Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

Fully up to expectations.

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:21:51 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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



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.

It certainly can not be proven, but any theory derived from it provides a
test.

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.

I wish you were correct. I would be happy to be able to say I knew someone
who revolutionized science. Over the last few years, I have tried to help
you. I would be very happy to be able to say I helped someone that
revolutionized science, even if my help was only in hammering out some of
the dents in a theory.

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.

You and I both know that is an incorrect way of stating things. The photons
are emitted at c, in all directions, from the source, as measured from an
inertial FoR co-moving with the source at the instant of emission,
according to both BaT and SR.

The photons are measured as moving at c+v from any other iFoR, according to
BaT and at c from any other iFoR according to SR. There is nothing special
about the earth in either theory and it is silly to claim that there is.

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?

I know that any laser produces groups of photons moving together.
I know that IF photons 'compress' from the pressure of 'being in a crowd of
photons', that a laser beam would be one of the places this would happen.

I know that when we attenuate a laser beam so that there are only a few
photons traveling together, the frequency of the beam is unchanged.

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.

Are you proposing that it would ONLY happen if the group was 'experiencing
acceleration'?

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.

That is central to the Riztian/Wilsonian theory of variable stars.

In the case of pulsars, both the gaps between
pulses and the pulse widths will change in the same proportion.

That would make sense for both BaTh and SR. It is consistent with
conventional doppler shift of beams of data from spacecraft. Both the
frequency of the beam, the length of the data bits, and the data rate, all
are doppler shifted together.

The phenomina can even be observed on shortwave, long distance, radio
circuits as the motions of the ionosphere produce phase/frequency shifts in
the signal.

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.

It is only feasible if it is consistent with observation.


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

What?

bz



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

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





--
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

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..

I thought I had. Re-read the longish paragraph above and
see if it makes sense. If it does, then try to explain to
yourself why it must be that way.

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.

You have already forgotten what you were talking about?
It was only four days ago.

You told George that the way the light curves of variable
stars are measured over a number of cycles and then averaged
together 'sounds pretty suspect'.

I replied:

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.

The averaging process you say 'sounds pretty suspect' is
used every day in millions of businesses around the world.
It is even simpler and more basic than the fundamental
principles of algebra. Almost any sixth-grade student
could demonstrate it for you.

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?

Yes. George Dishman told you yesterday that he knows why
there is a connection between the period and the unification
distance. I know, too. He declined to say what that
connection is. I am going to decline, as well. However, I
gave you a clue on 18 February, which I repeated 20 March,
and will repeat again now:

The things which are closest at hand can sometimes be the
most difficult to see.

I gave you that clue specifically to help you discover the
connection between orbital period and unification distance.
Or more precisely, the connection between bunching rate
and unification distance.

Leonard

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

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.

You defended a very silly statement by a very silly person, Androcles:

Message-ID:

: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.

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

That claim makes no sense.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:27:16 -0600, Art Deco wrote:

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

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.

You defended a very silly statement by a very silly person, Androcles:

Message-ID:

: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.

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

That claim makes no sense.

It does...but you will need a brain to understand it.



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

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:52:24 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

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.

I wish you were correct. I would be happy to be able to say I knew someone
who revolutionized science. Over the last few years, I have tried to help
you. I would be very happy to be able to say I helped someone that
revolutionized science, even if my help was only in hammering out some of
the dents in a theory.

Just stick around then...


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.

You and I both know that is an incorrect way of stating things. The photons
are emitted at c, in all directions, from the source, as measured from an
inertial FoR co-moving with the source at the instant of emission,
according to both BaT and SR.

The photons are measured as moving at c+v from any other iFoR, according to
BaT and at c from any other iFoR according to SR. There is nothing special
about the earth in either theory and it is silly to claim that there is.

SR is just LET written in reverse.



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?

I know that any laser produces groups of photons moving together.
I know that IF photons 'compress' from the pressure of 'being in a crowd of
photons', that a laser beam would be one of the places this would happen.

I know that when we attenuate a laser beam so that there are only a few
photons traveling together, the frequency of the beam is unchanged.

Ah, but that's not the same process. When they attenuate, there is no relative
LONGITUDINAL movement between the photons that make up the beam. All you do is
either remove some altogether or move them sideways, as in inverse square
attenuation.

My photons are shortened very slightly by when photons unch together.

If THIS:
_ _ _ _ _ __ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

bunches up to about half its length like THIS:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Then each individual photon shrinks by a very small amount..maybe 1/10000 or
less of its length.

That's my theory.




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.

Are you proposing that it would ONLY happen if the group was 'experiencing
acceleration'?

George's applies the classical wave theory, whereupon the two 'ends' of a pulse
from an acelerating source will move at different relative speeds and therefore
bunch together or separate as they travel. That could certainly apply to
photon groups, like pulsar pulses. ..but George claims it applies to individual
photons as well...
I agree...but I say the effect is much smaller for the photons than the groups.

This concept, which seems quite logical to me, brings into line both magnitude
and phase of variable star velocity and brighness curves.

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.

That is central to the Riztian/Wilsonian theory of variable stars.

Yes...and if you can give me one good reason why a pulse of light emitted six
month after another from an accelerating source should be at rest wrt the
former then I would like to hear it.

In the case of pulsars, both the gaps between
pulses and the pulse widths will change in the same proportion.

That would make sense for both BaTh and SR. It is consistent with
conventional doppler shift of beams of data from spacecraft. Both the
frequency of the beam, the length of the data bits, and the data rate, all
are doppler shifted together.

The phenomina can even be observed on shortwave, long distance, radio
circuits as the motions of the ionosphere produce phase/frequency shifts in
the signal.

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.

It is only feasible if it is consistent with observation.

IT IS!

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

What?

I'm not going to explain it again.




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

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

On 27 Apr 2007 17:19:21 -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..

I thought I had. Re-read the longish paragraph above and
see if it makes sense. If it does, then try to explain to
yourself why it must be that way.

You state, "The more rapidly the light bunches, the shorter the unification
distance."

I would like that to be true but you don't state why it should happen.

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.

You have already forgotten what you were talking about?
It was only four days ago.

You told George that the way the light curves of variable
stars are measured over a number of cycles and then averaged
together 'sounds pretty suspect'.

I replied:

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.

The averaging process you say 'sounds pretty suspect' is
used every day in millions of businesses around the world.
It is even simpler and more basic than the fundamental
principles of algebra. Almost any sixth-grade student
could demonstrate it for you.

That's nothing at all like 'epoch matching'.

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?

Yes. George Dishman told you yesterday that he knows why
there is a connection between the period and the unification
distance. I know, too. He declined to say what that
connection is. I am going to decline, as well. However, I
gave you a clue on 18 February, which I repeated 20 March,
and will repeat again now:

The things which are closest at hand can sometimes be the
most difficult to see.

I gave you that clue specifically to help you discover the
connection between orbital period and unification distance.
Or more precisely, the connection between bunching rate
and unification distance.

Well, we know bunching rate is dependent on orbit speed but the only assumption
I would make about unification rate at this stage is that it should be solely a
property of the space through which the light is traveling.

It is hard to see how your claim can be correct because during the process of
unification, fast photons have to slow down ...in which case bunching also
slows.... just as it would if you started with that situation.

Still, there might be a more subtle connection...I hope there is.


Leonard



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

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

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

That is central to the Riztian/Wilsonian theory of variable stars.

Yes...and if you can give me one good reason why a pulse of light
emitted six month after another from an accelerating source should be at
rest wrt the former then I would like to hear it.

I would like to hear it too.

By the way, 'extinction' requires that that happen. It just requires that
the later photons travel for some distance before they become 'stationary'
wrt earlier emitted light pulses. Right?

As far as under SR, no inertial FoR is allowed to move at c. Composition of
c with any other velocity gives c. From the photon's viewpoint, birth and
death are simultanious. Photons are not allowed to carry clocks, or the
clocks do not tick when photons carry them.



--
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

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:27:16 -0600, Art Deco wrote:

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

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.

You defended a very silly statement by a very silly person, Androcles:

Message-ID:

No response again.

: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.

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

That claim makes no sense.

It does...but you will need a brain to understand it.

That lets you out.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:38:55 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

That is central to the Riztian/Wilsonian theory of variable stars.

Yes...and if you can give me one good reason why a pulse of light
emitted six month after another from an accelerating source should be at
rest wrt the former then I would like to hear it.

I would like to hear it too.

By the way, 'extinction' requires that that happen. It just requires that
the later photons travel for some distance before they become 'stationary'
wrt earlier emitted light pulses. Right?

Yes, that is correct....and it follows that the shorter the period, the more
likely the two pulses travel through similar material in space. ...which is
good for my theory.

As far as under SR, no inertial FoR is allowed to move at c. Composition of
c with any other velocity gives c. From the photon's viewpoint, birth and
death are simultanious. Photons are not allowed to carry clocks, or the
clocks do not tick when photons carry them.

Yes, that's why I ignore Einstein's stupid theory altogether.



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

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