like and show that the phase is 90 degrees out from the
VDoppler only curve.

Explained by the rubber photon theory George.

I have now put forward a sound theory ..

You have not put forward any theory whatsoever. In fact it
was _I_ who put forward the BaTh theory for you! I have posted
the two equations a number of times so I won't repeat them
but you have offered no alternative to them so don't claim
you have.

An interesting fact is that the ADoppler curve for say 0.1 LY when
magnified is
almost identical to the one at 1000 LY for the same parameters.

For the same parameters including your "extinction distance", 1000 ly
should get you into the region of multiple images.

That depends entirely on the maximum velocity used. It is possible to go
1000000LYs away and not get multiple images if the orbit speeds are only a
few
m/s.

Yes but you said you kept the other parameters the same.

The velocity was low enough.


The penny hasn't dropped for you yet George.

Linear brightness variation is NOT the same size as ADoppler shift because
individual photons are only SLIGHTLY compressible due to ADoppler.

The penny hasn't dropped for you yet Henry, the BaTh equations
tell you the Doppler shift, end of story. If that doesn't
match your imaginings, tough, that's the way science works.
Your theory stands or falls on how well those equations match
the observations and nothing else.

What is observed George, is a shift that is proportional to ADoppler bunching
but is much less that the bunching itself.
The more I think about this theory the more obvious it becomes.

Here's a way to view my theory.
Again, consider cars traveling along a 100 lane highway.
Let the cars be made of rubber.

When they come to a 50 zone, they slow down and bunch together.

Right and the speed they move at is stated by Ritz's equation
with my ammendment to deal with your "extinction". Just use
those equations and you get the Doppler shift. End of story.

Wrong.


Now, consider that the amount of bunching causes a proportional increase
in air
pressure. (P = cars/m2) The rubber compresses slightly...but not by
anything
like the 'bunching ratio'. The compression is still proportional to the
bunching and therefore in phase with it... but its magnitude change
depends on
the bulk modulus of the rubber.
Get it?
Photons are like the little rubber cars....but with 'ripples'.
So brightness variation will be in phase with ADoppler velocity shift but
many
times greater.

This is a perfectly sound theory ..

No Henry it isn't a "theory" at all. A theory is an equation
and all you have given is words. The equations of BaTh tell
you the frequency and your words don't describe the result
of those eqautions therefore your words are simply wrong. It
is pure fantasy unrelated to the real ballistic theory.

George, it is change in length of a photon that is important not the 'photon
pressure' that causes that change.



That's OK, you don't need it :-) You have now seen that for small
variations, the log and lin curves have almost the same shape (you
cound even just drop the conversion to log) so add the speed value
as we discussed at the top, match the green curve to the _velocity_
curve for EF Dra, set the value to around 600 km/s peak to peak and
then reduce the distance until you get the right phase.

I wont get enough brightness variation that way George.

Correct henry, ballistic theory does NOT predict any significant
luminosity variation. Congratulations, you finally understood
what I have been teling you about BaTh.

Explained by the rubber photon theory George

VDoppler cannot produce it alone.
Brightness variation are ADoppler phenomena.

Both luminosity (not brightnees) variation and the
apparent speed result from TDoppler, not just ADoppler.

You can forget about VDoppler for stars, George.

The program operates on TDoppler.

That's cool, you should get the right answer then.

I do. ..but what IS the right answer?

The correct answer for your program to give is the TDoppler
factor. If that's what you have coded then your program
should be working.

You can forget about VDoppler for stars, George.


photons of which those waves are composed have another. That
doesn't make any sense.

The equations for gratings use wavelength, not speed or frequency.

The standard equations use wavelength because it is convenient
and since the speed is c, it is directly related to frequency.
Those equations may or may not be usable for ballistic theory.

THe wavelength doesn't change just because the grating moves away at
c...so why
should the diffracted angle be any different?

The physical effect that is exploited in a grating is that
the maximum intensity occurs where the contributions from
each ruling arrive in phase. You need to define the speed
of reflected light in terms of the incident speed and then
you can derive the equation that applies in ballistic theory.
Only then will you find out whether it predicts a change of
angle. It's supposed to be your theory Henry so I'll leave
you to do the work this time.

There is no speed term in the grating equations.



George, you and all the other relativists are really aetherists...because
the
second postulate requires that one absolute aether exists.

What are you wittering about Henry, Ritz's model was purely
classical and I have only added a further classical equation.

Ritz dies, otherwise he would probably would have hit on the rubber photon
theory beoore I did.



*
* *
* *
* * *
--*---------------*---------------*--
* * *
* *
* *
*


Each asterisk will move at the speed given by the ballistic
theory equation and the Doppler shift follows from that.

Henry's theory says:

Photons shrink slightly whenever their spacing shrinks a lot.

No, Henry's theory say two things:

v_i = c + v [1]

where v_i is the initial velocity of the wave and c and v are vectors.

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

where v is the speed in the direction of propagation, dv/ds is the
distance rate of chage of speed, n is the refractive index and R
is the characteristic distance for speed equalisation.

Your theory says NOTHING more than that.

Read about the rubber cars again George.

Utter drivel Henry, it bears no relation to the equations
of ballistic theory whatsoever. Each car carries one of
the above asterisks and the speed of the asterisk is c+v
(with my modification for speed equalistion).

It is the change in car length that is synonymous with photon wavelength change
not the spacing between them.


I already told you, they produce maximum intensity on the screen
where the MACROSCOPIC WAVES FROM EACH RULING arrive
in phase.

They are supposed to be entirely 'wavelength dependent'.

I conventional theory that is true. What does ballistic
theory say? That's what matters here.

If so, how do you answer my question above.

My answer is that SR gives the correct prediction, if your theory,
which is only the equations stated above, gives the wrong answer
then your theory is falsified.

If classical wave theory gives a wrong answer, it is also wrong.

Indeed it would be. You're getting the idea.

My 'rubber photon theory' solves the wave/particle paradox.


http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/EF_Dra.png

maybe

No maybe about it Henry, if ADoppler was dominant, the peaks
of the velocity curve would coincide with the eclipses.

You don't know the true orbital velocities. The calculated ones use VDopler
maths yet the effect may be mainly ADoppler.

No, the important part is that we know VDoppler is not reduced from
lab experiments.

VDoppler can only cause brightness changes by a very small amount.

You miss the point, if photons were incompressible there would
be no VDoppler at all.

George, in BaTh there would. It is just the 'rate of wavecrest
arrival'....velocity dependent.... (v+c)/v


If they were 50% compressible, VDoppler
would be half the expected value. As you know, it is as expected.

It is normally negligible except maybe for very small period situations.

Try again now you know the velocity is affected by TDoppler, not just
VDoppler. The luminosity variation will be less than a milli-
magnitude.

George, you have become totally confused again.
...think about 'Wilson's rubber photons'.....

No Henry, I'm not confused. You need to realise that changing
the Doppler formula affects both the speed and the luminosity
by the same factor, so for any given luminosity variation, the
speed variation is known.

George, Photon length CHANGE = Lo. (bunching factor)/K.
Where K may be 10000 or more.


I have a theory that explains everything very neatly.

Sorry, your witterings are garbage but even if they made sense
for any given green the result would not change the red curve,
only the blue. I think you fail to understand the idea of a
parametric relationship, the blue curve is not fixed.

The red curve will be similar to the green one in phase and shape but with a
much smaller amplitude.
If it is used to calculate source velocities, the answers will be inflated by
about sqrt(K).


Get it now George?

I know that Henry, but what is "The .. acceleration between two points on
a circle". If you mean the difference in acceleration, then that is of no
concern, ADoppler only depends on the acceleration at the point of
emission. Perhaps you were thinking of the change between the ends of
the photon but that would be the difference in speeds, not
acceleration.

The 'difference between speeds' IS acceletration.

Exactly, the "principle of ADoppler" it the difference in
speeds (which is the integral of acceleration), not the
difference in "radial acceleration" as you said.

'radial' here means 'component towards observer'.

For finite lengths around the periphery, the speed difference between the
ends
is the integrated acceleration with time.

Right, but that's not what you said before.

So the proportional change in length of a short radial length can be much
smaller than one equal to, say, the radius itself.

Meaningless.

No George, you simply don't like to know about it.

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.

What we know is that the motion of each bullet depends only
on the value of the _speed_ at the time it is fired.

I asked about how the spacing between bullets varies in each case,
George.

It changes at a rate given by the difference in the speeds, not the
difference in the accelerations. so da/dt is irrelevant. The speed
difference is the _integral_ of the acceleration over the time
between shots, not the difference.

...and when the acceleration is variying.....?

Have another think George...

When the acceleration is varying ... the difference in speeds
is the integral of the acceleration as I said, and BTW as you
said yourself a few lines up. Try having another think yourself
since you are now disagreeing with yourself.

The point George, is that the spacing between the two pairs of bullet will NOT
change by the same proportion if the acceleration is varying.

Anyway, this effect is minor compared with the rubber bullet theory so let's
not dwell on it.


....answer my above question George...if you move the grating away at
v......?

You have the equations Henry, work it out for yourself.

Grating equations don't include light speed of light frequency George.

You haven't derived any "grating equations" from BaTh, Henry,
so I don't know whether they include the speed or not. You
didn't imagine you could use the conventional ones without
deriving them from BaTh did you?. Here's a hint to get you
started:

note you will
need to define what happens in your theory when light is reflected
from
a moving surface (each ruling on the grating) which you have so far
found difficult.

Good luck.

I was thinkinig of transmission gratings actually.
but no matter, in either case the light's wavelength is not affectd by the
movement of the grating.


No, Henry, the red curve is observed and therefore "known", the
blue curve is an adjustable parameter. I suggest you learn the jargon.

For stars, the latest 'red curve' is just a mirror image of the green one
but
with a much smaller size variation.

Then it is wrong, the variation is fixed by the green curve
amplitude since both derive from TDoppler.

All has now been explained by the rubber photon theory..


I'm telling you you haven't attempted to quantise the theory yet
so there's no point guessing what might result from that
process. Your equations at present are classical and the
discussion is limited to what they predict, your implementation
of that in your program and the matching of that to astronomical
observations.

...Wilsonian rubber photons explain everything George.

Sure they do Henry :-P What a lovely picture, I'm sure you
would do well in the advertising business. Still, I like your
sense of humour.

The particle/wave duality of light is also finally explained.

.....thanks for your assistance George.



In ballistic theory, your equations say the frequency varies with
TDoppler as we have discussed several times above (not VDoppler
which I took as another of your typos) and TDoppler can rise to
any value, even infinite. If the frequency increases by a factor of
10000, you don't think the energy increases by that amount too,
do you? If so, you have a wonderful free energy source ;-)

No that's classical wave theory.

Yes, ballistic theory is fully classical. I guess you have
never actually seen any QM analysis. You should think about
getting a textbook because you have the whole of that to
rewrite if you ever contemplate trying to quantise ballistic
theory.

Indeed the BaTh is now linked with the classical wave theory to explain the
particle/wave duality. The 'wave' bit is in the bunching, which can have a wave
structure. The particles are the photons that make up the bunches. Their
lengths= Lo.(bunch density)/K

I will give you a mention as I collect my Nobel, George.

George


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

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

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:10:54 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 24 Apr 2007 00:22:27 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
...
OK, I wont argue about EF Dra. I was using 0.21 days as the period.

I was talking generally.
It is virtually impossible to distinguish between a BaTh curve and a
genuine
eclipsing one without accurate spectral data. I still say many presumed
eclipsing stars are not that at all....just products of the BaTh.

What I am saying is that in general, binaries that are considered
to be eclipsing have two dips of luminosity for every cycle of the
velocity curve and the dips are of different depth, shape and
spectral character (since the stars usually have different spectra)
so they are almost certainly eclipsing.

Correct.

I am also pointing out that the phase of the velocity curve relative
to the luminosity indicates VDoppler is dominant in every case.

I'm saying that utill the phase is definitely known, it is impossible to
distinguish between BaTh effects and genuine eclipsing.

Yes it is, large variations only come from the ADoppler contribution
but the curve for an eclipser is always 90 degrees out from ADoppler
and in phase with VDoppler.

Generally that wil not be true with the rubber photon theory...except for very
short periods... but since most ADoppler would take place in light emitted
behind the eclipse, it might hardly be important anyway.

Many brightness curve feature such a dip....but that doesn't mean the
stars are
eclipsing.

It does if it is 90 degrees out, and if you check the binaries that
are supposed to be eclipsing, you will find that is always the case.

Often there is only a single eclipse per orbit.
If there are no spectral curves available, nobody could tell the difference.
However, generally, the brightness and ADoppler shift curves will be in phase.

George


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

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

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:37:49 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:01:21 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:33:08 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"OG" wrote in message
...

still waiting Henry

Why are all relativists so bloody helpless?

how about using your own brain.

I don't have a problem with my own brain - I'm trying to fathom yours,
which
is why I ask you to explain what you mean when you claim something. Mostly
you seem to be confused about simple physical phenomena.

"Methods to Account for Interstellar Extinction"
Google, 170,000 hits.

I was asking about light speed unification. The '169,000 hits' refer to
extinction - the absorption of particular wavelengths of light, which
would
not explain why light at 'different speeds' but at nominally the same
wavelength would be selectively absorbed leaving just a single light
speed.

Also I asked how many variables in your software, nor whether we see light
curves representative of all possible 'line of sight' parameters.

Run the bloody thing and see for yourself.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/newvariables.exe


I don't play with unknown programs TYVM

Well go away troll...


Just answer the questions
- how many variables?
- do we see light curves for other 'line of sight' parameters?
- why does extinction only affect light travelling at particular speeds?

It's your theory - support it if you can!

My dialogue with George has all the answers. READ IT


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

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

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:19:45 -0600, Art Deco wrote:

Henri Wilson HW@....(Henri wrote:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:16:22 -0600, Art Deco wrote:

Androcles wrote:

"bz" wrote in message
news:Xns991D1A22C8BD9WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130. 39.198.139...

At any speed below c, the grating will 'see' longer wavelengths as it goes
away from the source.

Photons do not have wavelength anymore than cars so.
Roads have wavelengths, cars have frequency.

hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

Good one, thanks.

Leave Andro alone. He's not as stupid as some others here.

"Photons do not have wavelength"

I dare you to support this silly claim.

There was an obvious typo in my last message. 'c' should have been 'v'.

This is what I was asking:

The equations for gratings include 'wavelength' and not light speed or
'frequency'.

wavelength = c / frequency

What's 'frequency'?

If a grating is used to inspect light coming from a star moving at
v towards us, then the diffracted angles are indicative of the relative speed
between the star and the grating.

If the grating is now moved away at 'v', why should those angles change?
Certainly the movement of the grating has not altered the light's wavelength in
any way.

I smell a flaw in a theory somewhere.

What flaw?

F-L-A-W

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

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