Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

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.

The flaw is that you haven't applied ballistic theory yet,
you are assuming the conventional analysis. If the light
arrives at c and you move the grating at v then the relative
speed is c-v. The wavelength is the same so the frequency
drops. If the reflected signal is emitted at c relative to
the grating, then the reflected wavelength is increased to
c/(c-v) times the incident wavelength. If on the other hand
the reflected wave moves at c-v relative to the grating then
the wavelength stays the same as for the static grating, but
of course the speed is different. In both cases you need to
then work out the angle where the reflections are in phase.

George

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:59:11 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:37:49 +0100, "OG" wrote:


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

Don't you see that you just don't have a convincing and coherent basis for a
theory? You have one principle that you will stick to regardless of what
fudges and fiddles you have to add to the rest of the universe just to make
the damn thing fit!

Even then you struggle to explain just 1 or 2 aspects of a Cepheid's light
curve and you can't account for variability of velocity against ionization
temperature.

You'll be OK now. You have Geesey onside.



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

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

On 26 Apr 2007 06:01:13 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 25 Apr, 22:33, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.

Then you have no measurement of speed to ask about.

That's right...but you have the absolute spacing between pulses.

Your theory states clearly that the spacing remains constant between all pulses
emitted around an orbit. In other words, it claims there is no relative
movement between pulses.
Don't try to tell me it doesn't George.

Give me one physical reason ...

I have told you dozens of times already, but if you complete
the diagram, I'll tell you again. The ball is in your court.

There is no such diagram. It exists only in your mind George.

.. 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 ...

Learn what the words "reference frame" mean henry, I've told
you many times before but you seem incapable of learning
this aspect of the terminology. Think of it as a mathematical
coordinate system with no physical existence, just a grid
drawn on a transparency through which we look at the world.
Why would that affect the speed of anything?

George, forget your 'frames'. Your theory states clearly that there will be no
relative movement between any pulses emitted by an orbiting star or pulsar, no
matter how far they travel.

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 18:41:12 -0600, Art Deco wrote:

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

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

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.

Note: Henri didn't even bother to try.


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'?

Cycles per second of an oscillator or periodic phenomenon. Was that
so hard? Or have you never gone to the seashore and counted waves?

Have you counted light oscillations?

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

So you can't specify anything. Didn't think so.

You can't answer the question...because you know nothing about physics at all.


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

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

On 26 Apr 2007 06:45:39 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On Apr 25, 4:45 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

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.

Certainly. BaTh is wrong.

To rescue BaTh, you have, in the past, tried to claim that
gratings must be responsive to frequency rather than to
wavelength, without in any way being able to produce a
consistent theory of grating behavior that does not reduce
to the conventional analysis.

Answer the question Jerry.
If a star is approaching at v, a 'wavelength sensitve' grating will diffract
its light to the appropriate angles.
If you now move the grating away at v, (so it is at rest wrt the star) why
should the diffraction angles change when you claim they are only wavelength
sensitive?

Do you actually believe that moving the grating somehow changes the wavelength
of the light?


Jerry

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

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

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:08:22 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


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

I have been following the discussion. It is interesting.

I was just pointing out to you that IF 'photon pressure' effects the photon
'size', then photons in a laser beam would change frequency and wavelength
as the intensity of the beam is increased because the 'photon pressure'
would increase with increasing of intensity.

If the effect were strong enough to help explain some of the things you are
trying to use it to explain, it would be very noticable in laser beam
experiments.

This does NOT happen.

Photons do not behave like rubber cars.

Don't just jump in here and make silly statements Bob, without thinking a bit
more about this.
I have a new theory that appears to fit in with all aspects of variable star
observations. Let's examine it, not throw it out without even looking.


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 Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:59:11 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:37:49 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


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

Don't you see that you just don't have a convincing and coherent basis for
a
theory? You have one principle that you will stick to regardless of what
fudges and fiddles you have to add to the rest of the universe just to
make
the damn thing fit!

Even then you struggle to explain just 1 or 2 aspects of a Cepheid's light
curve and you can't account for variability of velocity against ionization
temperature.

You'll be OK now. You have Geesey onside.


I'll leave you in peace. You've clearly decided that you can't sustain an
argument on scientific grounds.

On Apr 26, 5:11 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:41:12 -0600, Art Deco wrote:
Henri Wilson HW@....(Henri wrote:

What's 'frequency'?

Cycles per second of an oscillator or periodic phenomenon. Was that
so hard? Or have you never gone to the seashore and counted waves?

Have you counted light oscillations?

Absolute light frequency measurements are routinely being done
using frequency combs.

Try keeping up to date with current technology.

Jerry

On Apr 26, 5:31 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 06:45:39 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On Apr 25, 4:45 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

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.

Certainly. BaTh is wrong.

To rescue BaTh, you have, in the past, tried to claim that
gratings must be responsive to frequency rather than to
wavelength, without in any way being able to produce a
consistent theory of grating behavior that does not reduce
to the conventional analysis.

Answer the question Jerry.
If a star is approaching at v, a 'wavelength sensitve' grating will diffract
its light to the appropriate angles.
If you now move the grating away at v, (so it is at rest wrt the star) why
should the diffraction angles change when you claim they are only
wavelength sensitive?

Do you actually believe that moving the grating somehow changes
the wavelength of the light?

In SR, the scenario, grating moving away from the star at speed v,
is completely symmetric with the scenario, star moving away at from
the grating at speed v.

Yes, in both cases, the grating "sees" light with shifted wavelength.

On the other hand, as George has pointed out, it is only your confused
misapplication of your own BaTh principles that is leaving you with a
seemingly impossible dilemma. Try working out the consequences
of his two proposals.

Meanwhile, I've got to be studying for a test...

Jerry

On 26 Apr 2007 04:02:43 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 25 Apr, 23:52, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.

Or to state it more truthfully, you prefer to leave it out of your
program for the usual reason, correcting it would prove you wrong.

No George, I just do it mentally in seconds.



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.

The correspondence is a consequence of the "c+v" equation,
either my statement is true or false but it is a purely algebraic
question. If it is true then it is true always.

You're talking nonsense again George.
The Bath can predict and produce luminosity variations up to about mag 3.0
(before peaks start to appear), using source velocities as low as you like.


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.

Provide the equations that come from it to replace "c+v" and I will
consider them. Until then there is nothing for me to look at.

It doesn't replace c+v.

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.

Try to read more carefully Henry, "larger than".

That's perfectly OK George.
ADoppler shifts are generally larger than VDoppler ones. That's why they are
always nearly in phase with the brightness curves and not with the source
velocity curves.

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.

Statement of fact henry, you haven't provided any equations relating
to discrete objects, only "c+v" and my exprssion for dv/ds both of
which apply to macroscopic measurements.

I have. You didn't take any notice.
Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K

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

You can only treat it as a burst of waves.

....waves, waves?????....what's 'waving' George?

For example the sodium
doublet is about 6 angstroms apart (IIRC) and about 5200 angstroms
mean and we can easily separate them so each photon must be a
burst of at least 1000 cycles of a sine wave. The ballistic theory
equations then tell you how the frequency of that burst varies as it
propagates.

You are getting close.
...but you still haven't worked out what is 'cycling'...


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.

You haven't offered any alternative theory Henry, when you
tell me those equations I may consider them.

...
Similarly, the photons making up a bunched group don't change their individual
lengths by the bunching factor.

Your analysis of the "BaTh" equations is wrong, the equations
say they do.

...
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.

Fair enough, post the new equations. Currently we are using:

Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K

v' = c + v [1]

dv'/ds = (c/n-v')/R [2]

What do you propose to replace them with?

they don't have to be replaced.
Just add: Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K


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.

I do, but that's irrelevant. The point is that acceleration is 90
degrees
out of phase with velocity (for a circular orbit) and the
observeration
is of VDoppler only.

It appears to be mainly VDoppler for pulsars and maybe contact binaries
(although I don't have enough data to verify that).

It does NOT appear to be VDoppler for Cepheids or other variable stars. It is
all ADoppler.

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

Show the maths Henry.

Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K


Concentrate on the rubber photon theory George.

Tell me what is is then, where are you new equations.

Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K


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.

Sorry, you still haven't shown a single case that can't be explained
by VDoppler alone.

George, typical star magnitude changes cannot be even approached with VDoppler.
Only ADoppler can generate them.

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.

Still waiting.

Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K

As the photons aggregate, each individual photon shrinks a little due to
'photon pressure'.
Simple, concise..AND IT WORKS!!!!!

What is observed George, is a shift that is proportional to ADoppler bunching

No, what is observed is a shift with the phase of VDoppler and no
hint of any ADoppler contribution.

But what is also obserevd are magnitude changes that are 1000 times bigger than
anything VDoppler can produce.
...........have you lost the plot again George?



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.

OK, if you now say the equations you have been pushing for the last
decade or so are wrong, I wont disagree. I'll just wait for the new
ones.

The new equation simply complenets the old George. It doesn't replace them.

George, there are PHOTONS...and there are GROUPS OF PHOTONS.
The two are not the same.
You can have one XRay photon or one high energy gamma ray photon...or you can
thousands grouped together to make a super powerful xray or gamma....but
grouping them doesn't change the wavelength much.

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.

And that length change is defined by the two equations given
above. It is of course the same as the change for macroscopic
waves because (duh) they are the same equations. Easy, isn't
it.

George, we know that classical wave theory breaks down at the quantum level.
So stop trying to use it there.
That theory might works for GROUPS of photons...but not for individual ones.

INDIVIDUAL Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K

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

Fine, so we now agree ballistic theory is wrong and we await the
new equations of "RPT".

George, stop procrastinating please....

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.

Not really, it is always dominant, there has never been an
observation
of a curve with ADoppler phasing.

Hey that's wrong.
All cepheid curves have ADoppler phasing....when the observed spectra are
analysed with VDoppler methods, that is.



There is no speed term in the grating equations.

You haven't written the ballistic theory equations yet Henry, speed
will be in them.

I'm talking about classical theory not BaTh..

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.

He was a better scientist than that, there's no way he would have
made the mistakes in your analysis.

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

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.

There is only one set of equations Henry, and a photon is just a short
length
of a few thousand cycles cut from a macroscopic wave in ballistic
theory so
the factors can only be identical.

No. Individual photons have their own structure, intrinsic 'oscillations' and
contained ABSOLUTE energy.

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.

You don't have a theory Henry, no equations, just handwaving.

INDIVIDUAL Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K

or: Ps=Bf/K

You don't know the true orbital velocities.

I don't need to know the velocity, only the phase matters and it
matches
VDoppler not ADoppler. If the ADoppler contributed a tenth of the
VDoppler
then the phase would shift by about 6 degrees relative to the time of
the
eclipse and that is independent of the velocity.

I gather you are refering to short period eclipsing binaries...where we know
VDoppler might be significant or even dominant. But we don't have many
brightness curves to work with.
Try some longer period ones George.
Can we see a velocity curve for Algol?


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

The arrival speed is always c due to "speed equalisation" and
if photons were incompressible the wavelength would always
be the same as that emitted regardless of the initial speed.

They aren't 'incompressible' in the sense that you are using the word.
They change lengths during a speed change for one thing. ..and now we know they
are affected by the 'photon density' around them.

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.

It is always dominant in observations.

Negligible.


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.

That's not what the equations of BaTh say.

These are new equations that supplement the BaTh.

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.

More handwaving Henry, show the equations.

Ps=Bf/K

....observed spectral shift is now correct in phase and magnitude.

If it is used to calculate source velocities, the answers will be inflated by
about sqrt(K).

Nice that you can tell what the result is before having an equation
to analyse. Clairvoyant are you?

I sense a sqrt somewhere.


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'.

I said I know that already, try thinking about the real point.

The real point is exactly what I am emphasizing.
If acceleration is NOT CONSTANT then two unequal lengths will contract by
different proportions. The radial acceleration is NOT constant around an orbit.


Meaningless.

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

No Henry, I just don't know what you think "change in length of a
short radial length" has to do with radial acceleration. You seem
to have gone off onto another subject entirely.

I'm talking about your classical wave approach.
BUNCHING...how the 'ends' move in relation to each other.

You showed weeks ago why you thought a photon would shrink in the same
proportion to the group.
I'm showing you that if da/dt 0 then this does not hold.


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.

Yes it will. Just integrate the acceleration to find the difference
in SPEEDS and that tells you the rate at which the spacing
changes.

The proportional change will be the same only if the acceleration is constant.
You even provided the math for this once.

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

Or to put it another way, you have realised you were talking complete
******** and wish to drop it. I think that's a good idea.

No. I find it quite obvious....but you're being deliberately stubborn and I'm
not going to waste any more time trying to explain it.

Good luck.

I was thinkinig of transmission gratings actually.

Good point, what does ballistic theory say for the speed then?

In remote space, c+v naturallly. At ground level on Earth, it is c/n wrt the
surface....but the wavelengths will have adjusted accordingly to still produce
the right doppler shifts.
However, if I move the grating away from the star at v.....???? What should
happen George?

but no matter, in either case the light's wavelength is not affectd by the
movement of the grating.

That may or may not be true.

How could remote light be affected by the movement of the grating?

What is true is that the frequency at
in the grating frame is not affected by reflection but if the
reflected
speed changes then the process will alter the wavelength.

We in BaTh like to hear this kind of talk. We have always said grating wortk on
FREQUENCY not wavelength. Thank you George. You are coming around...



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..

ROFL, Henry you are hilarious at times. Where are the equations ? :-)

Throughout history, all major breakthroughs were initially ridiculed.

Ps=Bf/K

Mind you, K might not be a constant but a function of other factors...which
might answer bz's query about photon shrinkage in strong laser beams.


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.

I can hardly read any more, you're just too funny.

....thanks for your assistance George.

A true delight Henry.

Throughout history, all major breakthroughs were initially ridiculed.


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 ..

Not "linked with" Henry, it is nothing but classical! You never
seen QM, have you.

The particle/wave duality is finally explained.

George

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

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