|
 |
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro
From: HW@....(Henri Wilson)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 23:35:42 GMT
Local: Thurs, May 3 2007 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On 3 May 2007 02:58:34 -0700, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I posted this yesterday through google but it seems to I have George... >have vanished. Luckily I saved a copy first, apologies >for the duplication if the original eventually turns up. >> >> George, you are still insisting that the wavelength changes in the observed >> >> light will be of the same proportion as the brightness variation... >> >They are one and the same mechanism Henry. >> George, I gave you the analogy of a rubber ball sinking in water. >You can give me an analogy of an elephant up an orange tree, it You refuse to listen. There are plenty of instances where the BaTh does NOT require continued ballistic movement. I gave you another analogy where there is continued but reduced movement. You are assuming the ends of a photon are completely independent of each other. The very fact that an individual photon can exist means that it must have some kind of identifying property and 'structure' that distinguishes it from 'nothing'. There is absolutely no reasn to assume the ends will continue to move in way pulsar pulses appear to. >> >> a tenfold The question you want me to answer is, "how is an individual photon affected by >> >> increase in brightness would also mean a doppler shift corresponding with 10c >> >> !!!!!...if the VDoppler equation was used. >> >That's why your claims are nonsense. >> How can you brush them off as nonsense ... >Consider the grating question as it would relate to a simple RF >Wavefronts approach a series of wires (the asterisks are the wires > _____________________________ > * * * * * * * * >The field induces current in the wires which then re-radiate. That > \ \ >Changing the scale so the horizontal line is the grating, the > | >You can't have all the "photons" arriving at B and the energy being in a group of photons?" I doubt if anyone can give you a decent answer to that....but like I said >> when they fit the data? That's not a You have twisted the meaning of what I am saying...and since there is no >> very scientific attitude George. >The first rule of a scientific attitude is slf-consitency. Your evidence either way, you don't have a leg to stand on. >> >> I have now explained why that is not true. No George. >> >> Fractional Photon Length Change = (Bunching Factor)/K >> >Nope, K=1 and it applies to the _observed_ Doppler shift equation >> ....and it doesn't happen like that ... >Right, so the variation must be intrinsic. I have explained. I will not do it again. >> >You are the only one confused Henry, BaTh is very simple. It Nobody knows anything about the particle nature of a photon George, so don't >> >says both luminosity and Doppler shift are due to to TDoppler, >> >and if K > 1 then both get changed. The relationship between >> >the two is unaffected by K. >> ...but that doesn't fit the data George... >Yes it does Henry, Cepheid variations are intrinsic to the star. >> Your classical wave theory doesn't apply to individual photons nor does your >Your so-called "photons" are nothing more than bursts of classical try to make out they do. It is clearly not just a 'classical wave'. It is a package of energy with definite properties and structure. >> >Wrong again henry, when will you learn. BaTh says it is TDoppler >> Of course,... >Good, try to remember that, you keep making the same error >> There is the source of your mistake. It's simple....You are regarding the It is the wave formed by the group of photons that is diffracted. >> origin of a single photon as being the same as the origin of a stream of >> bullets... >> That's quite ridiclulous George. You are taking the Ballistic theory too far. >I am applying ballistic theory precisely, it says every (part of If you are considering monochromatic light, naturally all photons will be diffracted to the same angle. >> You know the lengths of the cars don't change when they bank up on a slow When water waves are diffracted, it is a macroscopic effect, not a molecular >> section of the highway...and bullets don't change length when fired from an >> accelerating gun. >If you want to use those for an analogy that accurately reflects the "c one. if you could 'diffract' the line of cars on the highway, you would get two different angles. One being due to the 'wavelength' defined by the distance between cars and the other but the lengths of the cars themselves. I suppose you would get another angle from the fact that the wheels were all >> >The rest is intrinsic. Not in my diagram. The brightness peak, which is eclipsed, occurs when the star >> >That interpretation matches all you have discovered from >> >pulsars and EF Dra and there is no evidence to question it. >> I gave you MY light curve for EF Dra. It fits an ADoppler type prediction.. >No, the one that fitted was an error using half the period (I'm is on the LOS, furthest away...That is where maximum ADoppler occurs. Do you not agree George? So the BaTh wins again. >> >> When converted to orbit speeds, via VDoppler math, the velocities are those we The BaTh has now clearly won that argument. >> >> normally see in published cuves. >> >> The truth is, the observed wavelength shifts are all ADoppler derived >> >Nope, your analysis has shown they are VDoppler. >> For pulsars, maybe...but that's what we would expect because we are dealing >And for the contact binaries too, and you will find exactly the same >> >> >Wrong way round Henry, the observations are always in The BaTh has now clearly won that argument. >> >> >phase with the VDoppler curve and 90 degrees out from >> >> >the ADoppler in those we have looked at. >> >> Not so George. >> >Yes Hewnry, go back and check your own calculations, I'm not >> I have checked everything George >Then you made the same mistake twice, the curve for EF Dra is >> and it now all fits together. No George, have another look at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdrag.jpg >> The BaTh is complete. >> >> The ADoppler shifts are always (or nearly) in phase with the >> >but 90 degrees out from the orbital phase, the curves are VDoppler. >> No George, >Yes Henry, the peak of the velocity curve is half way between The peak velocity curve is in phase with the peak brightness curve, which in in >> the ADoppler curves are virtually the same as the brightness I have projected the brighness curve of one star in hte diagram. All the phases >> curves...but much smaller in amplitude. >You are forgetting the brightness curves vary at twice the rate match ADoppler. The BaTh has won EF Dra. >> >No, your original assumed they moved at c, it was just a screw up, That's what is assumed. ..but their relative positions move with 'bunching'. >> >but that's not what we are discussing. >> See.,.. you don't even know what the red curve was. >Nope, incompressible photons would have NO Doppler whatsoever. >It assumed either that photons were both FULLY compressible for I have explained this many times. >differences in speed due to acceleration resulting from speed >equalisation and at the same time totally INCOMPRESSIBLE >for differences in speed due to acceleration of the source or that >the photons moved at c. Whatever your thinking, if you aggregate >a group of such self-contradictory beasties such that they form >a modulated wave, the modulation (hence the energy carried by >the wave) travels at c regardless of the speed of the source. >Just do the maths Henry, you can find all this out for yourself. >> >> This is definitel not classical wave theory. This is a completely new Wilsonian They don't shrink. The spacing does. >> >> breakthrough! >> >Sorry Henry, it is still purely classical and based on waves. >> The cars don't shrink George. >They represent individual waves within your classical "photons" >> >Ballistic IS classical, you don't get more classical than a cannon The bullets themselves don't change length George. >> >ball ! >> ...and the ball doesn't shrink when fired from a rocking boat. >The bullets in Jeff Root's animation bunch and spread just like >> It doesn't mean that at all. Explained above... >> If you are thinking about something like an RF signal, its 'frequency' refers >> to the way a great many photons interact to create a traveling wave. It is >> probably a 'photon density' distribution. The 'frequency' is just the rate at >> which the 'wavecrests' arrive. It has nothing to do with the intrinsic >> properties of individual photons. >The energy carried by the wave goes where the photons go and vice >> I think we can assume there is energy in the wave as well as in the individual Bull....explained above. >> photons. >The wave has no existence other than as a term meaning the aggregate >> if it signifies TWO eclipses, you would expect the brightness to be constant >It is an _overcontact_ binary, look at the diagram I cited. The >> The EF Dra interpretation is >What a coincidence that it fits the prediction then. You are just binaries. >> >> It so happens that the VDoppler velocity curve shape and the ADoppler one are Nope George. >> >> virtually the same for certain values of eccentricity and yaw angle. >> >The phase is not the same, that's how we tell them apart. >> It is.... >Nope, 90 degrees out. Have another look at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/efdrag/jpg The phase is correct fro ADoppler. >> >> The answer should be pretty obvious anyway. The BaTh has won the contact binary argument.... >> >You must be joking! It's horribly hard. You need to get >> How about throwing away all old astronomy theories, burning all the books and >How about starting again with phlogiston, it has as much chance >> >Sure, if BaTh was right. However it would vary in phase with Initially that may be true...but I'm suggesting any such differences are >> >VDoppler if the extinction distance was small and ADoppler >> >if it is large. Your challenge is to prove using actual observation >> >that we see ADoppler, not VDoppler. So far EF Dra and the >> >pulsars all show VDoppler only, no hint of ADoppler. Henry, >> >ADoppler doesn't exist - ever. >> George, here's another way to look at this. >> Let's assume a photon emission occurs over a fixed time interval. Also assume >OK. >> Let the package be emitted at speed c relative to the source. >Don't skip the detail, as each wave of the packet is emitted, it >> For an inertial source, the length of the photon is c/N. ...but for an >Right, Different waves in the packet therfore get different speeds quickly dampened out and the photon settles down to a length that reflects its average emission ACCELERATION. >> This would suggest that photon 'shrinkage' occurs only at origin time....AND IT Well it could go on for a little time after emission. >> IS ACCELERATION DEPENDENT. >No, that contradicts what you just said. >> If you want to introduce ballistics, you can to some extent..... but make sure But we don't agree that the rate within a photon is far greater than the rate >> the effect is dampened out long before it is in the case of movement between >> pulsar pulses. >Right, the damping happens as a decresing exponential over BETWEEN photons. >> >> For my purposes, the cepheid doesn't need a second body. >> >Ah , so you have given that up then. Fine. >> Not entirely. The oscillations could be related to the orbiting of a large >No, Cepheid variation is less stable. >> >> Its huffing is Burn it..... >> >> analogous to orbiting eccentrically as far as radial velocity is concerned. >> >> The BaTh DOES however provide a perfectly sound and accurate expanation for the >> >> brightness variation, something no other theory can do. >> >Rubbish, plasma theory shows how the opacity changes and >> Well, I haven't found paper yet where the author claim to have found a >You would be better to look in a textbook. >> >A photomultiplier produces a flash for each photon, you should know Their main job is to amplify very weak light signals. A single photon could >> >that. The basic physics is the photoelectric effect. An electron >> >ejected >> >by a photon creates a cascade that generates enough light on the >> >final phosphor to be measured. >> A very sensitive PM might pick up single photons. >All PMs pick up single photons, that's their job! barely be seen above the noise. >> What do you think might happen when you send an RF signal through a PM George? Yep. >> :) :) >Same thing, EM is EM, but the energy per photon is going to be very >> >> That's OK. Not required at all. Explained above... >> >> Perfectly in accord with hte P.E. effect. >> >Of course, but it requires that the "wavelength" of a single photon >> Bull.... >> Plain bull!!!! >Required for self-consistency Henry, see the grating discussion above. >> I just provided a perfectly plausible mechanism that explains ADoppler photon >Nothing you have said on this topic is plausible in theslightest, it >> >See the powerpoint presentation I citred where the explanation is It has won cepheids, now it has also won contact binaries.... >> >laid >> >out as an overview. denying reality doesn't make it go away. >> I prefer .. >I don't care what you prefer, you can't say something doen't exist >> to accept the BaTh explanation. It works for most stars. >It han't worked for any yet. >> >> >So was I. You haven't applied your current classical BaTh to I don't knw....How long does the contact last? >> >> >a grating so there are NO "grating equations" to have a speed >> >> >term or not. >> >> There is 'frequency of wavecrest arrival'. >> >Yes, so? What is the BaTh equation? >> One must make assumptions about the speed after reflection/transmission. >Yes, so? What is the BaTh equation? >> I'm happy at this stage just to match brightness and velocity curves. >You can match the velocity curves and they are VDoppler dominated, >> If you want to deviate into other areas, I'm sure you will soon find the BaTh >> >> The bunching part is...but the photon shrinkage is more a mechanical effect. >> >You are still treating a photon as an extended burst of classical >> It is a package of energy stored as some kind of oscillation over an absolute >> >> >No dominant, ADoppler < VDoppler * 1% in all cases so far. >> >> VDoppler can't match brightness curves...not even to 0.01%. >> >Correct. >> >> VDoppler is >> >Wrong, you proved it is dominant therefore the luminosity variation >> I have providid a theory that shows why photon length (and therrefore >No, you have plucked an equation out of thin air and tried to That's a step in the right direction.... >> >Not at all Henry, that's what I have been telling you and you keep Yes it has to be integrated, naturally.... >> >denying, saying it depends not on the average but on da/dt which >> >is crap. >> It is not crap. It should be pretty obvious...almost trivial.... >It is crap, da/dt is not the average acceleration. >> Something emitted over a long 'time length' should contract (spatially) The BaTh has already won.... >> differently from something emitted over a 'short time length'....if the source >> is accelerating. >> get it now? >Sorry Henry, you painted yourself into a corner and word salad won't >> I'm merely extending what you pointed out weeks ago when you detailed why the >That's true, but you just stated it completely wrongly. >> No we haven't agreed on that for INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS. >Your photons are just trains of waves, at least 1000 for the sodium >> >> The important point is that its length change is proportional to the difference But it works... >> >> in emission speeds of its ends...that is an ADoppler change. >> >It is also the mechanism behind VDoppler change which converts the >> I have provided an explanation of ADoppler photon compression. >Self-contradictory handwaving. >> >> My program already includes random distribution of molecular velocities for >> >I asked about molecular accelerations, not velocities. You keep >> They are effectively included in the blue curve. >Nope, the result would be an extreme broadening of spectral lines >> >> That equation applies to pulses but not to individual photons. It matches the data. >> >> You need the factor K. >> >You can include the factor K if you want but it will apply >> I don't need any fourier transform to see what's going on George. >Yes you do, your handwaving is self-contradictory because you >> >You seem to have a problem following this. If BaTh says the I told you what it is... >> >wavelength is unchanged then the angle shouldn't change. >> >Since the angle does change, BaTh is falsified. That's your >> >problem not mine. I have tried to give you a way out but you >> >seem intent on proving BaTh wrong so I give up, you win, >> >ballistic theory has been falsified. >> George, YOU are the one with the problem. >I'm not the one using BaTh. >> The BaTh says the 'frequency' changes and therefore a doppler shift IS >The SR equations match the observed change of angle so SR >> >> De Sitter was te crank. Extinction refuted his arguments. I would also add that he probably used >> >He was correct. If he had been wrong you wopuldn't need speed >> He was wrong for the same reason. He didn't consider speed equalization. >Speed equalization wasn't part of the theory he was commenting grossly inflated velocity figures, based on VDoppler instead of ADoppler. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||