Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Apr 27, 4:16 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

If you really want to help me, I've just torn a bloody femoral
hernia. Is there keyhole surgery available now. I had one done
the old way fifteen years ago and was out of action for about
a month.....Can't afford the time now.....

As a matter of fact, I watched a femoral hernia repair last week
as part of my rotation. They are a very common complication of
pregnancy, and NO, that's not any sort of dig at you, it's just
one of the things that I'm going to learn how to do.

Whether laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery is an option depends on
the particulars of the case. I cannot advise you on that.

The surgery that I watched involved the surgeon making a 6 cm
incision over the hernia, opening up the femoral canal, pushing
the loop of intestine back into place, then reinforcing the canal
with a piece of polypropylene mesh. The whole procedure was done
with the patient under regional anesthesia, and she was sent home
the same day.

Modern "tension free" surgical techniques for femoral hernia
repair are far less intrusive than those used fifteen years ago.
In the case of the patient that I watched, she was advised to
take it easy for the next two or three days, and to avoid
strenuous exercise or heavy lifting for a month.

Sorry to bore you with my ailments but you are probably better
at this than physics....

I should HOPE that I'm better at this than physics! After all,
it's to be my profession, not my hobby.

Jerry

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

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

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


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.

I do not throw cold water on people that are 'brain storming', that is
trying to think of as many ideas as possible, no matter how wild they may
be. But, in science, there comes a point when one weeds out those ideas
that do not pass the test of 'does this agree with current data'.

The idea that 'photon pressure' would cause photons to get shorter is a
cool idea, as a brain storming idea. But it fails to pass the first test of
practicallity.

There are many places that photons travel together in large groups, photons
in those groups would suffer from the same compression as the photons from
stars. We don't see photons compressing and shifting in frequency and
wavelength.

On the otherhand, if there were experments showing just such a phenomina,
they would support your idea.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:54 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:07:12 -0600, Art Deco wrote:
Henri Wilson HW@....(Henri wrote:

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?

Not personally. But atomic clocks do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

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.

Listen up, this is how it works -- you claimed there is a "flaw in a
theory somewhere" -- it therefore up to you to specify said flaw, and
to support said claim. Not I.

Silly person.

Your realativist colleagues have assured us that the grating equations
don't include light speed or frequency. You can look them up on google .

Deriving the equations that describe how diffraction gratings work is
so simple it is assigned in freshman physics courses.


I want a relativist to answer my question.

So you can ignore the answer while pretending the "relativist" said
something else.


If the grating is moved away at v, why should the wavelength of the incoming
light change?

Hello, doppler shift?

Also note that Henri ran away from his (and Androcles) claim that
photons don't have wavelength.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

Henri Wilson replied to Leonard Kellogg:

Henri Wilson said to George Dishman:

I have agreed that the extinction distance appears to
depend on star period and star proximity.

And I have said that the light speed unification distance
is inversely proportional to rate of bunching. The more
rapidly the light bunches, the shorter the unification
distance. That applies to all light sources. It applies
to pulsars, white dwarfs, red giants, cepheids, and main
sequence stars. It applies to light sources bouncing back
and forth on springs. It applies to infrared LIDAR and
radio-frequency RADAR emitted by police speed measurement
devices and reflected from moving vehicles. It applies to
light and radio signals sent from or received on aircraft
in flight. It applies to radio signals from satellites in
Earth orbit, rovers on the surface of Mars, and Cassini
orbiting Saturn.

The more rapidly the light bunches, the shorter the
unification distance. Always.

The rate of bunching is proportional to the radial acceleration
at the section of the orbit where the pulses/photon were emitted.

Yes, we already know that. I was pointing out something
that you appear not to have picked up on yet.

For orbits with the same eccentricity, that is also proportional
to the peripheral velocity at the same phase. (for instance at
periastron)

Again, we already know that. I was pointing out something
about the unification distance that you apparently still
haven't noticed.

It's a simple average of all the points at that phase
Henry, stop whining.

Well it all sounds pretty suspect to me.

It is an elementary school level problem.

It is like measuring your height once an hour during the
day for a week, then averaging the measurements together.
You measure your height immediately after arising, again
an hour later, and so on. After a week you sum all the
measurements made just after arising and divide the result
by seven, then you sum all the measurements made an hour
after arising and divide the result by seven, and so on.
When you graph the results you have a chart showing how
your height changes during the day.

Another way of achieving exactly the same result is to
plot all of the individual measurements and then draw a
smooth curve which most closely matches the data points.

What has this to do with extinction?

Nothing. I commented on two different things in my post.
The first was the dependence of extinction distance on the
rate of bunching, while the second was your concern that
averaging of measurements taken over a number of cycles
sounds pretty suspect to you.

Leonard

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:49:02 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:59:11 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


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

You haven't come up with any science.

2 points
Firstly, it's your theory that's under review
Secondly, science is to do with more than computer modelling and inventing
excuses when other observations don't match theory.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:57:17 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:49:02 +0100, "OG" wrote:



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

You haven't come up with any science.

2 points
Firstly, it's your theory that's under review
Secondly, science is to do with more than computer modelling and inventing
excuses when other observations don't match theory.

go away troll....



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

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:14:47 -0600, Art Deco wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:54 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:


So you can ignore the answer while pretending the "relativist" said
something else.


If the grating is moved away at v, why should the wavelength of the incoming
light change?

Hello, doppler shift?

Also note that Henri ran away from his (and Androcles) claim that
photons don't have wavelength.

Don't lie like a relativists, please.

Not only do I say photons have absolute but variable 'wavelength', I also
provide a physical model for it.



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

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

On 27 Apr 2007 03:40:36 -0700, Jerry wrote:

On Apr 27, 4:16 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

If you really want to help me, I've just torn a bloody femoral
hernia. Is there keyhole surgery available now. I had one done
the old way fifteen years ago and was out of action for about
a month.....Can't afford the time now.....

As a matter of fact, I watched a femoral hernia repair last week
as part of my rotation. They are a very common complication of
pregnancy, and NO, that's not any sort of dig at you, it's just
one of the things that I'm going to learn how to do.

Whether laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery is an option depends on
the particulars of the case. I cannot advise you on that.

The surgery that I watched involved the surgeon making a 6 cm
incision over the hernia, opening up the femoral canal, pushing
the loop of intestine back into place, then reinforcing the canal
with a piece of polypropylene mesh. The whole procedure was done
with the patient under regional anesthesia, and she was sent home
the same day.

Modern "tension free" surgical techniques for femoral hernia
repair are far less intrusive than those used fifteen years ago.
In the case of the patient that I watched, she was advised to
take it easy for the next two or three days, and to avoid
strenuous exercise or heavy lifting for a month.

That sounds great. I had better get it done before it gets any larger.
I read somewhere that a glue is being used rather than staples...or both..

Sorry to bore you with my ailments but you are probably better
at this than physics....

I should HOPE that I'm better at this than physics! After all,
it's to be my profession, not my hobby.

Just like physics is MY profession, not my hobby...

Jerry



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

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:21:51 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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



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.

I do not throw cold water on people that are 'brain storming', that is
trying to think of as many ideas as possible, no matter how wild they may
be. But, in science, there comes a point when one weeds out those ideas
that do not pass the test of 'does this agree with current data'.

Well bob, there has never been a proper test of Einstein's second postulate.
The only known way to do it is to use variable stars. That's what I have done
and the results show that Einstein was wrong.

There is no way that light pulses from a remote orbiting source can all be
emitted at exactly c relative to little planet Earth. The idea is ridiculous.

The idea that 'photon pressure' would cause photons to get shorter is a
cool idea, as a brain storming idea. But it fails to pass the first test of
practicallity.

Don't make stupid comments bob, just because the theory conflicts with your
beliefs.

There are many places that photons travel together in large groups, photons
in those groups would suffer from the same compression as the photons from
stars. We don't see photons compressing and shifting in frequency and
wavelength.

How do you know?

On the otherhand, if there were experments showing just such a phenomina,
they would support your idea.

Bob, the effect I'm proposing is one that occurs when a group of photons
experiences an acceleration, either during emission or during flight.
George claims, probably rightly, that when photons are emitted by an
accelerating source the ones emitted later will move up on the earlier ones,
causing bunching. In the case of pulsars, both the gaps between pulses and the
pulse widths will change in the same proportion.

My theory states that individual photons also change in proportion to the
acceleration but by a much smaller amount than the 'bunching factor'.

This is perfectly feasible theory.

Note: if the acceleration is not constant, an important additional effect
occurs.

bz



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

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

On 27 Apr 2007 08:32:14 -0700, Leonard Kellogg wrote:

Henri Wilson replied to Leonard Kellogg:

Henri Wilson said to George Dishman:

I have agreed that the extinction distance appears to
depend on star period and star proximity.

And I have said that the light speed unification distance
is inversely proportional to rate of bunching. The more
rapidly the light bunches, the shorter the unification
distance. That applies to all light sources. It applies
to pulsars, white dwarfs, red giants, cepheids, and main
sequence stars. It applies to light sources bouncing back
and forth on springs. It applies to infrared LIDAR and
radio-frequency RADAR emitted by police speed measurement
devices and reflected from moving vehicles. It applies to
light and radio signals sent from or received on aircraft
in flight. It applies to radio signals from satellites in
Earth orbit, rovers on the surface of Mars, and Cassini
orbiting Saturn.

The more rapidly the light bunches, the shorter the
unification distance. Always.

The rate of bunching is proportional to the radial acceleration
at the section of the orbit where the pulses/photon were emitted.

Yes, we already know that. I was pointing out something
that you appear not to have picked up on yet.

For orbits with the same eccentricity, that is also proportional
to the peripheral velocity at the same phase. (for instance at
periastron)

Again, we already know that. I was pointing out something
about the unification distance that you apparently still
haven't noticed.

well please spell it out in a way that we can all understand..



Another way of achieving exactly the same result is to
plot all of the individual measurements and then draw a
smooth curve which most closely matches the data points.

What has this to do with extinction?

Nothing. I commented on two different things in my post.
The first was the dependence of extinction distance on the
rate of bunching, while the second was your concern that
averaging of measurements taken over a number of cycles
sounds pretty suspect to you.

I haven't the faintest idea what it is you are trying to tell us.

This is the problem. Accorbing to the BaTh, it appears that the unification
distance of light from short period binaries is a lot less than that from long
period ones. This may not even be true but if it is, I want a physical
explanation...can you provide one?

Leonard



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

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